In the second of three parts of an extended discussion with Randy Eaton, the Maryland interim athletic director delves into his desire to receive honest feedback from Terrapins fans, weighs the hypothetical pros and cons of the Big Ten desires some fans still harbor and explains the common-sense reasons behind his disdain for using a tiering system of sports to solve an athletic department's financial problems.
Read on as things pick up from where they left off in Part 1. ...
RE: The reception I have gotten has been really warm. I think part of it is I'm taking this opportunity to try to build a reservoir of the good, the bad and the ugly for the next athletic director. Probably my first or second day on the job, I had to write a letter for the latest issue of Terrapin Times. And in the letter, I asked people 'I want to know three things: What do we do that we should keep doing? What do we do that we should stop doing? What are we not doing that we should start doing?'
I had some people proof and we're going through it and somebody said 'OK, you probably don't want to ask these questions this way. What are you trying to get?' And I said 'Well, opinions.' [And they said] 'No, no, no, where are you trying to direct them toward? What are you trying to get the responses to be?' and [I said] 'Guys, regardless of how we've done things in the past, I want the truth. How can we get better as an organization if we don't know what we have to do to better serve our constituencies?'
I want the truth. I want to know what people think. That hasn't always been the case that we've opened up and done that. And not saying we're going to continue to do it, but at least while I'm in the interim role we're going to continue to do it because I'm a firm believer when it comes to our fans, whether they're casual fans or die-hard fans, our donors. Those are the two groups --- season-ticket holders, anybody that buys tickets --- those are the groups I'm going after right now. But I'm going to ask the same questions eventually of the campus community and our student-athletes.
Those are our three big constituencies. How can we improve if we don't know what we need to improve on --- from their point of view, not our own. It can get tainted a lot of the time sitting here.
PS: I'd think some of the thing there is if they tell you something isn't right and you can explain why it isn't right, you'd probably get more understanding, right?
RE: It gives us an opportunity to improve. And that has been a shock to a lot of people because we haven't done that in the past. Not that it's right, not that it's wrong. It's different, and it's a shock. OK, I can live with that. I can live the shock value.
PS: Does that sound sort of crazy? In a nuanced world, it's not, but if the truth is unanticipated, that's a little crazy.
RE: I had someone tell me perception is more important than reality. I don't subscribe to that, but there's a level there that their perception is their reality. It might not be my reality. Again, I can't fix it if I don't know what's wrong. I know we'll probably get 1,000 different answers to each of those questions. What I expect to see is a bell curve, one or two here, one or two here, but I would think and would hope we're going to be able to focus on four or five things we do well. Great. Let's look at the four or five things we don't do well and let's start investigating the four or five things they think we should be doing. Is it reasonable? Is it feasible?
I hope people take their time and think it out and let us know. I fully expect to get some responses that are 'Parking should be free.' It's a valid point, but I'll give you a response why we can't. The gentleman last night said 'You should just get out of the ACC television contract.' I said 'In the past, the total is $14 million that we got from the ACC. You want me to walk away from that so I can put four or five road games on TV?' Can't do it. Simple business decision. Can't do it and won't do it.
PS: You bring up conferences now. Let's talk about a popular topic only a month or two ago that has since died down with expansion issues calming a bit. There are people who think Maryland to the Big Ten would be a fantastic idea, and others disagree. What's your take?
RE: I've looked at the pros and cons. Obviously, with what the Big Ten is bringing to the table or their individual institutions financially through their television, whether it's the contract with ABC/ESPN or the Big Ten Network, dwarfs what we get in the ACC. It's big-time money and it helps all that.
I think long-term it would be a boon to our football program, because our competition would be up north. You'd still go after the southern kids, but you start also focusing on the northern kids and it is a whole new recruiting base. Plus, the Big Ten, top to bottom, year in and year out, may be a little bit stronger than the ACC has been. Over the last 30 years, I'd say it certainly has been. During the 25 years I've been in athletics, I'd say top to bottom the Big Ten has been stronger in football. On any given year, I don't necessarily subscribe to that. But over a time period [it is stronger].
So I think it would help our football program. I think two things would be detrimental to us. No. 1, I think the rivalries we have built up and it's not just basketball and Duke. We have rivalries ... soccer and Wake Forest. Lacrosse and pick 'em in the ACC, regardless of what school or whether it's men or women. Field hockey. We just have a lot of hard-core rivalries within the ACC. I think that would be extremely hard to walk away from.
Some people have expressed concern about travel time for our student-athletes. I'm not overly concerned about travel time. Let's use men's soccer. They're going to play Clemson or Wisconsin. We bus to Clemson right now, so we're leaving the day before, and we're coming home either immediately after or the next morning based on what time the game is at Clemson. We leave the day before to fly to Wisconsin, we'd play, and depending on what time it was we either fly home or come back the next day. I don't think there will be a lot of [additional] missed class time, so that's not a huge difference to me.
