One transfer that has yet to be announced...

[MU1980]

My apologies. I misspoke. Cross country is in danger of getting cut. Not track and field.

I know of several schools that have cross country and not track, but I don't know of any schools that have track without cross country.  There are no cross country scholarships; they are part of the 12.6 scholarships allowed for track.  You would still need distance runners for track and someone to coach them, so there would be no real reason to get rid of cross country and keep track. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Just passing along what I have heard.

[Tugg Speedman]

I know of several schools that have cross country and not track, but I don't know of any schools that have track without cross country.  There are no cross country scholarships; they are part of the 12.6 scholarships allowed for track.  You would still need distance runners for track and someone to coach them, so there would be no real reason to get rid of cross country and keep track.  

This is correct, I too know of no track program without cross country.  Drop cross and keep track you are still paying distance coaches and have runners on (partial) scholarship.

If you have track, the marginal cost to have cross country is literally the travel in the fall to away meets.  That is a rounding error to the athletic budget.

And yes, their are many schools with cross country but not track.

[MU1980]

This is correct, I too took know of no track program without cross country.  Drop cross and keep track you are still paying distance coaches and have runners on (partial) scholarship.

If you have track, the marginal cost to have cross country is literally the travel in the fall to away meets.  That is a rounding error to the athletic budget.

And yes, their are many schools with cross country but not track.

Just found out that USC has track, but not cross country.  They have only two distance kids listed on their roster and I am sure they don't actively recruit them.  Hard to recruit a distance runner with no cross country team.

I would be very surprised if Marquette got rid of cross country and kept track, but I never thought UW would get rid of baseball either or that Marquette would drop wrestling. 

[GGGG]

As was pointed out earlier however, Marquette is at the minimum of NCAA mandated sports (7 men...7 women).  If you drop Cross Country, you have to add something else.  As has been mentioned, Cross is such a low cost sport, I have no idea why you would drop that.

The only sports that the BE sponsors that MU doesn't participate in are baseball, softball, swimming, field hockey and women's golf.  They don't have the facilities for the first three...unless swimming can use the rec center... and field hockey would be odd since it isn't played much in the high schools.  Women's golf could be a possibility, but why?

[Jay Bee]

Guys, IMHO you've got Wally all wrong (as many had Henry wrong).

He's a very good basketball player. Ignore what you saw at Minnesota (which included a pre-season injury freshman year that kept him out for NC play and a coaching change in year 2).

He needs to be a two-sport athlete. (Which in this case would mean at a cost of a basketball scholarship.)

Who would he be most comparable to re: current Warriors? Not that similar, but perhaps Sandy Cohen, but Wally is a better athlete and outside shooter (albeit streaky). His nature is that of a medium-high usage guy (think 22-26% as a range he'd likely fall in, depending on circumstances and team)... hard worker, determined, non-traditional traditional who has amazing leaping abilities.

He's a guy who could play and defend the 2/3.. if you wanted a guard/wing to crash the offensive boards, he's what the doc ordered - honestly, capable of putting up a STRONG OR%.

His biggest issue might be (have been) getting acclimated to the speed of the college game. Once the feel is there (and fall of 2015.. it may be), he's a dangerous and good player.

Disclaimer/Questionnaire: Have you even ever seen the guy play? Answer: Yes, hours upon hours and in various settings/leagues/etc. [Would be helpful to have such disclosure when people post about players]

[GGGG]

Thanks JayBee....and Mark Miller mentioned back in April that Iowa State, Baylor and Texas Tech are in the mix for him.  All high, D1 programs.

[Tugg Speedman]

Thanks JayBee....and Mark Miller mentioned back in April that Iowa State, Baylor and Texas Tech are in the mix for him.  All high, D1 programs.

... and Baylor and Texas Tech have excellent track programs that would be good landing spots for one the nation's best high jumpers.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

As was pointed out earlier however, Marquette is at the minimum of NCAA mandated sports (7 men...7 women).  If you drop Cross Country, you have to add something else.  As has been mentioned, Cross is such a low cost sport, I have no idea why you would drop that.

The only sports that the BE sponsors that MU doesn't participate in are baseball, softball, swimming, field hockey and women's golf.  They don't have the facilities for the first three...unless swimming can use the rec center... and field hockey would be odd since it isn't played much in the high schools.  Women's golf could be a possibility, but why?

