homer Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Women's hockey can't and won't be cut. Baseball doesn't amount to that much and probably isn't worth the hornets nest it would stir up. Travel budgets and coaches salaries for some of these sports could cover a number of $1500 - $2000 stipends. I'm not specifying what sports. I would leave that to the administration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feff Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Women's hockey wouldn't be as much of a budget drain if people actually got off their butts and went out to support it. Realistically, fan support for all sports not hockey is lower than it should be with the possible exception of volleyball. Increase fan attendance to other sports and you'll see revenue increases that will help pay for the stipends and such. However, is it likely that people are going to suddenly get up and go out to more games? Not likely. The one hope is that football becomes competitive and can start filling the Alerus again, that should bring some needed money back into the university to help offset other costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxVolley Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Much to my dismay, I agree that UND likely won't be cutting sports anytime soon. Just curious though, as to why women's hockey CAN'T be cut. UND got along just fine without it until a decade ago or so. Football went from 36 to 63. That is 27 more scholarships. WBB went from 12 to 15. WH added 18. If you drop WH, seems like football awards would have to be cut to DII levels. The Engelstad Foundation has been endowing a couple of women's hockey scholarships a year. Should be tell them to stop and ask them to take the endowments away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Football went from 36 to 63. That is 27 more scholarships. WBB went from 12 to 15. WH added 18. If you drop WH, seems like football awards would have to be cut to DII levels. The Engelstad Foundation has been endowing a couple of women's hockey scholarships a year. Should be tell them to stop and ask them to take the endowments away. We have other women's sports that would gladly use a few more scholarships. I'm also all for keeping women's hockey, I just question coaching salaries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn-O Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Women's hockey wouldn't be as much of a budget drain if people actually got off their butts and went out to support it. Realistically, fan support for all sports not hockey is lower than it should be with the possible exception of volleyball. Increase fan attendance to other sports and you'll see revenue increases that will help pay for the stipends and such. However, is it likely that people are going to suddenly get up and go out to more games? Not likely. The one hope is that football becomes competitive and can start filling the Alerus again, that should bring some needed money back into the university to help offset other costs. Volleyball and WBB are fun products to watch. Women's hockey, not so much. I know that's not the politically correct position to take, but it's the opinion of many. There is little to no growth opportunity there, IMO, regardless of how much they win. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Football went from 36 to 63. That is 27 more scholarships. WBB went from 12 to 15. WH added 18. If you drop WH, seems like football awards would have to be cut to DII levels. The Engelstad Foundation has been endowing a couple of women's hockey scholarships a year. Should be tell them to stop and ask them to take the endowments away. I understand there are title IX implications, and I admit I do not know the numbers in depth. But UND has 19 sports which is more than any Big Sky school, and more than all but one NCHC school. Western Michigan and Miami fund FBS football programs without having women's hockey. To my knowledge soccer, softball, and women's tennis do not have the full allotment of allowable scholarships. I don't know about track & field and cross country. But it seems to me it would be a far better investment to fund these programs to their maximum allowable limit since they are sponsored, and in some cases required, by our primary conference. I know I sound like a broken record, but in my eyes women's hockey and baseball are far bigger liabilities to this University than they are assets. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Women's hockey wouldn't be as much of a budget drain if people actually got off their butts and went out to support it. Realistically, fan support for all sports not hockey is lower than it should be with the possible exception of volleyball. Increase fan attendance to other sports and you'll see revenue increases that will help pay for the stipends and such. However, is it likely that people are going to suddenly get up and go out to more games? Not likely. The one hope is that football becomes competitive and can start filling the Alerus again, that should bring some needed money back into the university to help offset other costs. Attendance is directly tied to winning percentage in my opinion. Volleyball is one of the best programs in the Big Sky and it leads the league in attendance. WBB is one of the best programs in the Big Sky and it is 2nd in the league in attendance. MBB is not good but they are 3rd in the league in attendance. I think the more money that gets invested into every program makes it better, and I think that the programs with the most growth potential are being hampered because we are spread to thin by dumping cash into losing propositions like women's hockey and baseball. Does anyone know the exact dollar amounts budgeted to each individual sport? I could be wrong but if I had to guess I bet it goes: Men's Hockey Football Women's Hockey I think it is ridiculous that this University could realistically be spending more money on women's hockey than it does on basketball, especially MBB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Regarding the whole "stipend" situation in general, I think it is forking ridiculous that a free education is apparently not enough for these student-athletes. The free-education is their payment. What most kids pay $15,000-$25,000 a year for is their salary. If you are currently getting any scholarship money, you are already being paid for your play. And now, to make matters worse we are going to give even more money to the student-athletes that need it the least. More money for those students that are already on scholarship. Nothing for the walk-ons that are working just as hard AND paying their own way. