Field hockey team unveils new team center
August 15th, 2014 at 6:49 AM ^
August 15th, 2014 at 7:06 AM ^
... the NCAA's argument. I predict nothing will happen to these sports at major schools. They will find money.
August 15th, 2014 at 7:35 AM ^
I know with the lacrosse team there was quite a bit of talk about an endowment (which I think wa about 10 million) and that one of the steps to getting the team to varsity was establishing that endowment.
SO, do all of the sports at Michigan have an endowment? If so, what percent of their operating budget is typically covered by it?
August 15th, 2014 at 8:09 AM ^
If the sports don't have said endowment they may end up becoming club sports. If there isn't money in place to protect them, they will fade.
August 15th, 2014 at 10:47 AM ^
August 15th, 2014 at 10:24 AM ^
You do realize there are hundreds of schools (all of Division II and III) that make no money off intercollegiate sports. It just means that the nonrevenue sports will no longer have these opulent centers and facilities, travel budgets will be reigned in, and coaching salaries will take a big hit. Division I nonrevenue sports will have to adapt some to the model of Division II and III. The biggest change may mean there will be a reduction in scholarships available to nonrevenue sports. But Division I schools will still have way more to spend on nonrevenue sports compared to Division II and III even with stipends to athletes in revenue sports.
If anything, I think the changes to the NCAA will be good for Michigan's competitiveness in the long term. There are few Division I schools that can compete with Michigan's combination of academics and athletic budget/facilities which should help recruit better prospects in the future. And having stipends for football and basketball players should level the playing field between schools that play by the rules and those that don't which should lessen the impact of some of the shady recruiting in revenue sports.
August 15th, 2014 at 10:46 AM ^
August 15th, 2014 at 11:06 AM ^
Did you read anything I posted above? Of course nonrevenue sports are going to take a hit in their budget. But the leap you are making is ridiculous. Most schools in Division II and III LOSE money on intercollegiate sports. Michigan will still make money even after stipends to revenue athletes. Nonrevenue athletes are not going to get stipends--this was just posturing by the NCAA in the O'Bannon trial. The budgets for nonrevenue sports are going to get tightened, but there will still be plenty left in the pot after stipends to support nonrevenue sports.
Harvard competes in 42 varsity intercollegiate sports, the most in Division I. MIT competes in 33 varsity intercollegiate sports, the most in Division III. Michigan only competes in 27 varsity sports. If these schools that make no money off football and basketball can field more nonrevenue sports than Michigan, I think Michigan with close to $150 million revenue off athletics will be just fine.
August 15th, 2014 at 12:01 PM ^
August 15th, 2014 at 12:26 PM ^
It isn't that these schools will now choose to pay men and not women, it's that the schools are finally availing ALL athletes to profit from their market value, whatever that may be...and the market says that amateur women's tennis has basically zero market value, so those girls will not be paid anything extra.
The concept here is no more unfair or illegal than a physician yielding a much larger salary than a french fry cook.
August 15th, 2014 at 4:27 PM ^
Title IX -
With respect to athletic programs, the Department of Education evaluates the following factors in determining whether equal treatment exists:
- Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;
- The provision of equipment and supplies;
- Scheduling of games and practice time;
- Travel and per diem allowance;
- Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring on mathematics only;
- Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
- Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;
- Provision of medical and training facilities and services;
- Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;
- Publicity.
August 15th, 2014 at 2:56 PM ^
With Title 9, Women's Field Hockey will be fine.
August 15th, 2014 at 7:45 AM ^
It's undeniably gorgeous, opulent and is probably the women's Field Hockey center to end all women's Field Hockey centers but I'm sorry - this thing bothers me. Watch the video and look at the jaw-dropping wonder of the ladies as they view it for the first time. They built a fucking Taj Mahal for the woman's Field Hockey team on the backs of the football fans by charging ridiculously high annual seat licence fees and then funnelled those monies over to construction projects for sports like these so we can say Michigan stands alone in the women's Field Hockey stadium race. I'm sorry but I don't give two shits about the quality of the women's Field Hockey team center and the fact that the football fans were forced to subsidize this cathedral pisses me off.
I have zero problems if people want to give money to build these facilities - have at it. I think it would be fantastic if all the players parents and lovers of women's Field Hockey got together and raised money to construct this. I would totally support their efforts. But to force people supporting one sport (football) to donate money so they can build all these new, wonderful mansions for the other sports is hurting the abillity and willingness for people to attend the sport they DO care about by pricing it way higher than can be reasonably justified.
August 15th, 2014 at 8:10 AM ^
It's going to be so kick-ass.
