Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KNCLZip

Baseball's Coming Back

Recommended Posts

So, when did the purpose of college athletics change from building healthier better-rounded adults to being an important entertainment medium for everyone else? When we were shoved into Division I?

And I'l, ask again, why aren't Men's and Women's Cross Country, Men's and Women's Golf, Women's Soccer, Men's and Women's Golf, Men's and Women's Rifle, Women's Swimming & Diving, Women's Tennis, and Men's and Women's Track & Field held under the same standard? Why is nobody on this forum calling for the end of these money wastes? Students and taxpayers are subsidizing these sports (as well as the "revenue producing" sports).

Unless those questions are answered, then all this anti-baseball chatter is baseless opinion.

SS addressed it in one of his uatoz chats on wakr...combination of cost, availability of rubber ducks baseball experience "on campus", title IX....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SS addressed it in one of his uatoz chats on wakr...combination of cost, availability of rubber ducks baseball experience "on campus", title IX....

Understood, but everyone on here keeps throwing up "attendance". as the only factor.

I could discuss Scar's excuses, but who here cares? In the end this is a forum for three Zips sports. There are other places to discuss the rest. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something had to be cut, and as it is, the AD got off easy: 1.7% of the cuts as opposed to 6.7% of the budget. People should consider it a godsend that the admin didn't make the AD bear an equal share of the cuts because the discussion wouldn't be what could have been cut instead of baseball but, rather, how much else was cut in addition to baseball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understood, but everyone on here keeps throwing up "attendance". as the only factor. ...

Since you're probably including me in your "everyone" reference as evidenced by your misinterpretation of my previous post, I'll try to make it a little clearer. The point I was making was that attendance would be a more important factor to the RubberDucks organization in trying to partner with them to use Canal Park than it would be if UA was just going to continue using an on-campus facility with minimal seating and amenities like LRJ Field. Attendance would be just one of many factors and far from the most important one if using a first class facility like Canal Park was not being considered.

With that said, please exclude me from your group of everyone who keeps throwing up attendance as the only factor. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No real effort was put towards maintaining the program for years, so it was an easy cut. The dollars saved by cutting baseball will pay the cost of attendance payments to the other athletes (football, basketball) , so there is no cash savings, only money shifting from one budget to another.

Captain Kangaroo was spot on in the other thread when he said that Scarborough is hurting the search for a new AD. It's a mess that is visible nationwide for all to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been out to eat three times since the announcement, and all three restaurants had Zips baseball jerseys on the wall. There's no point (like most of my posts lol) just sayin'.

I wonder if there's a way to buy one off the U, since they don't need them anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprising, his wife is from Perry. Perry has had a winning tradition in HS baseball until recently. They have nice facilities and a strong booster organisation. He will do well there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it sucks for the players, but what are the people who own those place, and pay for them, supposed to do? They are out a lot of money if someone has the place reserved via contract, and it's too late to find other people to get in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree

I know it sucks for the players, but what are the people who own those place, and pay for them, supposed to do? They are out a lot of money if someone has the place reserved via contract, and it's too late to find other people to get in there.

I disagree with both of you. It's called being an empathetic human being. Yes contracts exist for a reason...but so do our brains. This is an exstenuating circumstance, and you should at the very least allow the kid to walk away with no more burden after a new tenant is found...meaning you'd have to find a new tenant. My landlord has a clause in my lease that allows for that...infact that's how I got my place in the first place is because the other tenant had a sudden drop transfer and had three months left on the lease.

If a landlord isn't willing to do that, or doesn't have a clause like that already built into the lease, than it is kinda scummy.

But there are two important details we need to stay focused on: 1) What Scarborough and the University did was absolutely unacceptable (the way they went about it in an non-transparent manner) and 2) this is a story from the ABJ which seems to be part of a long-standing attack. We are only getting a small light into the issue, and it's entirely possible that clauses that let these students out of the leases do exist, but they weren't asked about it...or the players approached the ABJ with the story and ABJ didn't do their due dilligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, Balsy. It could depend on whether other occupants can be found. But otherwise, the landlord could take a huge loss. Owning a property (business) and not having enough tenants to make money, and being fine with that, is not a requirement to be a decent human being. The landlord is in a very tough spot here.

You're also right that the problem was created by someone else. But, those players didn't HAVE to leave and go to another school.

And I do feel badly for their predicament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wrong party is the U. The landlords shouldn't have to eat that. The U should take care of these leases, it's the least they could do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wrong party is the U. The landlords shouldn't have to eat that. The U should take care of these leases, it's the least they could do.

This I completely agree with. It's a decent thing for a landlord to let you out of a lease (granted another tenant can be found), but the real decent thing is for the U to pay for the leases. What would be an even BIGGER act of solidarity, and an act of a REAL leader, would be for the president of that U to pay for it out of his own pocket as a sign of good will/no hard feelings for making the "adult" decision.

I hope Skip you didn't take my comments as too much of an attack :wave: . I absolute hate when the little guy/regular guy, gets screwed by the wealthy and powerful. In this hypothetical the player gets screwed or the landlord (presuming a tenant cannot be found) gets screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it was reported that they could stay and keep their scholarships.

So if that is the case I think the ABJ has done another hatchet job. If the scholarships are being honored, then their sons DO have the ability to continue their education. If dad does not want to "waste" his money, let your son stay at UA on scholarship and stay in the housing he is committed to. Sit out a year and look for another school in the meantime. The landlords do have the right to try and keep their buildings occupied.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A similar scenario happens all the time at ALL Universities.

A player is recruited, given a scholarship and expects to be a starter one day. At some point during practices or in the middle of the season, the player realizes he is not going to see the field at the school he has chosen. He notifies other schools of his intent to leave, goes to classes for free, fulfills his housing obligation and moves on the next year. OR a kid is recruited by a particular school, given a scholarship and the coach that recruits him is fired. The kid notifies other schools of his intent to leave, goes to classes for free, fulfills his housing obligation and moves on the next year. THIS HAPPENS HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of times every year in NCAA athletics. This happens in life too. I have taken positions with companies who were acquired not long after I joined. You either try and find yourself a position in the new company or move on.

This is not an ideal situation and I am quite sure SS wishes he did not have to cut anything. As far as the timing goes, my guess is that the administration did everything in its power to salvage as much as they could. I am sure this was not an easy decision.

I appreciate the opinions of those that feel the U or the landlords should just eat the $ but that is not real. That is not an obligation for a businessperson trying to either make money or break even on an investment and certainly not the obligation of UA. UA is fullfilling its obligation to these young men by providing them a free education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UA and the landlords should work together for a solution rather than trying to keep these players on the hook for a year when they did nothing wrong and want to transfer out. The U. would be money ahead to eat a month or 2 of lease (until the landlord gets a replacement) and be free of the scholarship commitment for the players who find another baseball team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The landlords shouldn't work with anyone-- thats why they have you sign a lease. It protects the tenant and the landlord.-- it is business

What ZippyRulz suggests is a wonderful thing. The only thing I'd add is that the U should eat the cost to advertise/find a new tenant. Everybuddy wins, nobuddy loses (except technically the U for making an awful poorly planned decision). Businesses don't have to be mindless non-human entities. Frankly, the lease should have had a clause for extenuating circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...