SiouxVolley Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 This won't happen, but it should. Right now the Big Sky requires men's and women's tennis. Men's tennis maxes out at 4.5 scholarships, while women's tennis maxes out at 8 scholarships. Both bring in zero revenue and require facilities that are not duplicated elsewhere. Furthermore, to have a good team, foreign players are almost required. So most of the Big Sky schools are bringing in foreign players to field tennis teams that nobody cares about anyway and that don't generate revenue. What is the sense of that? Contrast that with volleyball for beach volleyball women and court volleyball for men. Beach volleyball could be a facilities problem for some Big Sky schools, but men's court volleyball is not. Beach volleyball has reduced scholarships if a court team exists. Men's volleyball has a maximum of 4.5 scholarships. Both would bring in much more revenue and concessions than tennis. Both are winter to spring sports. Men's volleyball is HS sanctioned in almost 20 states. Canada is a big producer, as much of a men's team must be 6'6 or greater height. Loyola of Chicago and Ohio State were recent champions, so non California teams can break through and win. The only DI league to sponsor men's volleyball is the Big West, which just made it official by adding UC San Diego, which is going DI. Most DI men's volleyball schools are in a sport specific conference. Since DII doesn't sponsor it, DII teams play DI. Conference Carolinas sponsors it and gets players from all over, including Canada, Puerto Rico, Europe, Brazil, etc. It has a much more enthusiastic college crowd than tennis does. Previously mentioned beach volleyball elsewhere. The Big Sky has limited spectator sports, especially in the spring. Going all in on volleyball would be one way to remedy that situation. Recognize that this won't happen for years if at all, but it makes facilities, scholarship, and fan experience sense. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux>Bison Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 How about the big sky drop all sports that do not bring in fans? I'm tired of seeing dollars spent on sports that have no attendance and bring no revenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxVolley Posted June 3, 2016 Author Share Posted June 3, 2016 17 hours ago, Sioux>Bison said: How about the big sky drop all sports that do not bring in fans? I'm tired of seeing dollars spent on sports that have no attendance and bring no revenue. Track and field and xcountry don't bring in many spectators either, but at least we have the HPC now and it doesn't require foreign athletes to be competitive. Would advocate men's lax, but Title IX and FBS would make that impossible. Women's lax may be possible. In this day and age of kids with their electronic devices, team sports are more important than ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux>Bison Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 UND does not need anymore sports. Track and xcountry are requires for the big sky so there is no way around that. We need to look into dropping all non revenue sports that don't bring in money or are not a requirement of conference affiliation. We need to drop swimming and diving. Period. I don't care who the assistant athletic director is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 8 hours ago, Sioux>Bison said: UND does not need anymore sports. Track and xcountry are requires for the big sky so there is no way around that. We need to look into dropping all non revenue sports that don't bring in money or are not a requirement of conference affiliation. We need to drop swimming and diving. Period. I don't care who the assistant athletic director is. Has UND ever produced an Olympic swimmer? I know we almost had one a few years ago but she didn't make it. That would free up some cash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDtoGF Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Let all non revenue generators actually fund raise so baseball situation does not duplicate. Not all sports bring in money but we need them for one reason or another ... plus a womens/mens lax team depending on conference would improve UND's market on the east coast,and we could play denver in another sport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxman91 Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 On 6/2/2016 at 11:27 PM, Sioux>Bison said: How about the big sky drop all sports that do not bring in fans? I'm tired of seeing dollars spent on sports that have no attendance and bring no revenue. Well, that brings up a more fundamental question - why do college sports exist at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 36 minutes ago, wxman91 said: Well, that brings up a more fundamental question - why do college sports exist at all? Be careful. I've asked that question before. I've also asked why the NCAA has minimum sport sponsorship numbers. So what if Clarkson wanted to play DI mens hockey and nothing else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux>Bison Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 20 hours ago, MDtoGF said: Let all non revenue generators actually fund raise so baseball situation does not duplicate. Not all sports bring in money but we need them for one reason or another ... plus a womens/mens lax team depending on conference would improve UND's market on the east coast,and we could play denver in another sport. If non revenue sports raise money from private sources to support the team the. I'm all for it. Do we really need a non revenue sport if it is not required by a conference? would adding lacrosse really be worth the cost just to play Denvers and possibly expand our east coast market? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux>Bison Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 4 hours ago, wxman91 said: Well, that brings up a more fundamental question - why do college sports exist at all? Most revenue sports bring notariety to a school and attract potential students. Plus they give students fun games to attend and reinforce school spirit. I see non revenue sports as those used to help comply with title 9. I don't know why conferences mandate certain sports even if they are non revenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux>Bison Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 3 hours ago, The Sicatoka said: Be careful. I've asked that question before. I've also asked why the NCAA has minimum sport sponsorship numbers. So what if Clarkson wanted to play DI mens hockey and nothing else? I see no reason for the NCAA to require that except for them to have more control over a school. I see no harm in having one team or 2 to comply with title 9. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDtoGF Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 On 6/6/2016 at 11:34 AM, Sioux>Bison said: If non revenue sports raise money from private sources to support the team the. I'm all for it. Do we really need a non revenue sport if it is not required by a conference? would adding lacrosse really be worth the cost just to play Denvers and possibly expand our east coast market? yes, would benefit the school as a whole as UND outside of aviation and a few other programs is not a known commodity out here.. do this wait like 10 years when they get good and see them playing a big school in the tourney on ESPN 1 instead of two and you get more exposure.. plus it would bring more students to here,and encourage more UND themed events on the east coast for more than just hockey. 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.