H
Harvey
Guest
Found this online today...take a look.
Readers' Forum: Sept. 4, 2009
Time to end denial about ISU football
As a Sycamore alumnus I am excited to see the football team attempt to improve both on and off the field. As a Sycamore alumnus I am disheartened to see the football team do so at the expense of more successful programs.
In the early 1980s Indiana State had a nationally ranked wrestling program which produced an Olympic Gold Medalist (Bruce Baumgartner, four Olympic Gold Medals) and a nationally recognized gymnastics program. Throughout the ’90s the Track and Field teams, both men’s and women’s, fought their way to the forefront of national recognition as the tennis program expanded and improved exponentially. Only two of those sports remain at ISU. Eventually the Cross Country team also pushed its way into the national picture as well with a great coach and a championship caliber course to run on. Yet the football team hired a new coach, fired him after three years and re-hired the coach that had led them to so many losses for the interim.
Like any knowledgeable college sports fan I realize that football and basketball are the breadbaskets of collegiate athletics. But to forsake winning programs for the benefit of one that languishes in obscurity (save for holding the national record in consecutive losses), is unforgivable.
The Sycamore Women’s tennis team for years has recruited elite level players as well as the men’s team. They both contended for individual national titles in the last five years. Subsequently those two programs were phased out because they were unprofitable and the athletic department needed to find ways to once again become relevant (and justify its almost $22 million facility, which I don’t appreciate having to help subsidize in a recession). This mirrors the errors in judgment made in the 1980s.
I would pose this question: In the long term, what will garner more money for a university; a losing football program that has cost $1.8 million to bolster its confidence or four nationally recognized sports teams which attract an international following and draw an eclectic mix of athletes and students from around the world?
I respect what Coach Miles and the staff are trying do, but the simple fact remains that the football program has been a joke for almost 30 years, and to quiet the laughter, the university has plugged its ears and hummed La, La, La. There are very few FCS football programs that are profitable and fewer that can survive multiple losing seasons. There are still fewer formally Division 1 programs, demoted to Division 2, that lose to NAIA schools and sustain a fan base. We paid Quincy College around $40,000 to come and sucker-punch the team in the fourth quarter. That money would have been better spent putting air conditioning in the basketball team’s practice gym or hiring Christopher Moore (Fresno State’s NCAA Compliance officer) who is a champion of small revenue squads.
Honestly, a team that made the NCAA Division 1 basketball tournament three years in a row can’t practice in an air-conditioned gym but a 28-game losing football team receives $1.8 million dollars in upgrades to the stadium? Academic students have to pay for paper to print out assignments and football players learn for free. It doesn’t make sense.
Instead of getting embarrassed every year and being the “cupcake” on everyone’s schedule, why not support the winning programs and trim the “fat” of hopeless sports which are only a drain?
— Esteban Rodriguez
Terre Haute
http://www.tribstar.com/opinion/local_story_246224127.html
Although he makes a few good points, I was a bit put off by his ignorance in this line: "They both contended for individual national titles in the last five years. Subsequently those two programs were phased out because they were unprofitable and the athletic department needed to find ways to once again become relevant (and justify its almost $22 million facility, which I don’t appreciate having to help subsidize in a recession)."
The athletic department has absolutely nothing to do with the new recreation center, which is the $22 million facility he's referring to. The rec center was, and is, paid for by students ($100/semester if you're taking 6 or more credit hours and not a distance ed student). The rec center was started by a student referendum and is completely under the guidance of the Student Government Association and Rec Sports. As a matter of fact, NO athletic team is allowed to practice, at any point, inside the new rec center. So the fact that he's talking about him having to help subsidize the building is ignorant and simply not true. :naughty:
Readers' Forum: Sept. 4, 2009
Time to end denial about ISU football
As a Sycamore alumnus I am excited to see the football team attempt to improve both on and off the field. As a Sycamore alumnus I am disheartened to see the football team do so at the expense of more successful programs.
In the early 1980s Indiana State had a nationally ranked wrestling program which produced an Olympic Gold Medalist (Bruce Baumgartner, four Olympic Gold Medals) and a nationally recognized gymnastics program. Throughout the ’90s the Track and Field teams, both men’s and women’s, fought their way to the forefront of national recognition as the tennis program expanded and improved exponentially. Only two of those sports remain at ISU. Eventually the Cross Country team also pushed its way into the national picture as well with a great coach and a championship caliber course to run on. Yet the football team hired a new coach, fired him after three years and re-hired the coach that had led them to so many losses for the interim.
Like any knowledgeable college sports fan I realize that football and basketball are the breadbaskets of collegiate athletics. But to forsake winning programs for the benefit of one that languishes in obscurity (save for holding the national record in consecutive losses), is unforgivable.
The Sycamore Women’s tennis team for years has recruited elite level players as well as the men’s team. They both contended for individual national titles in the last five years. Subsequently those two programs were phased out because they were unprofitable and the athletic department needed to find ways to once again become relevant (and justify its almost $22 million facility, which I don’t appreciate having to help subsidize in a recession). This mirrors the errors in judgment made in the 1980s.
I would pose this question: In the long term, what will garner more money for a university; a losing football program that has cost $1.8 million to bolster its confidence or four nationally recognized sports teams which attract an international following and draw an eclectic mix of athletes and students from around the world?
I respect what Coach Miles and the staff are trying do, but the simple fact remains that the football program has been a joke for almost 30 years, and to quiet the laughter, the university has plugged its ears and hummed La, La, La. There are very few FCS football programs that are profitable and fewer that can survive multiple losing seasons. There are still fewer formally Division 1 programs, demoted to Division 2, that lose to NAIA schools and sustain a fan base. We paid Quincy College around $40,000 to come and sucker-punch the team in the fourth quarter. That money would have been better spent putting air conditioning in the basketball team’s practice gym or hiring Christopher Moore (Fresno State’s NCAA Compliance officer) who is a champion of small revenue squads.
Honestly, a team that made the NCAA Division 1 basketball tournament three years in a row can’t practice in an air-conditioned gym but a 28-game losing football team receives $1.8 million dollars in upgrades to the stadium? Academic students have to pay for paper to print out assignments and football players learn for free. It doesn’t make sense.
Instead of getting embarrassed every year and being the “cupcake” on everyone’s schedule, why not support the winning programs and trim the “fat” of hopeless sports which are only a drain?
— Esteban Rodriguez
Terre Haute
http://www.tribstar.com/opinion/local_story_246224127.html
Although he makes a few good points, I was a bit put off by his ignorance in this line: "They both contended for individual national titles in the last five years. Subsequently those two programs were phased out because they were unprofitable and the athletic department needed to find ways to once again become relevant (and justify its almost $22 million facility, which I don’t appreciate having to help subsidize in a recession)."
The athletic department has absolutely nothing to do with the new recreation center, which is the $22 million facility he's referring to. The rec center was, and is, paid for by students ($100/semester if you're taking 6 or more credit hours and not a distance ed student). The rec center was started by a student referendum and is completely under the guidance of the Student Government Association and Rec Sports. As a matter of fact, NO athletic team is allowed to practice, at any point, inside the new rec center. So the fact that he's talking about him having to help subsidize the building is ignorant and simply not true. :naughty:
