Vanderbilt of the Southeastern Conference eliminated the position six years ago...
Vanderbilt eliminated not only the position of athletic director (a savings of about $300,000 per year and who knows how many rounds of golf on the school’s nickel), but also the athletic department, per se. A law professor and vice chancellor of university affairs was put in charge of athletics.
The reason for the radical restructuring was twofold. First, the president and athletic director didn’t see eye to eye. Second, the president thought Vanderbilt athletes were being insulated from the rest of the student body and were missing out on the college experience.
So, one might ask, does UNLV even need a traditional athletic director or should it follow a new business model for athletics?
Friday, July 24, 2009
Sun proposes cost-saving reform for UNLV
The Las Vegas Sun sports columnist Ron Kantowski asks a good question: "Does UNLV need an Athletics Director?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The actual title of the article is "Does UNLV need an athletic DIRECTOR" not "department."
ReplyDeleteArticle questions the value of eliminating the athletic director position, not altletics altogether.
Not eliminating athletics but the article does point out that Vanderbilt effectively eliminated the Athletics Department as a separate branch of the university, integrating the student-athletes and the administration of the programs into the main structures of the University.
ReplyDeleteAnyway your point is correct about the title of the Sun column so I changed the title of the post.
ReplyDelete