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfhockey Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Cut women's hockey Add a few bucks to Brew Cut men's basetball Solved! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Cut women's hockey Add a few bucks to Brew Cut men's basetball Solved! Why would we cut men's basketball? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the green team Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Why would we cut men's basketball? I think it was his way of cutting both baseball and basketball or baseketball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I think it was his way of cutting both baseball and basketball or baseketball. that's funny! I was confused, because there's no such thing as women's baseball. I mean, there's softball, but that's certainly not baseball. LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlsiouxfan Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Regarding the whole "stipend" situation in general, I think it is forking ridiculous that a free education is apparently not enough for these student-athletes. The free-education is their payment. What most kids pay $15,000-$25,000 a year for is their salary. If you are currently getting any scholarship money, you are already being paid for your play. And now, to make matters worse we are going to give even more money to the student-athletes that need it the least. More money for those students that are already on scholarship. Nothing for the walk-ons that are working just as hard AND paying their own way. I understand this viewpoint, but the P5 schools and the NCAA do not have an option to not start providing full COA. The dynamics for those schools is that they have a large percentage of athletes coming from backgrounds of extreme poverty who are now participating in athletic events that are multi-million dollar revenue generators for the university. The athletes are more or less disallowed from any other outside employment in both the season and off-season and come from families who do not have the luxury to cover additional expenses that their athletic scholarships do not cover. All this creates a situation where boosters and other nefarious individuals will cover those shortfalls underneath the table and in violation of NCAA regulations. This is a situation that would only continue to get worse if not addressed and lead to more and more frequent scandals (Miami, USC, etc.). This is a dynamic that doesn't exist at anywhere near the same extent for FCS football programs or for college hockey programs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I understand this viewpoint, but the P5 schools and the NCAA do not have an option to not start providing full COA. The dynamics for those schools is that they have a large percentage of athletes coming from backgrounds of extreme poverty who are now participating in athletic events that are multi-million dollar revenue generators for the university. The athletes are more or less disallowed from any other outside employment in both the season and off-season and come from families who do not have the luxury to cover additional expenses that their athletic scholarships do not cover. All this creates a situation where boosters and other nefarious individuals will cover those shortfalls underneath the table and in violation of NCAA regulations. This is a situation that would only continue to get worse if not addressed and lead to more and more frequent scandals (Miami, USC, etc.). This is a dynamic that doesn't exist at anywhere near the same extent for FCS football programs or for college hockey programs. The rule has changed and they are not disallowed. They can have jobs that fit their schedules if they need them or want to get them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkster Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Cut women's hockey Add a few bucks to Brew Cut men's basetball Solved! Get sued for discrimination Get another PR black eye in the media Not solved! Just made worse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 The rule has changed and they are not disallowed. They can have jobs that fit their schedules if they need them or want to get them. That was my understanding. This whole stipend thing seems like an entry level welfare program to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 That was my understanding. This whole stipend thing seems like an entry level welfare program to me. The stipends are a result of the mad money being made at the highest levels of FBS and D-I Men's Basketball. The problem is that smaller schools (FCS and mid-major MBB) will be budget crunched by this. Perhaps this will trigger that long-awaited realignment for NCAA football? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I understand this viewpoint, but the P5 schools and the NCAA do not have an option to not start providing full COA. The dynamics for those schools is that they have a large percentage of athletes coming from backgrounds of extreme poverty who are now participating in athletic events that are multi-million dollar revenue generators for the university. The athletes are more or less disallowed from any other outside employment in both the season and off-season and come from families who do not have the luxury to cover additional expenses that their athletic scholarships do not cover. All this creates a situation where boosters and other nefarious individuals will cover those shortfalls underneath the table and in violation of NCAA regulations. This is a situation that would only continue to get worse if not addressed and lead to more and more frequent scandals (Miami, USC, etc.). This is a dynamic that doesn't exist at anywhere near the same extent for FCS football programs or for college hockey programs. What about the kid who is working 2 jobs while trying to pay for his school, books, room and board, etc and down the hall the starting running back for the football team doen't have to pay for any of those because it is covered under scholorship. I get it that football demands are high and these kids don't have time for a part time job as well as going to class. But they are getting their education paid. And its not like the season lasts all year. Can't these kids get jobs in the summer like every other college kid does? So their scholorships might not cover books other stuff. Get a job in the summer to cover the couple hundred bucks you need to have for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 What about the kid who is working 2 jobs while trying to pay for his school, books, room and board, etc and down the hall