|
Post by nodak651 on May 28, 2024 9:07:10 GMT -6
This’ll be the final nail in the coffin for a lot of schools athletic departments unless somehow smaller schools can break off into a new format where they don’t have to pay. I can’t imagine schools like Western Illinois, Omaha or Kansas City lasting long if they have to shell out an extra 2-3 hundred grand a year on top of their already strained budgets. Heck even North Dakota has budget issues, granted they have big donors though. I disagree though on I do think the state will get involved for the SD schools. While it was the universities decisions the overall public sentiment has changed over the last 20 years. Everyone can see that the move up has brought great attention, revenue and recognition to the schools and state. Legislators would be dumb not to intervene on some level as if they choose to just sit back this could change all of that. How do you figure UND has budget issues? Always looking for more money, like anyone, don't get me wrong. But UND isn't in a position where we are looking to make cut's to anything, as far as I'm aware. UNO actually does pretty well for themselves. They have a 25 million dollar budget despite only generating 12 million from institutional support and student fees (combined). i.postimg.cc/Dz3b5Fxk/delete1.jpgi.postimg.cc/RFFCLDxx/delete12.jpgInteresting thing about this settlement, is that it really kind of screws over the MVFC almost more than anyone. The amount of money each of the conferences is responsible for is apparently based on historical NCAA payouts (Loyola Final 4 for example). Based on the information that has been leaked out so far, it appears that the MVFC will have more than a million dollars withheld than the Summit, annually. This is at a time when the MVC is essentially transitioning to a one bid league, and conference championship attendance between the two conferences is starting to converge (MVC trending downward). The MVC schools also seem to have, on average, much worse enrollment issues, as well as smaller athletic budgets for the most part. It will be interesting to see if they will be able to continue funding their basketball programs as they have in the past - I'm not sure they will be able to absorb these (higher) costs as easily. IF the SL can maintain it's current membership, I think the league overall may actually have the opportunity to gain on the MVC over the next decade or so.
|
|
yote18
Senior Member
Posts: 550
|
Post by yote18 on May 31, 2024 12:40:55 GMT -6
It was no slight at UND just based off of the outside looking in knowledge of how their programs operate. Outside of the hockey program the other programs operate with some low salaries and budgets for a D1 school. All 4 Dakota schools have their share of budgetary struggles, USD included, but I do think if UND was funding all sports to similar levels as the other Dakota schools it would be in the less favorable position.
|
|
|
Post by nodak651 on May 31, 2024 22:27:47 GMT -6
This’ll be the final nail in the coffin for a lot of schools athletic departments unless somehow smaller schools can break off into a new format where they don’t have to pay. I can’t imagine schools like Western Illinois, Omaha or Kansas City lasting long if they have to shell out an extra 2-3 hundred grand a year on top of their already strained budgets. Heck even North Dakota has budget issues, granted they have big donors though. I disagree though on I do think the state will get involved for the SD schools. While it was the universities decisions the overall public sentiment has changed over the last 20 years. Everyone can see that the move up has brought great attention, revenue and recognition to the schools and state. Legislators would be dumb not to intervene on some level as if they choose to just sit back this could change all of that. How do you figure UND has budget issues? Always looking for more money, like anyone, don't get me wrong. But UND isn't in a position where we are looking to make cut's to anything, as far as I'm aware. UNO actually does pretty well for themselves. They have a 25 million dollar budget despite only generating 12 million from institutional support and student fees (combined). i.postimg.cc/Dz3b5Fxk/delete1.jpgi.postimg.cc/RFFCLDxx/delete12.jpgInteresting thing about this settlement, is that it really kind of screws over the MVFC almost more than anyone. The amount of money each of the conferences is responsible for is apparently based on historical NCAA payouts (Loyola Final 4 for example). Based on the information that has been leaked out so far, it appears that the MVFC will have more than a million dollars withheld than the Summit, annually. This is at a time when the MVC is essentially transitioning to a one bid league, and conference championship attendance between the two conferences is starting to converge (MVC trending downward). The MVC schools also seem to have, on average, much worse enrollment issues, as well as smaller athletic budgets for the most part. It will be interesting to see if they will be able to continue funding their basketball programs as they have in the past - I'm not sure they will be able to absorb these (higher) costs as easily. IF the SL can maintain it's current membership, I think the league overall may actually have the opportunity to gain on the MVC over the next decade or so. Oops. Meant mvc not mvfc
|
|
|
Post by nodak651 on May 31, 2024 22:43:09 GMT -6
It was no slight at UND just based off of the outside looking in knowledge of how their programs operate. Outside of the hockey program the other programs operate with some low salaries and budgets for a D1 school. All 4 Dakota schools have their share of budgetary struggles, USD included, but I do think if UND was funding all sports to similar levels as the other Dakota schools it would be in the less favorable position. Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Jul 24, 2024 11:53:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Jul 24, 2024 11:56:58 GMT -6
I could be wrong, but Title IX is about participation numbers, not # athletes on scholarship. So in non-revenue sports, we could see less full scholarships going out? IDK
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Jul 24, 2024 12:06:11 GMT -6
Also: 15 roster limits for both Men's and Women's BB.
