Next Varsity sports at Michigan?
What should they be? Since the discussion kind of broke out in the thread Men's Rowing club winning their 8th straight national championship, I figure I'd expand it to the board.
For every men's team added, a woman's team has to be added as well.
Sports Michigan could add. Men's Rowing is sponsored by the IRA instead of the NCAA (for now)
-
Bowling
-
M/W Fencing
-
W Hockey
-
M/W Rifle
-
M Rowing
-
M/W Skiing
-
Sand Volleyball
-
M Volleyball
- M Water Polo
Sand Volleyball will officially become an NCAA sport in 2015-16.
Would be pretty cheap to add along with Men's Rowing. Here's a list of schools that have Sand Volleyball-
Nebraska is one of the schools that's on that list.
Here is USC's sand volleyball stadium that probably cost them $500 to build-
Which of these sports would you like to see added?
Just because the money is there doesn't mean you have to spend it. And I'm not really following your argument as to why a men's rowing team significantly "enhances student life on campus." Maybe for the rowers getting a free ride, but for the other 99.999% of the student body, it's a total non-starter.
Also:
"You really think a women's hockey team and a men's rowing program (for example) are going to COST the University money? "
Yes. Especially women's hockey.
Two things:
1) This is a good argument for non-revenue sports - but it's an argument for infinite sports and complete abdication of financial responsibility. We can fund SOME non-revenue sports, but we cannot have every sport. Where and how do you draw the line?
2) Anyone who buys football tickets is being forced to fund these sports
I agree 100% with your first point, but I don't think the second holds up. Football tickets go for (approximately) market value . Assuming demand for football tickets is driven by wanting to see live football and not making a donation to the non-revenue sports, the result is irrelevant to the decision to purchase the ticket.
For one ridiculous example, if(/when) Harbaugh wins the next ten national titles and demand hits a point where M can afford to give him a 747, no one is being forced to fund a 747, they're just paying market value to see an absolutely ridiculous spectacle.
Fun fact: the Athletic Department has not always had a surplus, especially not one that's $10-15 million. For those of us who have been around longer than five minutes, there was a time when Athletics lost a great deal of money every year. And for that matter, just because the AD has a surplus now doesn't mean it will always have one in the future. The tricky thing about starting a new sport is you're going to have to sustain it. You're treating it like the money is there and will always be there, and because it's there it has to be spent. That's just not how it works.
1) So there is absolutely zero harm in adding any sports.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. As someone who has been around the university for a long time, there is a great tendency (both in academics and athletics) to easily find the money to START things... but maintaning them? Not always the case.
2) Also, who is to say what a non-revenue sport will be in the future?
Got me... but you aren't going to fund all of them, so someone is making that decision.
3) You didn't receive a letter in the mail asking you to donate $70 for the water polo team.
If you want season tickets - you have to make a donation to the "Athletic Department"... not the "Football Team". All that "more than enough cash" floating around? It comes from football almost completely.
Decent points, but Michigan has no problem attracting east coast students and I would contend that there are far, far more efficient ways to attract east coast seniors than spending a few million so we can attract maybe 20ish athletic ones. Frankly, Michigan sells itself. We do not need to have a polo team to attract affluent englishmen because Michigan's reputation and academic rankings are already world class
and some other points in support of the idea:
1) Collegiate rowing athletes tend to be some of the highest academic achievers of all sports in their respective athletic departments, go on to successful careers, and subsequently are very philanthropic with their universities; a good long-term investment for the university.
2) While men's rowing is not an NCAA or a Big Ten sport, it is the oldest intercollegiate sport in America, and, the 30+ Division I varsity men's rowing programs are a "who's who" of the best ACADEMIC institutions in America: Washington, Cal, Stanford, Harvard, Brown, Princeton, Yale, Columbia, Dartmouth, Wisconsin, Penn, Cornell, MIT, the Naval Academy, etc.
3) The prime recruiting areas in the U.S. are also some of the states with the largest Michigan alumni populations: California, Washington, Florida, D.C., Virginia, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut (sounds like another sport...).
4) Rowing is one of the few (if only) collegiate sports that provides opportunities for students to walk-on even having never previously competed in the sport (Rowing still maintains a freshman/novice level for first year student-athletes.) Also, it provides opportunities for Michigan high school athletes of other sports (football, basketball, swimming, volleyball, etc.) to be recruited as athletes for rowing (this is the Washington model) who may be looking for a sport change or otherwise may not have a chance to compete in their previous sport at the collegiate level.
