It's not shocking that a school would see this as an option due to the cost savings, especially with so many D-1 schools cutting sports for similar reasons.  However, it is shocking to actually see it happen.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall in the early days of SJT at GW, I heard that he had led the effort to change Hartford from being strictly a commuter school.  One has to wonder how this change will impact their national branding.  

Regardless, it sounds like a wise move for them.

How much do they pay University presidents these days?  Realistically, how much are they expecting to reimburse athletes?  What's the average tenured faculty member get paid (and how many hours per week do the teach) - just asking questions.

AU´s downgrade to the Patriot League looked radical at the time but pales in comparison to this. Still, de-emphasizing athletics might not be a hard sell to those who are not died-in-the-wool rah-rah types, it is a non-academic department that uses tons of resources with little return for schools that are not successful (both in merchandizing and winning games).
Local paper´s story here:   https://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc-sp-university-of-hartford-goes-div-iii-20210507-jva2n5pi5nfvvnt2wyr2cz3jde-story.html

If you’ve read the articles about this in the Athletic the cost savings are minimal or uncertain.

Now if they want to be the University of Chicago leaving the Big 10 Ok but if it’s about money the savings don’t seem to be clear.

Last edited by FredD (5/08/2021 1:05 pm)

Mike, I know your experience and first-hand knowledge of Hartford make you an expert on this topic.  I have three questions for you:

1. What is the root cause of the 5-year drop in enrollment.  My initial thought was this drop to D-3 was due to COVID-related shortfalls, but clearly this is a much bigger issue that has been around long before the pandemic.  

2. This is the big one, but I have to ask if you were tasked with making the decision to get the university back on footing that would allow it to survive and eventually thrive, what would you have done that Woodward didn't (or what wouldn't you do that he did)?

3. Do you know of any other peer universities to Hartford (that they benchmark against) who have taken other paths?

Thanks, Mike.

Barry

Last edited by BGF (5/09/2021 9:14 am)

I remember "Dr Mike" from when I was a student (dating us both, was he working on his Master´s or Ph.D?) and take what he says with the full weight he assigns it. Private education in the US is facing a reckoning, non-athletic Mills College announced last month it is closing down, and I doubt it and Hartford are the only schools trying to keep the bill collectors at bay. Many of my high school and college classmates who now have college-aged kids are still trying to pay off their own student debts, which makes their kids much less interested in paying for college (though no less interested in getting a college education). The fact is, going to college is no longer seen as the "ticket to a good life" it was 30 years ago; instead it is seen as a risk that could leave a person in debt to their grave. There are many factors at play, but the spending orgies schools like GW went on in the 90´s are making the cost of attending today much too prohibitive. Add to that the decreasing birth rate/unfavourable demographics and it is clear the "bubble" has burst worse than a subprime mortgage bond. The bean counters´ first reaction will be to "cut costs" (so long as administrative salaries are not affected) by slashing everything from the budgets for unprofitable sports to food quality in the dorms, short-term band-aids that will not address the core issue and could exacerbate them . Clearly, highly-regarded schools in prime locations like GW have some cover schools like Hartford do not (ever been to Hartford? I pose that question and I am still a Whalers fan). But every empty seat at every home game will only add fuel to the fire that seeks to relegate intercollegiate athletics to "aw, that is so nice we have a team" status within the Univeristy at-large. Sure, places like U$C, Notre Dame and Miami (Fla) will continue to have big-time sports because it is a cash cow for the school (OK, U$C might need to lower its player payroll to NFL salary cap levels, but you get the point). But for how much longer will schools like GW, AU, Duquesne etc... (not to mention taxpayer-funded teams that suck like Cal, Iowa St, Maine and New Mexico) be able to afford the high stakes money table the NCAA is running?

Congrats DrMike on your participation in the article.  I'd have to believe that UH's decision was largely made prior to the start of last season.  They were not a juggernaut in their conference; they simply got hot at the right time and I'm sure the school believed that any major success was not sustainable.  You offered very interesting insights on how schools can cook their books to fit a narrative.  In this case, most UH athletes received a combination of athletic and merit or need-based scholarships yet the full value of these scholarships have been assigned to athletics.  This is obviously intended to give the appearance that athletics is the huge weight dragging the school down which is somewhat misleading.

You used a phrase (apologize if I'm misremembering as I read the article several days ago) that UH was not prepared for its own success.  The strategy of becoming a heralded academic institution by becoming a D3 school is dubious given the school's current near-80% admit rate.  This will clearly take some time.

Am curious, DrMike, as to whether you see any current parallels between UH's situation and GW's?  25-30 years ago, GW began raising its academic profile by having successful men's and women's basketball teams.  UH is pretty much going in the opposite direction.  Are there any indicators or warning signs that GW ought to be paying attention to with respect to the UH situation?

"Men's basketball tried many different strategies with a head coach; tried the assistant route, head coach route. Men's basketball never finished better than 4th in the conference in 35 years. It is OK to say this year they got lucky."

Disagree on this part 100%. They've had the best 4 years in school history, were in the title game that got ppd due to covid... no signs of slowing down either until this news
 

The irony of course is that UH could have made this decision almost anytime up until 2016-17 and it would be much harder to argue based on the team's success.  They have been better the past 4 seasons, culminating with their appearance at the Dance in March, which makes for outrageous timing behind this decision.

DrMike I am sure has this right and he would certainly know.  The university president and Board of Regents could likely be described as collectively disliking sports and would rather enhance the school's academic reputation by standing alongside a number of notable D3 schools as opposed to being grouped with the likes of Vermont, Maine, UNH and UMBC. No matter the case, it is inexcusable that the university president has not had a discussion with Coach Gallagher about this for nearly two months.  That's the decision of a coward.

If the move does happen, it will be interesting to see whether it sets a precedent and if it does, to what extent.