This is a positive change for men's BB (13 scholarships now). Looks like our WBB roster might be one over. Wonder if they will grandfather it?
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Jul 24, 2024 12:16:06 GMT -6
Looks like it won't go into effect this coming season. Applying to the 2025-26 season. But, coaches will probably be using it to get some "greyshirt" walk-ons now, I would guess.
|
|
|
Post by captaincoyote on Jul 24, 2024 13:24:31 GMT -6
I don’t like it. This will benefit big schools majorly (who don’t need the help) and have a trickle down effect to smaller schools. Nebraska and Creighton can now offer more of the state’s top volleyball players a scholarship leading them to consider us and Omaha less. Same with Iowa and Iowa State with football players. Granted, athletes will still look to transfer out for playing time, but we currently make our bread with recruits that are just on the cusp of major DI offers.
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Jul 24, 2024 13:45:25 GMT -6
I don’t like it. This will benefit big schools majorly (who don’t need the help) and have a trickle down effect to smaller schools. Nebraska and Creighton can now offer more of the state’s top volleyball players a scholarship leading them to consider us and Omaha less. Same with Iowa and Iowa State with football players. Granted, athletes will still look to transfer out for playing time, but we currently make our bread with recruits that are just on the cusp of major DI offers. Yeah, I agree that overall it primarily helps the "haves", meaning big schools. In most sports. On the other hand, in VB and WBB we are the haves as it relates to our conference-mates. Also: there will be a net increase in scholarship opportunities in men's BB, VB and Softball, all are high-participation sports for youth. Maybe there will be less overall scholarship opportunities in Olympic non-revenue sports, though, as smaller schools have to cut sports they can't afford. That's not good. Hopefully there will be some analysis if this by folks smarter than me about the implications of this.
