MombaBomba
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2014
- Messages
- 420
From my point of view, most of the questions are answered and addressed.
Agree or disagree, the generally accepted (maybe not accpeted) reasons for having Div I sports programs at SAs are (not limited)
- assist with leader development
- revenue to support other sports program
- publicity
In return, SAs give some or a lot of consideration to a candidate's athletic ability.
But what if those generally accepted reasons are no longer valid? For years Europeans assumed that the world was flat, and acted accordingly.
To look at the reasons
"assist with leader development".....exactly how does it do that? A small subset of cadets participate in D1 sports. So how does it assist all cadets when it only impacts a small group? What particular aspects of leadership development? I don't disagree that participating in sports can assist in character development. Vague generalization doesn't really help make their case or win over support. Not that they have to care, but its easier to accomplish an end when there is more support and less discourse.
"revenue to support other programs"...has been debunked. NCAA has pointed out that D1 football is not a revenue positive sport for most schools, including the academies. It hasn't been in years. So while its net loss may be smaller than other sports, it still is not a positive net gain used to offset the costs of other sports. All D1 sports are now a cost as opposed to a gain. There is no guaranteed cash cow.
"publicity".....If the goal is to reach into new markets, doing what has always done doesn't cut it. D1 Academy football has been televised for years, yet the majority of Americans are unaware of all or some of the academies. Those D1 sports that are not televised are also limited in terms of publicity. Sure, they also make an impact in their own niche, but they don't reach outside it. The market niche is much larger and mainstream for football, but it isn't going to reach past those who follow football.
As budgets continue to shrink, IC sports will be targeted yet again. There will be more push back and demand for accountability as some sports get cut and others don't. Old talking points will get stale and people will demand more accountability. Being a "sacred cow" because it has always been this way will continue to generate discourse, discontent and resentment. Not just among "the public", but among students as well.
Once an academy cuts an IC sport, it reduces the academy's market and awareness. This has been debated before when I started a thread on the possible cancellation of 4 sports at the USAFA. Some didn't think cutting gymnastics, shooting, boxing and fencing was such a big deal because they are smaller niche sports and are not revenue positive. A prevailing attitude was the USAFA didn't need those sports because those markets really don't matter (by market I mean in terms of widening the net for possible candidates). There was the belief that football, basketball, and other "main stream" sports provided a large enough market.
I realize there will be the proverbial "suck it up, its the military even if an academy." That is true. However, that being said, don't expect folks rushing to support and toot the horn on behalf of said academies and the academy athletics if that is the prevailing "wisdom" and "rational."
As things get tougher, people will need real concrete current day reasons based upon actual facts to rally around and support. Vague generalizations will only go so far.