Scrolling Headlines:

Berkeley professor researches high-poverty high school -

December 11, 2017

Rosenberg steps down as Senate President during husband’s controversy -

December 11, 2017

Students aim to bring smiles to kids’ faces at Baystate Children’s Hospital -

December 11, 2017

‘Growing Cannabis On the Farm’ event held at Hampshire College -

December 11, 2017

UMass women’s basketball defeats Saint Peter’s for third straight win -

December 11, 2017

Celebrity culture could be a part of the problem -

December 11, 2017

Mulligan’s defense, rebounding helps push Minutewomen past Saint Peters -

December 11, 2017

Gaudet’s power play goal clinches 2-1 victory over Union for UMass hockey -

December 11, 2017

The department of Judaic Studies makes a disappointing decision -

December 11, 2017

The merits of print journalism shouldn’t be overlooked -

December 11, 2017

‘Coco’ is a colorful movie with a refreshing culture -

December 11, 2017

Tips to help manage stress during finals -

December 11, 2017

UMass women’s basketball rolls over Fisher College 121-38 in a record setting affair -

December 10, 2017

Hailey Leidel catches fire, breaks program record for 3-pointer’s in 121-38 victory over Fisher College -

December 10, 2017

Hockey Notebook: Jake Gaudet beginning to find his rhythm with UMass hockey -

December 10, 2017

Pipkins’ scoring outburst leads UMass past Providence -

December 9, 2017

Second half run leads UMass men’s basketball over Providence -

December 9, 2017

Students vote ‘yes’ for Student Union renovations -

December 8, 2017

Editorial: Our shift to a primarily digital world -

December 7, 2017

Writer and Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King speaks at Amherst College -

December 7, 2017

Tackle the problems facing UMass football, don’t quit on our players

(Jessica Picard/Daily Collegian)

The struggles of the University of Massachusetts football program since entering the Football Bowl Subdivision shouldn’t be a factor in any decision regarding athletic funding. Instead, the debate should center on improving the program and confronting the legitimate issues of keeping athletes safe while moving toward cost effectiveness. These issues need to be addressed for our program to become a successful point of pride for our school. Cutting the football team wouldn’t solve the larger issues that plague the sport. Instead, UMass would waive the white flag and give up on a valuable opportunity to create a successful football program and improve the American cultural institution of football.

The results on the scoreboard should be irrelevant to any decision to fund the team. UMass shouldn’t send the message to athletes and to our community that losing should be a determinant of whether or not the school has a team. Our school’s athletes put in extraordinary effort to succeed academically while practicing in and preparing for games. They risk their physical and emotional wellbeing for our entertainment. Win or loss, I respect the effort they make each week. Our pride in UMass football can’t be so shallow as to hinge on wins or losses. Losing isn’t the issue. The problems facing football are medical and financial, and we need to confront those. Cutting the team won’t help us do that.

On the issue of concussions and other injuries, UMass could choose to cut its losses. A few dozen concussions a year would be prevented, but the outcomes for our athletes would be worse, not better. Without a program, the most talented players would transfer to other schools and face the same injury risks. Not only that, but players who transfer are required by the National Collegiate Athletic Association to sit a year on the sidelines before joining the team, which could jeopardize their athletic aspirations and would put a hurdle in the way of graduating.

UMass only ascended from FBS Division II in 2012. Five years isn’t enough time to judge the program’s ability to become a contender and attract significant benefits for the rest of the school and the community. Public schools like the University of Michigan and the University of Texas have built successful programs, but they weren’t powerhouses overnight. Those communities made significant investments and dealt with poor performance on the field for a long time. Eventually, the investment paid off and the football teams attract countless students and accolades to the schools. Programs of that nature might be decades away, but if UMass can make the leap to resemble even the University of Connecticut or the University of North Carolina on the field, the benefits of funding the football team would be more apparent.

Tailgates should also be considered. UMass students love tailgating, even if they don’t support the product on the field. Any student who shows up to party while advocating for ending football at UMass must deal with this contradiction.

Those who favor cutting the program want to benefit from the entertainment provided by the players, but they don’t want to pay for it or tackle the tough questions of injuries and the outcomes for players. UMass should fix the program, not quit just because we’re down 28-3.

William Keve is a Collegian columnist and can be reached at wkeve@umass.edu.

Comments
2 Responses to “Tackle the problems facing UMass football, don’t quit on our players”
  1. Jennie says:

    Thank you for your support – I couldn’t have said this any better and my husband has worked for the team for 17 years. It’s so easy to spout the same old tired talking points and say we should end the team, but those who do don’t understand what football is really about, both for the players and the university.

  2. SittingBull says:

    UMass should have never stepped up from Division II. There is virtually no football talent in New England and you won’t get any top tier players to come either. Go back to Division II. Football is not necessary for this school, especially with the makeup of an uninterested student body and alumni. Basketball had a moment in the sun back in the 90s, and it is a testament to an extremely charismatic coach that a program can be built from nothing. And even that era only produced one NBA player. Let’s face it, New England is good for leaf-peeping, and outdoor lifestyle and maybe some tech sector jobs. It holds no appeal to anyone that isn’t from here, especially not 18 yo athletes looking to make a mark on the athletic world. Stop throwing good money after bad. What are they trying to prove?

Leave A Comment