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Jul 29, 2024 9:21:05 GMT -6
As predicted, the details for roster limits came out on Friday. Here's a Yahoo article on it: sports.yahoo.com/new-college-sports-roster-limits-revealed-as-house-settlement-expands-scholarship-numbers-210542040.htmland the list of sports and limits: Sport Sex Old limit New limit Increase
Tumbling Women .............14 55 41 Baseball Men ................11.7 34 22.3 Basketball Men .....13 15 2 Basketball Women 15 15 0
Beach volleyball Women ....6 19 13 Bowling Women ...............5 11 6 Cross country Men .........5 17 12 Cross country Women ....6 17 11
Equestrian Women ...........15 50 35 Fencing Men ...................4.5 24 19.5 Fencing Women .................5 24 19 Field hockey Women .........12 27 15 Football Men ........85 105 20Golf Men .........................4.5 9 4.5 Golf Women .....................6 9 3Gym Men .......................6.3 20 13.7 Gym Women ....................12 20 8 Ice hockey Men ................18 26 8 Ice hockey Women ...........18 26 8 Track Men .................12.6 45 35.4 Track Women ...............18 45 27
Lacrosse Men ...............12.6 48 35.4 Lacrosse Women .............12 38 26 Rifle Both ......................3.6 12 8.4 Rowing Women ...............20 68 48 Skiing Men ....................6.3 16 9.7 Skiing Women ..................7 16 9 Soccer Men ...................9.9 28 18.1 Soccer Women ............14 28 14 Softball Women ..........12 25 13
Stunt Both .....................14 65 51 Swim Men ...................9.9 30 20.1 Swim Women ..............14 30 16
Tennis Men ...................4.5 10 5.5 Tennis Women ..............8 10 2 Triathlon Women........6.5 14 7.5
Volleyball Men ...............4.5 18 13.5 Volleyball Women 12 18 6
Water polo Men .............4.5 24 19.5 Water polo Women ...........8 24 16 Wrestling Men ...............9.9 30 20.1 Wrestling Women ...........10 30 20
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Jul 29, 2024 9:27:34 GMT -6
I can't imagine this will help mid major programs trying to be competitive in sports like track& field or swimming/diving, with the exponential increase in roster limits. Smaller schools might have to drop some non-revenue sports and just focus on stuff that fans show up for. I could maybe see USD putting more resources into Pole Vault, and less into other track events? Schools will have to prioritize.
|
|
|
Post by captaincoyote on Jul 29, 2024 10:55:24 GMT -6
One other thing I’ve seen in response to this is that being allowed to offer more scholarships doesn’t mean schools are able to do so. Title IX also still needs to be followed. However, I think you’re right in that athletic departments are going to strategically take advantage of this to go “all in” on sports they already do well in - especially if those sports are profitable.
On the other hand, end of bench players are still going to look for other opportunities even if they are on scholarship.
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Jul 29, 2024 12:23:40 GMT -6
All you need to know is this quote:
"But not all programs can afford to add so many additional scholarships. Some administrators are in the process of “tiering” their sports by decreasing investment on certain programs and increasing investment in others. This includes staff and salary cuts as well as the reduction in scholarships from Olympic sports, especially those that generate little to no revenue."
One would think the P4 schools with their resources would fund all their sports offerings to the max, but I don't think they will. I just look at ice hockey and schools like Iowa, Nebraska, Northwestern, Maryland, and Illinois. For years there has been a need for Big Ten hockey to have more conference schools offer the sport. Yet, schools like Iowa and Nebraska, who have an arena there and ready to go (Iowa-Coralville Arena, Nebraska-Pinnacle Bank) have not added the sport citing cost as a reason. Don't kid yourself, they could afford to add the sport, one which would be at least revenue neutral to revenue positive. They just didn't want to add the sport.
Well, the same thing is about to happen to sports offerings all across the board. Just because they offer them, doesn't mean they will fully fund them, especially non-revenue sports. People assume this will be a good thing and will result in more scholarships and more opportunities. I think it will mean the death of some sports at schools as they try to optimize their sports offerings in order to compete, and it will mean a reduction in scholarship opportunities in those sports that are non-revenue as schools are no longer required to offer a minimum.
There are only about 20 schools in the country whose AD is revenue positive. Do people actually think the rest of the schools can max out scholarships now?
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Jul 30, 2024 13:54:31 GMT -6
Comparing Summit 2025 Rosters vs new limits:
Men's Basketball 12scholarships to 15roster
2025 rosters SDSU ...14 UND ....16** KC .......13 UST .....16 NDSU ...15 Omaha 16 Denver 16 ORU .....15 USD ....16
**2024 roster
trimmed mean* = 15.4
Women's Basketball 15 scholarships to 15roster
2025 rosters SDSU ..15 UND ....15 KC .......8 UST ....16 NDSU ..13 Omaha 14 Denver 15 ORU ....14 USD ...16
trimmed mean* = 14.6
Women's Volleyball 12 scholarships to 18 roster
2024 rosters SDSU ..15 UND ....16 KC .......9 UST ....19 NDSU ..15 Omaha 18 Denver 15 ORU ....16 USD ....16
trimmed mean* =15.8
*(average with removed outliers)
|
|