August 15th, 2014 at 8:25 AM ^
August 15th, 2014 at 8:52 AM ^
August 15th, 2014 at 9:54 AM ^
is upset about the cost of football tix and donation and I believe he did not renew his season tickets for this year, but I can't really agree with his point either. Have the field hockey's players' parents pay for it? Come on.... And it doesn't look too Taj Mahal to me. Maybe the facilities were in need of an update. What about swimming? They need a new pool and that's not cheap.
August 15th, 2014 at 10:12 AM ^
August 15th, 2014 at 9:34 AM ^
the part about it being funded by donations, because I don't think you did.
August 15th, 2014 at 9:42 AM ^
August 15th, 2014 at 3:33 PM ^
We also have one of the premier national programs, and its pretty competitive to get great athletes. It's also an investment for the future. Competive women's athletics on a national scale is a pretty new concept, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is a lot more prominent in 50 years, and field hockey is one of the women's sports with the longest history here in America. If you are at Michigan and haven't seen a game yet, I'd strongly reccomend it. It's fast, aggressive and gets you hooked pretty quickly.
August 15th, 2014 at 10:19 AM ^
Me thinks Bo would say, "The Team. The Team. The Team." And would be quite happy to see the updates, and proud if the football program played a part.
August 15th, 2014 at 11:27 AM ^
was built with donations made specifically to build that facility.
It was not financed "on the backs of football fans."
BTW, if you think Michigan's PSD's are high (they start at a whopping $70 a year for seats in the endzones), bear in mind that the PSD at Ohio State starts at $750 for a pair of tickets.
But hey, the meme around here is that Dave Brandon sucks so anything that promotes ANGER AT THE AD is cool, I guess.
August 15th, 2014 at 11:48 AM ^
is to provide for all of the student-athletes. This falls under the umbrella of providing for the student-athletes.
If you don't want to pay a lot of money for football games, just stay home instead.
August 15th, 2014 at 12:36 PM ^
At the end of the video it is mentioned that donors paid for the new facility. I believe they even drop the unequivocal "100%" on us.
But, even if that wasn't true, I found your post mean-spirited and chauvinistic.
August 15th, 2014 at 9:16 AM ^
They can afford it, it helps them meet Title IX and proportionality.
It's a dead sport to most non-BCS schools though. No AD at a non-BCS school can justify spending $1-1.5 million for an astroturf field and Field Hockey facility that only 15-20 ladies in a non-revenue making sport can use.
Soccer doesn't want to play on the surface, track doesn't want to train on the surface, strength and conditioning doesn't want to use the surface except to flip tires...and no D1 field hockey coach is going to let a bunch of student-athletes flip tires across their game field.
Unless Field Hockey moves to Field Turf, which is going backwards for them...the sport will never move forward and it's dead for smaller and non-BCS schools.
This makes sense for Michigan...if you're going to have a sport at Michigan...make it the best it can be, period.
But if you're Eastern Michigan or a school at that level (or a FCS school that is D1 except for football (Big South, CAA, etc.), field hockey just doesn't make sense unless you have an old 80s astroturf football practice field that you can use as a game field for field hockey.
It's impossible for a team to recruit or be competitive if they don't play on AstroTurf because any decent player is going to go to a school with a good surface. And the bigger schools aren't playing the smaller schools if they don't have the correct (astroturf) surface.
I have a sister who is a former D1 field hockey player in the former Big East and currently works for USA Field Hockey. If anyone wants any info...I'll be here all day.
August 15th, 2014 at 10:33 AM ^
why is old school astrotuft required for FH? just so the ball can roll? I mean, why not grass or modern fieldturf- that stuff actually is low resistance and gets tamped down pretty easily so IDK why it's not used in every sport these days.
Also, why isn't soccer into FT?
August 16th, 2014 at 1:30 PM ^
You basically want a floor. In fact, that's how teams train indoors...on gym floors.
Grass slows the ball, gives bad hops, has dips (even field turf because of the rubber. Speaking of rubber...you don't want to swing the stick and spray up rubber every time.
Field turf is actually worse than natural grass in a lot of ways.
I'd rather play on bermuda and a golf green than on football field turf.
August 16th, 2014 at 2:18 PM ^
that's what I assumed, but I mean, bad hops happen and on a decent field I don't think it would be an issue. Slowing the ball down, sure- and I know training happens indoors mostly b/c it required more skill to control the ball on hardwood.
Have you played FH on FieldTurf? I was skeptical about the surface for baseball, but I played on it once and I did a total 180- it's a great surface. the rubber pellets aren't as much of an issues as one would think (tho I'm sure a FH stick sliding ont he surface would spray up the rubber).
