LINKS
PETITIONPlease sign our petition to save dropped OU sports. Click here. If your current circumstances or position with Ohio University do not require anonymity, we request that you sign with your name rather than as "Anonymous" as some have. Thank you and thanks to the Women's Lacrosse blog for setting up this petition.MORE LINKSBobcat Attack Message BoardOhio University Alumni AssociationOU Students have an active discussion going on in FaceBook.Com. Click here to go to FaceBook.Com and join in.OU Student Newspaper "The Post Online"www.EquityinAthletics.orgSave James Madison University Sports.orgTaking Inside Higher Ed to the MatEMAIL CONTACT FOR THIS SITE: SaveOUSports ATgmailDOTcom |
SAVE OHIO UNIVERSITY SPORTS!
From the "NCAA Division One Manual"
Who we are and why we set up this websiteThis is a central website where all Ohio University Student Athletes can gather to coordinate their efforts to save sports dropped from the university's athletics program.Each affected team has its own web space. You are encouraged to visit them at the links to the right and above. This website is intended to help those teams coordinate their efforts at a central location.On January 24, 2007, without any advance warning, Ohio University's Athletic Director announced to the Women's Lacrosse team, the Men's Indoor and Outdoor Track and Field Team, and the Men's Swimming and Diving team that their programs would be terminated effective the end of the 2006-2007 school year.Apparently the teams' coaches knew nothing about this decision either. The reasons the AD gave were compliance with Title IX and the university's stretched athletic budget.At that time:
The Ohio University Board of Trustees met just three weeks after this decision was announced giving the student athletes, their parents, team alums, and others with equities in this action virtually no time to prepare.
Coming so late in the school year, this decision left little time for the Bobcat Community to organize and work towards helping the university overcome its budgetary and supposed Title IX problems.Student Athletes at the beginning of their collegiate careers were faced with a decision whether to sit out this season and consider transferring to other universities away from the school they chose and where they have made lifelong friends.Student Athletes in the middle of or nearing the end of their collegiate careers are faced with coming back to Ohio their junior or senior year to no sports program. Most universities will not allow senior year transfers.
OU is on a quarter system. Many of the universities these student athletes might transfer to are on the semester system. Some student athletes have already been told some of their credits will not transfer and if they do transfer, some may have to enter a year or more behind their current position at OU.
In response to a Board of Trustees question about whether student athletes could be recruited by other universities, Athletic Director Kirby Hocutt said that they could, "if they are good."Most student athletes are not "stars." They are good enough to have made OU's teams, but they are like most student athletes in the U.S. They earned places on these teams through commitment to OU, hard work, and discipline. They must now start from square one at new schools if they can transfer. This tossed-off remark by the AD appears to sum up the attitude OU has taken towards student athletes who made a commitment to OU based on OU's material representations and warranties.
For an example of how falsely OU has behaved towards these student athletes, please go to this link for information on how OU, in written form just 12 days before it announced these cuts, assured student athletes that their team was secure and that they would be able to finish their athletic career at OU.
Mr. Hocutt states in the letter:
We are baffled at how quickly and easily OU's Board of Trustees let OU's administration off this hook. We believe they are more concerned about OU's distressed financial situation than they are about a few students' welfare, but that is no reason to allow OU's administration to treat in this manner students over whom it holds substantial power. Solving budget problems by punishing those not responsible for them is just plain wrong.OU's Board of Trustees, in our opinion, has ignored its oversight and fiduciary responsibilities to the citizens of Ohio and to the students and faculty of OU.
We hear from OU's current administration that it is dealing with "inherited" financial woes. Again, this does not let OU's president and athletic director off the hook for failing to deal with student athletes with honesty and integrity; and it does not let OU's Board of Trustees off the hook for holding university senior administrators accountable for their failure to treat these student athletes fairly.We are working hard now to make up for those months we lost because the university concealed its plans to drop these sports from us.We believe these teams could have been saved if the university's administration had told us and its generous, supportive alums of these problems in advance. Since learning of this decision, the Bobcat Community mobilized and began coordinating efforts to work towards reversing this decision.We are a coalition of all OU student/athletes, alums, and parents. We not only want to save these teams but find ways to help expand OU's varsity and club team offerings. We want to prevent this kind of closed-door decision and personal tragedy for all dropped athletes from happening again at Ohio University.
To President Roderick McDavis, Athletic Director Kirby Hocutt, OU's Board of Trustees, and others who made this decision: We are not going away. We will succeed in reinstating these teams whatever it takes and however long it takes.We support ALL Ohio University Student Athletes.
