Posted on 04/29/2016 8:44:43 AM PDT by pabianice
UMass Faculty Senate votes against sponsoring a motion supporting the discontinuation of the University’s football program
University of Massachusetts faculty senators voted to defeat a motion that would have encouraged UMass administrators to discontinue Division I football at the University on Thursday. The vote followed a heated discussion about the motion among faculty, administrators and students.
The motion, which was defeated by a vote of 26-14, would have urged Chancellor Kumble Subbaswamy, UMass system President Marty Meehan and the University’s Board of Trustees to discontinue Division I football, and move the program to a different division or discontinue it altogether.
The motion cited low attendance at games, research linking football to high rates of concussions and brain damage, the high cost of operating and marketing a Division I team, and recent hikes in UMass tuition as the primary concerns.
Supporters and opponents assembled themselves on either side of the room and were allowed to present to the audience for no more than three minutes.
Student Government Association President-elect Anthony Vitale criticized the motion for lack of transparency.
“I’ve heard a lot of keywords today like respect, transparency and communication, but this is the first time that the Student Government Association has heard about this [motion],” said Vitale, a sophomore studying economics. “Was this not going to be spoken to us?”
Vitale urged faculty and administrators to have open discussions that would lead to a more sustainable, long-term vision for the UMass football program.
Frank Hugus, a professor of German and Scandinavian studies at UMass, supported the motion.
“My concern here is that we are in over our heads,” said Hugus.
He added that other universities with Division I football programs had more resources and stronger football traditions that help them consistently win over UMass football.
“But what concerns me most is that I read the stories in the press about Division I football players who have been accused of rape and sexual assault,” said Hugus. “I don’t want to see that kind of behavior come to campus.”
Opponents of the motion quickly addressed Hugus’s comments about sexual assault.
“Senator Hugus compels me to respond,” said Chancellor Kumble Subbaswamy, adding that it was unfair for Hugus to associate UMass students with sexual assaults that occur on other campuses.
“I do not approve of this idea of guilt by association. Our student athletes do not deserve this,” said Subbaswamy, drawing applause from the audience.
Steven Brewer of the Biology Department steered the discussion to finances and resources, saying that the idea that Division I football would bring a “huge infusion of capital” to UMass was “overly optimistic.” He encouraged administrators to reconsider the program’s viability.
Professor Ernest May of the Department of Music & Dance echoed Brewer’s concerns about money. He said that the football team’s financial losses “translate directly into student debt.”
Susan Whitbourne, a professor of psychological and brain sciences, explained that her concern for football players’ well-being outweighs her appreciation for the sport. She praised student athletes who come to UMass “and train their hearts out,” but stated that she worries about the long-term effects to their health.
“We’re asking these players to be regularly brutalized by people in the division that are two times their size,” she said. “It seems unconscionable to me to put our students in those situations on a chronic basis.”
UMass Director of Athletics Ryan Bamford dispelled the criticism that the football program puts athletes in harm’s way. He said that the health and safety of student athletes was of paramount importance.
Bamford, who has worked at UMass for one year, added that the football program will bring pride to current students, alumni, and the campus community as it grows.
“I came here because I see where this place is going, and I know that we can take it to great heights,” said Bamford.
He addressed the criticisms of low football game attendance, explaining that by the end of the 2017 season the administration would be poised to bring all home games back to the University’s McGuirk Stadium, after several years of hosting home games at Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Massachusetts.
Football player and civil engineering major Matthew Sparks added that in addition to fostering community on campus and in the western Massachusetts region, the football program recruits underrepresented students to UMass and diversifies the campus.
Lisa Saunders, an associate economics professor, told Sparks and others not to disparage the efforts of other campus organizations to diversify UMass.
“Don’t pretend that football is the leading star,” she said. “I’m appalled that anyone would bring this issue up without the data to back it up.”
Hannah Depin can be reached at hdepin@umass.edu.
