It's funny how much of Garrett's message would be just as true if you
replaced all instances of "Michigan Tech" with "Boston University" (and, I
suppose, "Division II" with "Division I").  BU dropped football, what,
about 6-7 years ago as part of re-evaluating the role of scholarship
athletics, and decided it just did't make sense to keep running a D I-AA
football program.

Yes, there's always Title IX to blame, but the bottom line is football
costs a lot of money, as well as consuming a large number of male athlete
"slots" which are hard to balance on the women's side.  Even if Title IX
weren't a factor, I think the financial considerations suggest dropping
football is often a good decision.  I'm actually a little surprised that
more schools haven't done it over the last few years.

Mike Abegg
[log in to unmask]



----------Garrett Lanzy wrote
Tony,

The Michigan Tech Alumni e-mail list has (not surprisingly) had quite a
bit of discussion about this topic.  Basically, the decision came down to
dropping football because of the comparatively large expense vs. the
other varsity sports.  (Hockey at Tech probably has a larger budget,
but generates net revenue.... whereas I doubt the football team ever
got close to "breaking even".)  If football hadn't been cut, it would have
meant cutting at least 3 or 4 other teams... and then the university would
not have fielded the minimum number of teams to remain eligible to
compete in NCAA Division II.

The vast majority of Tech alumni seem to support the decision.  Although
the football team has had some success in recent years, Tech has never
(in my opinion) had a strong "football tradition" among the student body
and the local community.  Hockey, of course, is a different story -- and
hopefully, the university can now find a coach to replace Sertich who will
continue the upward momentum.

[All of the above is strictly my own interpretation and/or opinion.]

Garrett Lanzy (Michigan Tech '84)