WHAT THIS COMES DOWN TOMoney -- Title IX -- Telling the TruthMONEYOU's Athletic Department budget is under strain. Apparently, to free up money, the department decided to cut sports. The funds saved by cutting these sports will apparently be reallocated to favored "money" sports programs like football and basketball. It appears that OU will not reduce its Athletic Department spending.The Athletic Department spends aggressively and irresponsibly on "revenue sports." (Click this link to see how OU's athletic department spent $277,550 it didn't have on the GMAC football bowl just weeks before cutting these teams.)We do not oppose aggressive spending to advance university athletics, per se. We understand that sports programs at universities need revenue producing sports. Indeed, student athletes of the cut sports routinely provide their time at football and basketball events free of charge to help with parking, selling raffle tickets, taking tickets at venue entrances, and many other duties. This freely given time, these student athletes know, helps OU keep its costs down and they willingly helped.However, this level of spending should not be so aggressive, ill-timed, and irresponsible that it destroys teams full of outstanding student athletes.According to OU's official documents and news reports, OU has had financial difficulties for years.The rationale behind allowing an aggressive spending campaign for selected sports before OU gets its financial house in order is not evident.Please read through this website to see how OU's spending priorities in its athletic budget appear to be unbalanced.OU Alumni who recently contributed heavily to an athletics fund-raising campaign now express outrage that they were not informed that sports might be cut as they donated.The President of the OU National Capital Alumni Association clearly states in his letter posted on this site that if they had known, they would have "jumped" to raise needed funds. Click here to read his letter.TITLE IXTitle Nine is a US civil rights law that requires equity in school sports, among other areas, according to gender and other criteria.OU claims that it is out of compliance with Title IX and must take this action to come into compliance.According to experts cited in this website who know OU's situation, this is claim does not hold up to scrutiny. Universities in non-compliance with Title IX are not forced to drop sports.According to reports from experts on this issue, OU ranks 21st out of 119 NCAA Division I schools in Title IX compliance.According to OU's Athletic Director, at a presentation in March 2005,
The NCAA states that it is always ready to help universities with this issue.Collegiate Athletic Director organizations to which OU's Athletic Director belongs have several programs and resources available to help schools deal with possible Title IX problems without cutting sports programs.Experts say that when Title IX is cited, the core problem is almost always a desire by the university in question to terminate sports programs so the money can be spent on other, more visible, and hopefully, profit-generating sports.During the decision process to cut these sports - conducted in secret for many months - OU hired a nationally-recognized Title IX consultant with a reputation for helping college athletic departments cut sports. He is accused by knowledgeable sports organizations of being a known advocate for the "substantial proportionality" test of Title IX to the exclusion of other tests that could allow OU to retain these sports. The Internet is full of information on his activities.According to one authoritative source, this consultant,
Please go to our Title IX page for more on this consultant. His report to OU can be viewed at this link.TELLING THE TRUTH
Documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act and Ohio law supporting requests for documents from public institutions reveal that the University and the Athletic Department knew as early as December 2005 that something drastic might have to be done soon to gain control of OU's Athletic Department finances.Robert Andrey, OU's Associate AD had this to say in an interview with the "Athens News," "It was a two-headed monster," said Robert Andrey, OU's associate athletics director for business and internal operations, about the challenges posed by Title IX and the deficit. OU hired Andrey in January 2006, and he said Tuesday that he knew by last March that a budget crisis was imminent.According to Mr. Andrey, the Athletic Department knew this by at least March 2006.Apparently, a $4,000,000 deficit had built up over a period of five years. An executive of a national sports organization for one of the sports eliminated expressed astonishment commenting, "This is not something that happened overnight. Didn't anyone notice?"In December 2005, OU began a process to investigate alternatives for placing the athletic department on a sound financial footing. At some point after beginning this process, a closed-door committee to investigate alternatives was formed.In January 2006, OU's President informed the Athletic Department that the University would not contribute $500,000 to subsidize the Athletic Department's budget shortfall, funds the Athletic Department apparently thought it would receive. This action by OU President McDavis appears to have set off this unfortunate chain of events.According to the Athletic Director in his news conference on January 25, 2007, the closed-door committee was structured as follows:
None of the University's student athlete representatives or other student representatives were invited to participate, an apparent violation of official university and NCAA policy.No representatives from any of the stakeholders who would be most adversely affected by the committee's decision participated. Indeed, apparently few people outside a limited number of "insiders" knew about this decision process and the secret committee. See this page for evidence gathered to support this claim.Generous active alumni were apparently kept in the dark about plans to cut teams. See the letter at this link from a prominent alum expressing outrage that they were not informed of this during OU's most recent campaign for funds.OU hired a Title IX consultant in May 2006 to review gender equity in OU's athletic program. This indicates that by then, if not earlier, OU had apparently decided that the option of cutting teams was a distinct possibility.We come to this conclusion because Title IX requires one of three tests to determine if a university is in compliance with gender equity. The test OU chose to apply was whether OU had men and women in sports programs in approximate proportion to their numbers in the university's student population. This test, advocated by the consultant OU hired, is the one that allows OU to drop teams but in reality for reasons that the evidence indicates are purely financial reasons. This is contrary to the intent of Title IX. At least one of the two other tests, if it had been used, could have demonstrated OU's compliance with Title IX.Spending scarce department funds on a Title IX consultant would most likely not be necessary if the university was not contemplating cutting teams.We believe that before OU arrived at its decision to cut teams, it was not exposed to legal or other sanctions in Title IX compliance. Statements from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights and NCAA statements back up this belief.It should be noted that OU hired a consultant with a national reputation for helping athletic departments cut teams. This is what the College Sports Council, a national authority on Title IX compliance has to say about him:
Myles Brand, the President of the NCAA, said recently.
