For curiousity, I wonder what percentage of NCAA Division I pools have a 50m pool. The AD cited the primary reason for dropping swimming is because they can't compete if they don't have a 50m pool. I have a feeling the AD was just grasping for straws and came up with that reason because he was too much of a coward to admit the real reason. That argument can not in itself justify a decision to stop teaching life through high performance sport, which should be the number one reason for committing to college sports program at the first place.
Very sad.
BUT, I have to ask this question.... It's been discussed before, but I don't remember seeing good data. Are we sure that the football program is at all to blame? Of course these programs cost a fortune, but I thought they were big revenue generators through ticket sales, TV rights, support from alumni who still feel connected specifically because of football, licensed apparel, you name it. I always believed the money for my scholarship and our entire swim program at Alabama was due to our very successful football program. Does anyone have good data on this issue?
The Clemson football staff's total compensation increased 52%, from $2.66 million to $4.055 million this year. The head coach, alone, got a $900,000 raise. I bet that 1.4 million dollars would go a long way towards funding a swim team. clemson.rivals.com/content.asp
I know that's the going rate for college coaches these days, but the fact that swimming got cut at the same time points to the increase coming at the expense of other sports programs, as opposed to higher TV & ticket revenues.
Part of the problem is that schools like Alabama and my alma mater, Notre Dame, among a few others, do make enough money through football to fully fund their sports programs. They can afford huge salaries for their coaches. Smaller schools like Clemson can't compete at football without sacrificing somewhere.
Smaller schools like Clemson can't compete at football without sacrificing somewhere.
Um, you obviously have never been in or around Clemson football. It's big time football. Stadium seats 82,000 and is top 20 in attendance and revenue, more than ND in fact (attendance only). Football revenue is north of $35 million, hardly small school numbers. I suggest you take a trip to Death Valley on a Fall Saturday. This excludes the fact that everyone who roots for Clemp's Son has to have 7 or 8 stickers on their car and contribute to IPTAY.
The facility is good enough. If it wasn't good enough how would they be able to have a women's program? They won't save much money either, since they have to pay a coach and pool maintenance for the women's team. The only expenditures that are cut are the men's coaches salaries, a few schollies and travel expenses for the men's team.
My guess is that they save $225,000 per year tops, which is about what they pay an assistant football coach.
I think probably when they fired their football coach last year w/o cause they were stuck paying his salary AND the new coach's salary as well. Because of that fiasco the Clemson Athletic Dept. is probably over budget.
Clemson swimmers should file an OPRA reguest, get the financial records and do the math.:2cents:
Um, you obviously have never been in or around Clemson football. It's big time football. Stadium seats 82,000 and is top 20 in attendance and revenue, more than ND in fact (attendance only). Football revenue is north of $35 million, hardly small school numbers. I suggest you take a trip to Death Valley on a Fall Saturday. This excludes the fact that everyone who roots for Clemp's Son has to have 7 or 8 stickers on their car and contribute to IPTAY.
Good grief...my intention wasn't to offend anyone regarding the status of Clemson football.
The only numbers I can find for Clemson's football revenue was from 2007-2008, where they brought in a little lesss than $60 million, good for 30th in the country. Lots of money, to be sure, but less than half the $120 million the top school (Texas) took in. Most of the top 10 were $100 million and above.
That's a big disparity, and that's what I'm talking about. When you're pulling in $100 million on football, you can afford to throw $4-5 million at your football coach and still have plenty left over for your other teams. When you're only bringing in half that, then you start having to make decisions, like we'll give the football coach another million, but we'll have to lose the swim team.
Even if I'm wrong about Clemson, specifically, that doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
Yeah, that's a bunch of bogus arguments piled into one paragraph, here's why:
1. The pool is available to all students and faculty and local clubs generally, not just the team. The cost to maintain the pool does not change if the program is cancelled unless they fill in the pool. So, swimming keeps an amenity around, not vice versa as you suggest.
2. Universities are not set up to turn profits, hence their non profit status.
3. Hundreds of millions of dollars in scholarships go unused a year. Cutting swimming won't change that or send any more kids to college, needy or otherwise.
4. A tenured professor probably earns more than a college swim coach and spends less time with his/her students, and probably has less of an impact on their lives.
5. Sports are part of the college experience. Who wants to go to a school with no sports?
6. What does one's socio economic status have to do with swimming? Swimming has an incredibly high graduation rate versus football and basketball. Graduates earn more than non graduates and therefore return more money to the economy and probably the school.
If women's diving can still use the pool it would seem to be safe for swimming too.
Wikipedia said Clemson paid Tommy Bowden 3.8 million$$$$, to leave. Clemson football has about 100 guys on scholarship and I would guess their expenses are pretty high, since on top of paying a coaching staff, travel, a band, cheerleaders, etc. they are paying a former coach.
I would think that tuition and state revenue are the main sources of income at most universities.
If Clemson football is really raking in the big bucks, why not throw a few paltry $100,000 to the swimming team?
They are keeping the divers anyway and a coach could also teach a swimming, scuba or other PE class.
Okay, playing devil's advocate here. I hate that Clemson is losing its program. But all of this depends on one's own personal bias. The Clemson football program yields a profit. Many folks are up in arms because the football program is keeping more of its own money instead of 'sharing' with the swim team. But someone who doesn't care a thing about any sports could argue that we who support NCAA swimming are also being greedy. After all, it takes several hundred thousand dollars a year in university funds to pay for swim coaches' salaries and travel and scholarships that directly benefit only 30-40 (probably upper-middle class) swimmers. Those funds could be diverted to pay for scholarships for needy students or university facilities or amenities available to all students. I'm just sayin'.....
College swimming matters because:
Swimming is a sport that can be done by almost anyone, at any age, and is one of the healthiest, most low impact forms of exercise.
Kids are inspired to swim in part because of the promise of college scholarships and college competition.
College swimmers feed Masters programs which draw in many other swimmers for a lifetime of swimming.
It is the job of universities to produce people who are prepared to engage in the world as healthy, productive, and engaged citizens (in this professor's opinion). Swimming can play a big role in that.
College swimming is the linchpin.
