|
Post by kiyoat on Jul 9, 2018 9:10:03 GMT -6
This is a valid strategy/idea, but it is far from simple. Due to Title IX USD would have to add another women's sport as well (plus the facilities and coaching staff). Division I baseball has a scholarship limit of 11.7, so here are a few NCAA-sponsored women's sports that have a similar number of scholarships: Field Hockey Gymnastics Lacrosse Rugby www.scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.htmlIf the alternative is the Summit not having a MBB auto bid, what is the best choice? I would start women's lacrosse to offset the added baseball scholarships. Growing sport in the region, MSP is full of lacrosse recruits. After a very brief look, Most of these sports would require a good deal of travel. There aren't many schools that sponsor those sports in the upper mid-west/great plains. Rugby is an "NCAA emerging sport" just like Women's Triathlon that we just added. That means few teams and no guarantee of the future, but there might be some financial assistance to add the sport. Field Hockey requires a huge field. Gymnastics would require some indoor facilities that might cost a lot. Lacrosse is interesting. The field is similar in size to a soccer field. Denver plays in the Big East. UND has discussed starting it. Despite very few programs in the area, it is a natural compliment to Ice Hockey, and is popular in Canada and wherever Hockey is played. It is seen as a good "off-season" sport for Hockey players. Surprisingly, Minnesota has no Division 1 teams, and Only Marquette in Wisconsin. I've heard it described as a growing sport, though. Maybe it's just a matter of time.
|
|
|
Post by easmus on Jul 9, 2018 9:12:49 GMT -6
Title IX question. If USD was to add baseball, hypothetically,could they simply add the appropriate number of scholarships needed for existing women’s sports rather than start a new program? I know wbb has a couple walk-ons. What about soccer, soccer, swimming, track? That has to be cheaper than starting another program and hiring a coach, travel, etc.
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Jul 9, 2018 9:57:37 GMT -6
Title IX question. If USD was to add baseball, hypothetically,could they simply add the appropriate number of scholarships needed for existing women’s sports rather than start a new program? I know wbb has a couple walk-ons. What about soccer, soccer, swimming, track? That has to be cheaper than starting another program and hiring a coach, travel, etc. Possibly. I'm not sure. I know that Football Walk-ons affect the "participation" requirement for Title IX, meaning that if you want to increase your walk-on program, you have to add women's sport "participation" as well. The ratio of "participation" must match the male/female ratio of your campus. The money that goes out towards scholarships is a separate requirement, and must match the participation ratio. That means that the total amount paid to men and women must be equivalent to that ratio. I think there can be some fine-tuning of this and gamesmanship regarding the partial-scholarships given out in "equivalancy" sports (as opposed to full-scholarship head-count sports like basketball) To add to the complexity, the scholarship limits set by the NCAA are completely separate from Title IX requirements, and can make it difficult for Athletic Directors to comply. The limits also can be out-of-touch with the reality of the changes in popularity of different sports. Here's an article from 2012 that discusses this problem: www.espn.com/espnw/title-ix/article/7959799/the-silent-enemy-men-sportsSo, possibly. If you add a Men's Baseball team with full scholarships (you could do partial scholarships, too), then you would have to add to the "participation" on the women's side (either walk-ons or scholarship players) as well as adding scholarship money. For the money you could increase partial scholarships in any sports that you are not fully funded, but NCAA limits don't give much flexibility there if you already pay the maximum.