I mean, the game I'm sure developed on grass- I would think short cut grass would be ideal. but Astroturf? ick
August 15th, 2014 at 9:24 AM ^
August 15th, 2014 at 9:57 AM ^
Still, I'm happy to see alumni donations still flowing in and hope women's field hockey is back on top very soon.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
August 15th, 2014 at 9:59 AM ^
/cool story
August 15th, 2014 at 10:16 AM ^
August 15th, 2014 at 10:55 AM ^
Any public sector department would rather have a balanced budget than a surplus. If there is a massive difference between income and expenditures, the people ultimately in control of the budget will start questioning your need for that level of income.
So, unlike in the real world, you protect your income by spending it as quickly as it comes in.
August 15th, 2014 at 11:30 AM ^
But the UM Athletic Department generates all of its own resources, from ticket sales, broadcasting revenues, and contributions, including the PSD's for football and basketball.
August 15th, 2014 at 12:14 PM ^
The Regents still oversee the athletic budget, and if they start seeing massive surpluses, they will force the department to share the wealth with the University general fund. It's not like the athletic department operates in a complete vacuum.
August 15th, 2014 at 11:08 AM ^
brings in out of state students. Out of 24 team members, 4 are from Michigan. 5 are from Europe, the rest from the Eastern US.
and again, funded by donations.
August 15th, 2014 at 11:23 AM ^
That space and the entire renovation is outfitted not only for the UM hockey team, but also to sponsor NCAA events, i.e., championships. It also has broadcast facilities as part of the structure.
If you watch the video, you'll note that two of the spaces mentioned with donor names attached to them are the Donald R. Shepherd Team Room and the Louise Cooley Sutherland Alumni Room.
Shepherd was the main contributor for and has his name on the Michigan Women's Gymnastics Team Facility. His name is also attached to a number of positions within the athletic department.
From the Louise Cooley Sutherland obituatary:
Louise was born in Lansing, and graduated from the University of Michigan in 1929 where she participated in varsity field hockey, basketball and tennis. Her working career included the State Library in Lansing, county executive director for the Girls Scouts, Delta Gamma Fraternity and working 45 years with her husband in a gas and oil business in Lake Orion and Oxford.
Louise was active in the Junior League, Eastern Star Past Matrons and was committed to the University of Michigan Women’s Athletic Association. She was forever a loyal Wolverine fan and attended games until she was 87.
Obviously, we don't know how much money individual donors kicked in gift wise when it comes to the final costs of the facility, but getting private money for all these facilities has been pretty much the norm.
That's also the plan going forward. People critical of David Brandon complain about the additonal staff he's added to the department, but they fail to recognize that he's using those individuals to expand the department's individual donor base. The obvious success we know about is the recent $100M gift from Stephen Ross. What would be interesting to find out is how much individual and foundational donor money is alsoc coming into the AD.
August 15th, 2014 at 11:16 AM ^
According to the Department of Education website, Michigan has 27 scholarship athletes onf the field hockey team for the reporting year that ended on 30 June 2013.
The total expenses for the team members was $263,566 or $9,762 for each participant according to the same database.
The website also allows access to the raw data used for their reports. According to it, the total revenue from field hockey was $64,657 and expenses attributed to the program was $1,332,123 for a net loss of $1,267,446.
Go to http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDetails.aspx?756e697469643d313730393736… for Michigan's data.
August 15th, 2014 at 11:53 AM ^
If people are mad about this, just wait.
By the end of the decade, all sports will have the best facilities in the nation.
Even a Weidenbach Hall revamp.
August 16th, 2014 at 2:17 AM ^
That swimming locker room.....is epic. Light years ahead of what we have now.
August 16th, 2014 at 2:47 AM ^
I've always wondered why they didn't just bury the railroad tracks underground or sink them. Those tracks bisect the athletic campus and effectively divides it in half. Burying them and building over it would seem to create a lot more space and more fully implement the vision of the Walk of Champions.
August 16th, 2014 at 11:51 AM ^
The problem with the railroad tracks and everything around them is that they're built on top of an underground creek. Fingerle Lumber and everything around it is basically limited for what you can build on top of it. Additionally, that's actually a pretty well-used rail thoroughfare, as anyone who lives in the neighborhood will tell you, and the railroad that operates it won't let it go very easily.
All told, the railroad tracks are there to stay.
August 18th, 2014 at 1:26 PM ^
Ah, thanks for the info!
August 15th, 2014 at 3:14 PM ^
Especially since I came from a high school where field hockey was big, I'm really glad they were able to get this done. For those that haven't been, I'd encourage you to check out a game; it's really quite fun to watch.
I'm proud of all the U of M sports, and want them all to succeed. I may be in the minority, but I'd rather see money go towards helping all of our teams achieve excellence, rather than letting teams languish just because they're not revenue generating. When schools, especially big time schools such as Cal and Maryland, are cutting sports because of budget issues, I think it's incredibly sad. While football, basketball and hockey are obviously big, I think things like the non-revenue sports play a big part in making the college athletics special, and separate from just another set of minor leagues...