You forget that we added men's and women's lacrosse. We are currently sitting at 8 and 8. We can drop one of each.

I think people are also underestimating how expensive non-revenue sports can be.

[MU1980]

You forget that we added men's and women's lacrosse. We are currently sitting at 8 and 8. We can drop one of each.

I think people are also underestimating how expensive non-revenue sports can be.

Track and cross country are by far the cheapest sports due to the fact that they have one coaching staff for six counting sports, only two locker rooms, travel together on buses for two sports at a time, etc.  Also, track and cross country has ridiculously low scholarship amounts of around 8 total for men and 8 for women.  That comes out to less than 3 scholarships per sport.  Marquette has an incredible deal by having indoor and outdoor track/cross country, especially by combining the men's and women's programs and getting someone willing to get paid very little per sport to coach all six sports

As has been mentioned, getting rid of cross country doesn't eliminate any of the coaching staff, scholarships or locker room space.  Also, it makes it that much more difficult to have a competitive track team, so you are hurting four of the sports that you are keeping. 

Hopefully they don't cut any sport, but if they did feel the need, they would save a lot more money by getting rid of the tennis programs.  I was around when they dropped wrestling and it was awful, especially because Jim Schmitz was an amazing coach and the program had a lot of success.  Still don't understand why they added LaCrosse, when they didn't need to and many of the programs were already being underfunded.  At a small school with only basketball bringing in revenue, it would have made sense to try and fully fund all the current sports before adding more. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Track and cross country are by far the cheapest sports due to the fact that they have one coaching staff for six counting sports, only two locker rooms, travel together on buses for two sports at a time, etc.  Also, track and cross country has ridiculously low scholarship amounts of around 8 total for men and 8 for women.  That comes out to less than 3 scholarships per sport.  Marquette has an incredible deal by having indoor and outdoor track/cross country, especially by combining the men's and women's programs and getting someone willing to get paid very little per sport to coach all six sports

As has been mentioned, getting rid of cross country doesn't eliminate any of the coaching staff, scholarships or locker room space.  Also, it makes it that much more difficult to have a competitive track team, so you are hurting four of the sports that you are keeping. 

Hopefully they don't cut any sport, but if they did feel the need, they would save a lot more money by getting rid of the tennis programs.  I was around when they dropped wrestling and it was awful, especially because Jim Schmitz was an amazing coach and the program had a lot of success.  Still don't understand why they added LaCrosse, when they didn't need to and many of the programs were already being underfunded.  At a small school with only basketball bringing in revenue, it would have made sense to try and fully fund all the current sports before adding more. 

Again, just passing along what I have heard. I know cutting tennis has been discussed as well. Track has been brought up but they don't know how to get around the minimum sport requirement.

Also, even if it is the cheapest of all the sports (not actually sure that's true) we are still talking thousands of dollars.

[MU1980]

Again, just passing along what I have heard. I know cutting tennis has been discussed as well. Track has been brought up but they don't know how to get around the minimum sport requirement.

Also, even if it is the cheapest of all the sports (not actually sure that's true) we are still talking thousands of dollars.

I am not disagreeing with you at all and maybe you have some inside information that I no longer have.  What I do have is an understanding of what the budgets are.  Getting rid of cross country over two other sports (which could only be tennis since they aren't going to get rid of soccer or volleyball/golf) would make absolutely no sense.  You don't free up any coaching salaries and benefits (over $100,000 for two tennis coaches), any scholarship money (probably at least $600,00 for men's and women's tennis), you don't free up locker room space in a crowded old gym and by eliminating cross country you hurt four of your remaining teams, since it helps to have distance runners on a track team.  The cross country team also does not do home and away meets/games so they only fly once a year to the conference meet.  So the only money you save is a few bus trips (which both men's and women's team share), one plane trip, a few hotel rooms and some meal money.  Maybe $30-40,000 at most, as opposed to close to $900,000 for tennis.  Not even a close comparison if they really are looking to save money. 

Also, over the years cross country/track alums have donated millions of dollars to the program, which from what I have heard is the most of the non-revenue sports.  No need to anger wealthy alumni that regularly donate to the school and athletics.  Track/cross country alums donated by far the largest amount towards valley fields. 

And just to emphasize, I do not in any way want them to get rid of tennis either.