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Jul 9, 2018 10:16:26 GMT -6
Title IX question. If USD was to add baseball, hypothetically,could they simply add the appropriate number of scholarships needed for existing women’s sports rather than start a new program? I know wbb has a couple walk-ons. What about soccer, soccer, swimming, track? That has to be cheaper than starting another program and hiring a coach, travel, etc. Possibly. I'm not sure. I know that Football Walk-ons affect the "participation" requirement for Title IX, meaning that if you want to increase your walk-on program, you have to add women's sport "participation" as well. The ratio of "participation" must match the male/female ratio of your campus.The money that goes out towards scholarships is a separate requirement, and must match the participation ratio. That means that the total amount paid to men and women must be equivalent to that ratio. I think there can be some fine-tuning of this and gamesmanship regarding the partial-scholarships given out in "equivalancy" sports (as opposed to full-scholarship head-count sports like basketball) To add to the complexity, the scholarship limits set by the NCAA are completely separate from Title IX requirements, and can make it difficult for Athletic Directors to comply. The limits also can be out-of-touch with the reality of the changes in popularity of different sports. Here's an article from 2012 that discusses this problem: www.espn.com/espnw/title-ix/article/7959799/the-silent-enemy-men-sportsSo, possibly. If you add a Men's Baseball team with full scholarships (you could do partial scholarships, too), then you would have to add to the "participation" on the women's side (either walk-ons or scholarship players) as well as adding scholarship money. For the money you could increase partial scholarships in any sports that you are not fully funded, but NCAA limits don't give much flexibility there if you already pay the maximum. As far as this goes, I have some ideas to fix this. There needs to be something done with recruitment and admissions to get more males on the USD campus. This isn't just a USD thing either, it's a nationwide issue. More women than men are getting college degrees. Young men are not seeing the value in education. There needs to be some affirmative action type stuff done to get more men attending college and getting degrees. Getting out of balance in one way or the other is never a good idea. It's great that more women are getting degrees but it's going to become a societal issue down the road if we have a large percentage of males without a college education.
|
|
|
Post by easmus on Jul 9, 2018 10:25:07 GMT -6
Could just be a market correction where more males are getting back into tech schools as there is a tremendous need for skilled labor right now. Especially in our region.
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Jul 9, 2018 10:27:26 GMT -6
It's been talked about for many years. Do some Google searches on boys in school, males going to college, etc. There is some serious concern out there that we're going to have some big issues down the road.
|
|
|
Post by elcoyote on Jul 9, 2018 12:02:38 GMT -6
Title IX question. If USD was to add baseball, hypothetically,could they simply add the appropriate number of scholarships needed for existing women’s sports rather than start a new program? I know wbb has a couple walk-ons. What about soccer, soccer, swimming, track? That has to be cheaper than starting another program and hiring a coach, travel, etc. Possibly. I'm not sure. I know that Football Walk-ons affect the "participation" requirement for Title IX, meaning that if you want to increase your walk-on program, you have to add women's sport "participation" as well. The ratio of "participation" must match the male/female ratio of your campus. The money that goes out towards scholarships is a separate requirement, and must match the participation ratio. That means that the total amount paid to men and women must be equivalent to that ratio. I think there can be some fine-tuning of this and gamesmanship regarding the partial-scholarships given out in "equivalancy" sports (as opposed to full-scholarship head-count sports like basketball) To add to the complexity, the scholarship limits set by the NCAA are completely separate from Title IX requirements, and can make it difficult for Athletic Directors to comply. The limits also can be out-of-touch with the reality of the changes in popularity of different sports. Here's an article from 2012 that discusses this problem: www.espn.com/espnw/title-ix/article/7959799/the-silent-enemy-men-sportsSo, possibly. If you add a Men's Baseball team with full scholarships (you could do partial scholarships, too), then you would have to add to the "participation" on the women's side (either walk-ons or scholarship players) as well as adding scholarship money. For the money you could increase partial scholarships in any sports that you are not fully funded, but NCAA limits don't give much flexibility there if you already pay the maximum. Really interesting article. I would think some of these guidelines would be logistical nightmares to comply with, but a lot of what the author stated made sense and the charts were eye opening. 15 scholarships for equestrian? I didn't realize it was that an expensive of a sport to offer. I wonder just how much of State's athletic budget that gobbles up?
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Jul 9, 2018 13:02:10 GMT -6
Really interesting article. I would think some of these guidelines would be logistical nightmares to comply with, but a lot of what the author stated made sense and the charts were eye opening. 15 scholarships for equestrian? I didn't realize it was that an expensive of a sport to offer. I wonder just how much of State's athletic budget that gobbles up? About $595,000. Similar spending to their golf (combined),baseball, swimming (combined) and soccer programs. www.sdbor.edu/administrative-offices/finance-administration/Documents/FY17AthleticReport.pdfI don't know if they are running at fully-funded scholarships, though. You can be under the limit.