Travel time would have more impact. Even if you're playing one of the Carolina schools, you're leaving the day before the competition and you're only traveling for four hours. Some of our teams would leave the day before a competition and may be traveling seven hours to get to Nebraska. But they're not missing any more days, it's just they're traveling longer on that day or coming home they're traveling longer.
So I don't think missed class time [would be a factor]. But I do think it would be more rigorous on our student-athletes, just more time on planes and buses. Obviously, there's a cost factor. We'd fly a lot more and that would be more than offset --- way more --- by the TV money.
PS: Here's a pet theory. You have more money to spend. To compete in that deeper league, you'd have to spend more money on coaches, probably spending more money on an athletic director. How much more money are you left with at the end of the day?
RE: We wouldn't spend any more on coaches. Our coaches are well-compensated nationally, now. Maybe a couple sports, but I would be willing to bet I have more coaches in the top five percent nationally in salary compared to their Division I peers than I do in the bottom five percent. I don't worry about that.
Where we lag behind and where the money would go is into facilities. I will start the ball rolling during my interim time --- we lost a practice field years ago.
PS: Was that one of the ones down here [at Comcast Center]?
RE: No, it was when they built Clarice Smith [performing arts center next to Ludwig Field]. We never replaced it. We've just been short a field. So I'm going to start moving the ball forward on trying to put things together to build us a new field somewhere. I have no idea where, but we've got to have one, and I need a field turf field.
We actually had kids get hurt last year on the grass, lacrosse and soccer kids get hurt because the grass was torn up from lacrosse. We can't do that. We'll see. But I've got to get a field built, because we're getting kids hurt and we can't have that.
PS: Is that priority No. 1 for however long this lasts?
RE: Yep, try to get the ball rolling on that. And finances. Finances, you start looking at our five-year projections, there's not a lot of room for error so I'm going to have to beat the bushes and raise some of this money. But it's a student-athlete welfare issue, plain and simple. We have kids that are now being injured because of the conditions of our practice fields, and that's almost a crime. That's what we're here for, and we can't let it continue.
PS: When you look at those projections, and how tight that wiggle room --- and I know this is something Debbie was totally against. Is there a time --- and you know exactly what question is coming here --- is there a time where this school is going to have to look at 22 teams or 23 teams as opposed to 27?
RE: There's going to have to be a new model developed. And I would think that would be one of the options they would review during that looking at the new model. We either need an influx if cash or a major reduction in expenditures, and it's really that easy. I don't think anything will be off the table for a new athletic director coming and they'll be able to look.
I would hope they would have the due diligence to look and explore the possibilities of other fundraising efforts and other initiatives that would preclude us from having to reduce the number of sports we sponsor. I think anyone coming in and not knowing the situation would come in and do that.
PS: So you're talking either tiering the things as has been suggested at other places or get private individual for all intents and purposes to be patrons or sponsors of a program?
RE: We're going to need people. People would have to step up.
I've never been a big proponent of tiering. I think in intercollegiate athletics, every student-athlete should have the chance to succeed in the community, in the classroom and on the field. If I'm not going to give them the opportunity to succeed on the field, to me in my eyes that equates very similar to a club team on campus.
OK, we reduce the scholarships or we don't offer scholarships. We reduce the travel or they're only traveling within the ACC and everything else is day trips. Why would you spend the money on those teams simply to have those teams? Again, those kids aren't necessarily able to succeed in all three of those areas.
Pick a sport. Varsity tiddlywinks. If the ACC has four teams in the top 25 and four additional teams knocking on the door of the top 25 and then I'm going to say 'We're going to have varsity tiddlywinks, but we're not going to have scholarships and we're only doing day trips and coach, there's no recruiting budget and the only time you get to travel for more than a day trip is for ACC competition.' Those kids don't have a chance in hell of winning. Why have that program? Why have that program strictly for the sake of saying you have that program? At that point, it becomes a club sport and we have a solid club program at the University of Maryland and I would not be in favor of supporting teams that could never be successful on the field.
Kids can still have a great experience in the classroom and socially, but we've got somebody on our staff when he went to school here in the '90s. Michael Lipitz played tennis, nonscholarship, didn't have budgets, this that and the other. And he said as a student they felt like second-class citizens. They didn't get the support necessarily from sports medicine, which is wrong but it happened. From academic support, wrong but it happened.
Why build a class system if you don't have to? The analogy I would use is if they came to me and said 'We don't think the CFO is a full-time position at Maryland anymore, we want you to go half time.' Why stay here? If I can't be successful and do things at home I want to do because of my earnings, why would I stay here? I just have never liked the idea of tiering, for that reason.
I'm not saying I'm a proponent of dropping sports right away, but I'm definitely against looking at tiering. I think it creates as many problems as it solves. It solves the financial problem, but now it's going to create problems for the student-athletes who are here.
PS: Basically, you think it's an all-in situation?
RE: Either have it or don't. Don't do it halfway. Don't buy a dog with two legs. Have a dog or don't have a dog. Don't have one with two legs.
In Part 3: Discussing Maryland's presidential and athletic director hiring timeline and its possible impact on football
Recent Comments