# of athletic teams in horizon league

[jimdandy]

we field more teams than all other horizon league teams...
we have 17-others have 13-15
my question is why dont we cut out some of our sports that are consistently last in the standings(swimming/track etc..)
maybe we would have a better chance of winning the league trophy?maybe more funds could go to support sports that actually can win (msoc/volleyball/baseball/softball)as well as mens basketball?
any input

[VULB#62]

I crafted and well worded reply to this post and may have inadvertently hit a mystery key that blew it into hyperspace.  i can't find it and I'm upset .  Is there a way to recover it?

[KL31NY]

I'm not necessarily a fan of dropping sports. I happen to know a good # of people related the swimming and track teams which I enjoy having around. I'd love to see them get some extra funding so they can have a better chance to compete and be happier in their Valpo experience, but if we don't put any more into their budgets or are cutting from them to focus on basketball et al, we should drop them. It wouldn't be fair to keep these programs if we end up constantly turning a blind eye to them. It's already sad to hear swimmers from this past weekend brag about placing at relay events when the top six earn medals and only six squads compete, even worse when they finish 6th...

[crusaderjoe]

My theory is that there are two items in play here:  1) the actual number of available athletic scholarships allocated among both genders, and 2) the overall mentality of the University relative to its athletic sports programs in general.  While VU is a D-I University and has traditionally fully funded certain sports, it still relies on a D-III mentality for the remainder.  For the lesser funded programs, the D-III mentality is in place and those are used to help market and draw students to the university.  Or, alternatively they are used to enhance the student experience for already enrolled students.  So, from an operations standpoint it makes sense to keep those lesser funded sports around even if they are "losers" Title IX notwithstanding because athletic scholarships are not required to keep them competitive since that is not their focus anyway.

There was a time in the early 90's I believe where men's golf, wrestling and women's gymnastics were all discontinued in a period of about three or so years. Men's golf came back, but it took years to do so.  I'm not really in favor of dropping any sports program either.  Instead I would rather see each team fully funded so all of our teams can be competitive.  Football will never go to FCS scholarship so no worries there. But for the others, I have said this before and I will say it again--if it means adding Women's crew to maintain a Title IX balance then so be it.

[VULB#62]

     I'm going to try gain.  I disagree completely with jimdandy and since my initial attempt went to into hyperspace I've read and generally concur with KL31NY and crusaderjoe.  We hear a lot from both our academic and athletic administration about seeking excellence.  Dropping non-revenue sports to feature fewer "winning" programs, IMHO, is admitting defeat not aspiring to excellence.  Here in New England, schools like Harvard (39 varsity sports --- all non-scholarship) and D-III Colby and Middlebury where my kids went (32 and 29 varsity sports respectively with student bodies half that of Valpo and facilities that, with the exception of the capacity of the ARC, make Valpo's look anemic) have a parallel dedication to excellence in all things.  Same with a school like Stanford, which fully funds 35 D-I scholarship sports.  But lets looks at schools more similar to Valpo.  Marist fields a non-scholarship FB team in the Pioneer League, like Valpo, and plays D-I in everything else in carrying 20 varsity sports.  Yes, Butler, another private university in the HL and FB in the Pioneer League (and that is not located in an urban neighborhood) has 15 -- the two they don't have are women's bowling and men's swimming.  To me the bottom line is the approach, and crusaderjoe echo's my perspective – there is a schizoid approach evident here.  Adequately funding at the D-I level needs to be looked at as an investment – not an expense.  Kind of like "if you build it, they will come."  Right now it's pretty evident to even the disinterested observer that is not the case.  Be nice if it were.  Maybe a good BB run this year and the next will help to change the approach and get more $$ flowing into the entire athletic program.

[jimdandy]

i do not think there will be an influx in funds directed to the sports mentioned so..if there is no funding why continue?also if mbb does well that $$$ should go bacjk to mens bb..not the others

[valpotx]

I definitely think we should keep all sports.  As long as we can be financially responsible with each, it only helps our university to gain exposure!  The problem with your comment about Men's BB earning the money is that it is a revenue sport.  Not many schools actually make money in their sports outside of football and basketball...

VULB, neat that your child went to Middlebury!  My sister graduated from there (and played volleyball) in 2005.