|
|
dave
Sophomore Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by dave on Jul 9, 2018 13:15:27 GMT -6
Really interesting article. I would think some of these guidelines would be logistical nightmares to comply with, but a lot of what the author stated made sense and the charts were eye opening. 15 scholarships for equestrian? I didn't realize it was that an expensive of a sport to offer. I wonder just how much of State's athletic budget that gobbles up? About $595,000. Similar spending to their golf (combined),baseball, swimming (combined) and soccer programs. www.sdbor.edu/administrative-offices/finance-administration/Documents/FY17AthleticReport.pdfI don't know if they are running at fully-funded scholarships, though. You can be under the limit. Check out the amount spent on equestrian the previous years I want to say at one time it was the second most funded sport next to football, YIKES!!!
|
|
|
Post by elcoyote on Jul 9, 2018 13:44:03 GMT -6
That's crazy! How many people even participate in equestrian? I imagine horses are expensive.
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Jul 9, 2018 13:57:39 GMT -6
Check out the amount spent on equestrian the previous years I want to say at one time it was the second most funded sport next to football, YIKES!!! www.sdbor.edu/administrative-offices/finance-administration/annual-reports/Pages/Athletic-Funding-Reports.aspx2012 $960k - likely the 3rd most expensive behind Football and MBB (they combine MBB and WBB in the report) 2013 $940 2014 $904 2015 $970 2016 $621 2017 $595 Interesting. Something happened after 2015 to make the sport less expensive. Maybe the facilities you guys built in 2008 got paid off? A change in coaching? or some kind of donation/ scholarship fund set up? scholarship reductions? Could be anything. Not a cheap sport, but it seems to be doing fine.
|
|
|
Post by Yotes on Jul 9, 2018 17:37:34 GMT -6
This whole discussion is one big exhibition in why the Summit League isn't built to last. The lifeblood of the conference is somehow dependent on fielding baseball teams, and here is what we've got:
ORU - Southern school that already left the conference once WIU - Concerns of the school going bankrupt UNO - Applied for Horizon and MVC membership recently IPFW - Lone EST member and ready to take first opportunity to join any other conference NDSU - Dependable member SDSU - Dependable member
The only D1 member anyone can bring up as a possible addition is UMKC, which has no baseball. USD could maybe find a way to add baseball and offset the loss of one of those schools. UND is absolutely not going to add baseball so soon after cutting it due to budget concerns.
So then we turn to developing the conference using the surrounding area. We go back to playing Augustana, Mankato, St Cloud, etc. But do any of them actually want to go D1? Do we really want to go back to just playing regional schools instead of striving for something bigger? We're going over $100 million in facility improvements at the D1 level soon. Did we do that to play in high school level facilities for every road game?
If I could turn back the clock I would have just joined the Big Sky from the onset. I derided UND for so long but I think they had the right idea all along. I doubt they'd take us now, and the MVC/Horizon aren't interested, so where does that leave us? Adding a sport for short-term survival's sake or hoping inferior competition will associate with us. Great.
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Jul 10, 2018 8:16:11 GMT -6
UND is not historically a strong football program in D1. I would admit they were "The Augi" of the Big Sky even winning the weak side with a weak schedule once. So yes they are competitive but not strong. Let me clairify a bit, I didn't say the Ralph was a liability rather it wasn't a gift. I said they were paying for it and it is taking resources out of the athletic budgets including ticket revenues. I had read the negotiation with the ralph was complete and nothing material changed. I really dont know. Playing non scholarship football in the Summit certainly wouldnt take UND out of the running of a strong conference program. They would still be in the Summit and they would still be competing with the The Dakota Big 3. After all isnt Davis a non scholarship? UND has better football attendance than USD UND has a better all time record than USD UND leads USD head to head 61–30–5 UND has a better stadium UND has a better practice facility UND has more conference titles than USD UND has actually won a national championship. GTFO with the "Big 3" Aldewit is a Bison fan, FYI. He's really The only one denigrating UND on here.
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Jul 10, 2018 8:17:53 GMT -6
I'm sure if he were posting on the Jacks board it would be the "big two" instead.
|
|
|
Post by nodak651 on Jul 10, 2018 8:18:48 GMT -6
UND has better football attendance than USD UND has a better all time record than USD UND leads USD head to head 61–30–5 UND has a better stadium UND has a better practice facility UND has more conference titles than USD UND has actually won a national championship. GTFO with the "Big 3" Aldewit is a Bison fan, FYI. He's really The only one denigrating UND on here. Probably Lakes. Just deleted the post.
|
|