Short version: no one may do anything of which Liberals disapprove.
Soccer pansies
Didn’t they just step-up to D-I a few seasons ago?
Student riots and mass disobedience to follow.
When the kids don’t get their way these days, they have a hissy fit.
Can’t get rid of football, then there would be no more need for remedial classes
They won 3 games last season and aren’t exactly filling the stands.
The operating costs are exorbitant and that’s not just including all the scholarships.
But you can’t be a respectable university unless you play big time football!
Does UMass want to end up like Harvard, Yale, Penn, UChicago, MIT, CalTech, WashU in St.L, Emory, Cornell, Columbia, NYU, Georgetown, GW, Princeton, Dartmouth, Brown
As much disdain as I have for the Ivy League,
Yale-Harvard is generally a pretty good game.
The intense competitive level is perhaps exceeded
only by Army-Navy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMass_Minutemen_football
They’re outa the MAC conference now and looking for another. They’re listed as independent and have a rather rough schedule.
Except they get to go to Hawaii and play for the 2nd to last game of the season on the University dime. That’ll make the students happy.
Are the Minutemen any good?
No !
Did not know they had quit the MAC.
Smart move. There are some GOOD teams in the MAC.
A lot of Ohio and PA kids who are heavily recruited by major schools, and choose to either stay close to home, or would rather actually play than sit on the bench for three years.
UMass is located in more of a hockey territory.
Makes it tough for them to compete.
I remember they’ve been in the roundball tournament a few times.
Television money. We play a nationally-ranked team and the U gets a cut of the television money through the conference, the opponent racks up the points and pads its national ranking, everybody wins except for the players and the audience of the smaller school. Whose opinions are not, unfortunately, all that important.
When athletic programs claim to be "self-supporting", this is what they're talking about. That part of it that has been subsumed by the entertainment industry is more concerned with feeding that industry than it is with the welfare of the student athletes. You don't see that in, say, track, because track isn't prime-time television. You do get it in football and basketball, because they are.
On the one hand, no one is holding a gun to these student athletes' heads to get them to participate. They're in it for a shot at fame, glory, and the insane wealth that is a professional career for the fortunate few. On the other hand, what is corrupt about this is the pretense that these are any but professional athletes, and the result that they are unprotected by professional-level insurance in the case of a career-ending injury. The entertainment industry is, in that sense, getting a freebie and the students are the ones who pay, most of whom are old enough to sign a contract (18 in most states) whose risks they may be poorly equipped to assess but whose protections they are denied.
That's a larger topic than the UMass snowflakes are actually considering here, and the cynic has to wonder if a winning record in conference might have prevented the thing ever from coming up. I'd love to hear FReepers' thoughts on the topic.
UMass pretty much pushed into Div 1 as a publicity attempt. The UMass field/stadium is terrible, and UMass has never had much of a football program; this was just UMass trying to step up to the kind of money and perqs afforded to the various “10” institutions. I don’t really see the problem with them asking to dump the program, as this isn’t (surprisingly, for ultra-liberal Massachusetts) a PC thing. The students who petitioned seem to be addressing the legitimate problems with the program. Unfortunately the Faculty Senate there is probably still being told that the new program has to stay so UMass can attract more money and prestige.
What, activists demanding an end to scholarships for black athletes? RACISTS!
They play at Gillette now, same field as the Patriots.
Have to throw all that money to rent that stadium then fill the seats with the players families that bother to show up.
It’s a money pit. Very little TV money unless they somehow wrangle a middle of the week ESPN 2 game.
I have come to the thought that college football should be discontinued period. A college is for learning, not making tons of money from TV and sponsorship contracts. Athletes have it made over the “regular” student. Most of these athletes can’t even spell their own name, but can somehow pass the ACT/SAT - BS! Return colleges to learning institutions.
What someone needs to propose now is the dissolution of the Womyns and Black studies programs as they do nothing to add value to their students, the community at large and global business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.