[VULB#62]

Once again jim I disagree.  An overall winning spirit expands the donation pool.  Track alums would donate more if their program showed better than last place in the league.  So would swimming.  Both would do better with more university support for such mundane things as more recruiting expenses.  MSO and WVB have great coaches, but if they are not supported, they will leave.

Winning in all sports and maintaining a wide base of enthusiastic support BOOSTS donations.  In response to your focus on MBB, the purpose of revenue sports is to provide funds for the non-revenue sports.  To equate $ for $ what a sport brings in to what if has as a budget line defeats the purpose of a quality educational institution like Valpo. Let Ohio State suck up the dollars for FB and send the crumbs to swimming and volleyball etc. In an institution like Valpo, it's about bringing in great kids with great talent who, when their 4 (or 5 ) years are done, are gonna say Valpo was the greatest experience of their young lives -- with a large part of that due to their participation in top level competition (without going pro as the NCAA ad says).  Then they will go out and be successful and return that favor in spades.  How do you think that the schools I mentioned above can pull in funding?  It's a long-term strategy that eventually reaps mega rewards.  Right now I counsel against short-term tactics which still seems to me to be the case.

Hey TX, then you know that an academically oriented institution can still win 31 national NCAA championships since 1993.  My daughter was a HS soccer player but went right to the academics - never kicked a ball while on campus.  BUT, she didn't miss very many men's and women's hockey games.  My son captained the Colby soccer team and was All-New England and a regional All-American.  In this neck of the woods, NESCAC schools (D-III) are usually only about 3 starters away from being a very competitive D-I.  Why?  Because these kids know that they will get a great education (like Valpo) but also have great across the board program support.

It's a long-term strategy.  But right now, it appears to me that this has not been fully embraced by the university – yet. 

[jetz]

Look, I'm new to Valpo and a Michigan grad.  I've lived big time school sports.  I know that Valpo is not in that category sportswise, nor do they aspire to be. But I still follow Valpo football.  I want them to succeed.  I looked at the record of each Varsity sport, mens and womens, and was disappointed when I saw past results.  I want my kid's school to be successful in all sports, and I want them to have pride so that he can be proud.  And the $$ will follow.  Keep all sports.  Please invest if you are in a position to do so.  Make the board aware that sports are important to the alumni.  And come on out and let the kids know that what they do is important to you.  I want Valpo to be a strong, all around school--both academically and athletically.  Support the kids and your school! 

[jimdandy]

vulb
i agree with you that it would help if our teams showed better we would have more alums willing to contribute ,but it does not seem plausible that these teams are going to compete any better than they are currently.It seems like the chicken or the egg scenario as to what will happen(give them more $$ to compete better or they need to compete better to get more funding)
i will say that it is great to bring in students for these teams that may not consider Valpo otherwise..but is it really a great experience if you are in last place year in and year out with subpar facilities?I dont know the question to this,which is why I am asking

[valporun]

vulb
i agree with you that it would help if our teams showed better we would have more alums willing to contribute ,but it does not seem plausible that these teams are going to compete any better than they are currently.It seems like the chicken or the egg scenario as to what will happen(give them more $$ to compete better or they need to compete better to get more funding)
i will say that it is great to bring in students for these teams that may not consider Valpo otherwise..but is it really a great experience if you are in last place year in and year out with subpar facilities?I dont know the question to this,which is why I am asking

jimdandy, for the sake of track, RAISE the funds for installation of a fieldhouse with indoor track and the track around Brown Field more aggressively, and the track teams will be better because the coaching staff will have excellent tracks to show recruits, and the university can use it as a revenue maker with high schools and AAU-style track programs for use of the tracks for their meets as well. I know the teams haven't been great, but when you have 2 scholarships for the each track and cross country program, you're not going to get the kind of runners that you get to SEC schools or Stanford, Oregon, Wisconsin, but at least the program would have two tracks as recruiting selling points, and as a revenue source for the athletic department or the University.

Every time I think about what the athletic department, track team, and university can do with the tracks, it makes we regret that I didn't have the math skills for business/PR/marketing. There are so many organizations that you can open up the use of either track to for their fundraisers or races they want to have, and it brings a good community bond between the NWI area, and the university. I don't know if it's just a weird leadership thing with the board of directors and the VU president, but it seems like VU has always undersold itself to the community.