In response to requests from supporters of the cut OU teams, Dr. Brand discussed this issue in his March 5, 2007 weekly podcast. Please click here to go to the NCAA web page with a link to the podcast. Click on the "play" link on "Mondays With Myles."Thus far, we have found no evidence that OU took advantage of the NCAA's willingness to help OU's athletics department.We also cite a national authority on intercollegiate sports, Phil Whitten, Executive Director of the College Swimming Coaches of America from an interview he gave in response to OU's decision to cut its Men's Swimming and Diving Team - Click here for the full interview:
Other national sports organizations familiar with Title IX say similar things.In official OU announcements, Athletic Director Kirby Hocutt rejects Mr. Whitten's statement but does not explain why he maintains that Mr. Whitten's statement is incorrect.That the option of cutting sports teams was by now, in May 2006, a strong probability was apparently withheld from the coaches of the teams, the athletes, their parents, recruits and their parents, and others with substantial investment in Ohio University in academic studies, time, training, NCAA athletic eligibility, and family funds for higher education.The University's documents posted on this site will show that many of these athletes do not receive scholarship funds, unlike "revenue sports" that carry their athletes on full scholarships including "red shirt" players who do not participate in sports for the year they are "red shirted."Many of these students without scholarships come from out-of-state and pay twice the tuition that Ohio residents pay, a substantial financial sacrifice for families to provide their student athletes with the opportunity to continue their athletic pursuits at the NCAA Division One level.And perhaps most troubling, young people enthusiastic and optimistic about embarking on their student athlete careers were recruited for this year and next year by coaches from whom this vital information was apparently concealed. These coaches knew nothing about the possible fates of their teams and their own jobs. As agents of their principal, Ohio University, they made material representations and warranties to recruits that induced them to sign NCAA letters of intent to come to OU.In the dark about the impending announcement and two weeks before the announcement, the Women's Lacrosse Team sponsored a lacrosse camp for high school juniors. These high schoolers paid their own way and expenses while at OU. The lacrosse team now feels hoodwinked by the administration and embarrassed about their role in this camp.OU coaches were apparently misled and many high school seniors recruited by OU passed up offers from other universities. Instead of focusing solely on studies and training for their sport, they are now scrambling this late in the college application cycle to find alternative schools to attend if they wish to continue their athletic careers.OU is on the quarter system for its academic year. Transferring to other universities on the semester system means that some credits may not transfer. Students well into their college careers at OU are finding that, if they wish to transfer to other schools, they may have to transfer as freshmen or sophomores, losing an entire year or two of OU study.Freshmen athletes are now back in the same position they were when they were high school seniors, repeating the same time-consuming and expensive process they conducted in 2006 in applying for and being accepted to other universities.Since they are again technically potential recruits by NCAA definition, it is possible that OU freshmen are ineligible to coach at summer sports camps, as many had planned. This is but one example of many complications and damage to their careers and financial circumstances we believe could have been avoided.We believe that the documentation assembled so far strongly suggests that the probability of cutting teams was understood by a limited number of senior people in OU and its Athletic Department's perhaps as early as December 2005.OU apparently had two choices when it began considering the decision to cut teams:
It would have been difficult for OU's leadership to announce this set of problems and the possible outcomes in early 2006;but, it would have been the right thing to do.Taking the honorable course of action would have fully disclosed this possibility to everyone with equities in the cut sports as early as possible and many could have been in better career and financial circumstances than they are now.Indeed, they are not the ones responsible for the OU Athletic Department's financial distress.We believe the way this has been handled by OU's leadership is wrong on many levels.THE BOTTOM LINEThe bottom line is apparently about mismanaged finances and reallocating money (not reducing the OU athletic budget in a time of overall university financial distress) to favored sports programs.The dropped teams were kept in the dark and were never given a chance to save themselves.Please review our website and decide for yourself if this action was warranted.We ask for your help.Please sign our petition at this link.Please go to this page and use it to email, write, or call government officials who can do something about this.The means for contacting them are already prepared for your easy use.Using your computer and email system, it should take no more than five minutes to reach all of them.Please contact us at saveousportsATgmailDOTcom if you can help us in other ways. We welcome your support.Thank You.PS: Check out this article about the costs of maintaining "revenue sports."From E-Lacrosse.com
|
DROPPED TEAMS
2006 Women's Lacrosse Team
Women's Save Ohio Lacrosse Blog
LaxPower.com message board discussion on OU LAX
Women's Lacrosse web page at OU website
Swimming and Diving
Save Ohio Swimming and DivingandSave Ohio Swimming
Swimming and Diving web page at OU website
Save Ohio University Swimming Discussion Forum
Track and Field
Bringing Back Ohio Track Blog
Track and Field web page at OU website
YouTube video put together for the Track and Field Team
|
|
Copyright 2007 - 2008 by SaveOUSports.org - Email: SaveOUSports AT gmail DOT comSaveOUsports.org is a non-profit group devoted to action that will reinstate discontinued varsity sports at Ohio University.
|