the starting running back for the football team doen't have to pay for any of those because it is covered under scholorship. I get it that football demands are high and these kids don't have time for a part time job as well as going to class. But they are getting their education paid. And its not like the season lasts all year. Can't these kids get jobs in the summer like every other college kid does? So their scholorships might not cover books other stuff. Get a job in the summer to cover the couple hundred bucks you need to have for that. I thought we wanted all these kids to be lifting weights every single day during the summer? We can't have it both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlsiouxfan Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 What about the kid who is working 2 jobs while trying to pay for his school, books, room and board, etc and down the hall the starting running back for the football team doen't have to pay for any of those because it is covered under scholorship. I get it that football demands are high and these kids don't have time for a part time job as well as going to class. But they are getting their education paid. And its not like the season lasts all year. Can't these kids get jobs in the summer like every other college kid does? So their scholorships might not cover books other stuff. Get a job in the summer to cover the couple hundred bucks you need to have for that. At the P5 school level, the season isn't over in the summer. At most P5 universities there are player led two a days and film studies that go on all summer long in addition to "optional" off-season workouts. These are optional in name only as the coaches definitely know who is and is not in attendance. This does not leave time for a job in the off-season, other than "no-show" jobs provided by boosters which is one of the underneath the table ways these athletes are being compensated right now. It sucks for the students who's working two jobs to pay for school, but the fact of the matter is that someone is going to compensate that student-athlete for his efforts. This is just the NCAA finally admitting that they'd prefer it be the universities themselves as opposed to the Nevin Shapiro's and Luther Vandrosses of the world. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 TOM MILLER: The arms race is about to begin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I thought we wanted all these kids to be lifting weights every single day during the summer? We can't have it both ways. There are more than 8 hours in a day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammersmith Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Thanks for the information. My thought on this is that on legislation that is permissive in nature, like this legislation, saying it is permissive on the rest of Division I is not much different than saying it's binding on the rest. The bottom line is that P5 just significantly increased the cap on scholarship costs and the rest of Division I had no say in it. If you're a school of an FCS school that will likely do this (NDSU), I can see why you wouldn't want FCS, or your conference, to forbid you from doing it. You may be right that any FCS or conference restriction is doubtful. But I'm curious why you think that. It seems to me there are far more FCS schools that don't want to increase their scholarship costs than those that do. Why is a vote forbidding it so unlikely? I'm not disputing your opinion really, just curious on why you think it. I just don't think there's the will to do so. When autonomy was passed, only either 27 or 37 schools wrote back against the idea. That's of over 330 schools. I think FCS schools that don't want the stipend will use conferences to limit its use rather than FCS as a whole. The schools from the bottom or non-playoff conferences don't care; they're not going to win the NC anyway(Ivy, SWAC, MEAC, PL, PFL). The top conferences will be in favor of stipends because if they are opposed, it will only hasten their best schools leaving for FBS(MVFC, BSky, CAA, SC, SLC). And the middle conferences aren't enough to swing any vote(OVC, BSouth). But I've been wrong before and I'll likely be wrong many times in the future. I will say that if FGIA are disallowed by the FCS, you're going to see another mass movement of top FCS schools moving to the FBS. And NDSU will be at the front of the group. We've spent the last decade becoming an G5 school in all but name; being restricted to regular GIA levels would be a giant step backwards. Just my opinion. And homer was right, our AD is misunderstanding some things right now. To be a tiny bit fair, only the P5 representatives were in the room during the discussion and voting, and most of what came out of the meeting was hearsay. It took me about three days of looking before I finally stumbled across the links I posted earlier. And he wasn't the only AD to get things wrong. I read an article from Missouri's AD that was completely wrong about proportionality in regards to stipends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlsiouxfan Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 It's pretty obvious from Faison's comments that the plan is to fund the stipends for men's hockey and probably women's hockey and then nothing else. More of the crap thinking that has gotten this athletic department in the hole it's in. Do we really need to fund the stipend for men's hockey? Outside of the Big Ten programs, I don't see really any other schools in college hockey funding the stipend for their hockey programs. If anything, I see a few dropping the sport altogether to fund stipends elsewhere. Furthermore, why do we want to get in a hockey arms race against Big Ten schools that we will ultimately lose, as opposed to entering into a winnable arms race with our regional peer universities (NDSU, SDSU, USD)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 TOM MILLER: The arms race is about to begin I know that the information is really limited and cloudy right now but I wish there would have been more to that article. Not even sure what but it seemed lacking. Maybe throwing out some current UND budget numbers or something. Though with the subsidy stuff, probably not the direction to go either. I am at least glad that they are writing about it. It is going to be an absolutely massive issue and I know UND is looking at every possible way so that they are able to stay competitive. FCS is currently the biggest domino and there are a lot more have-nots than haves at this point and that could play a very instrumental part in what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.