President Kennedy Message on Athletics

[northernraider]

wish the public could have pleaded there case too. I would be a plus 1 for women's tennis. Their practices at Choice Wellness makes my workouts a lot easier to handle!

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

10 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

I thought something similar until I started looking into the numbers. Volleyball is the first one I thought of. Back of the napkin example (and again there are a lot more factors than this): Men's hockey is likely in the top 10% of funding, if not higher. That would mean VB would need to be top 30 in spending in D-1. That would require UND to spend around $1.6 million+ on volleyball, which means UND would need to add almost $1 million to its volleyball budget. The only issue is that Volleyball is 12 scholarships and MIH is 18, so you still need to find another (smaller) sport to fund at a higher level to get the proportionality down.

If you wanted to do basketball, the WBB budget would likely need to be around $3.8 million, which is an increase of over $2.5 million (and you still might be short a couple scholarships, but maybe close enough at 18 and 15).

This makes it clear that it is possible to eliminate women's hockey, it probably just won't save the amount of money that everyone (myself included) thinks/hopes it would in the grand scheme of things. And again, it still doesn't prevent WIH from a)having their budget accurately reflect what they are getting and b)looking at taking a little bit of haircut once the accurate numbers are figured.

If Pres. Kennedy would of went through this taught process, he wouldn't need the IAC, and had it all figured out. Having said that, you bring up a very good point which may be one of the many reasons to keep WH.

[jdub27]

53 minutes ago, fightingsioux4life said:

What about Division I Men's Hockey schools who don't sponsor Women's Hockey? Why aren't they in Title IX purgatory?

How many of those schools support their men's hockey program at the very top? My guess is not many and it doesn't take a lot to fall to the middle level of support once you factor in the B1G schools and a handful of the NCHC and Hockey East schools. Once you are in the middle, my guess is it is just one big gray area. When you are in the top 10%, it is a lot harder to blend in.

[The Sicatoka]

43 minutes ago, UND-1 said:

Those two don't travel to expensive locations or need more budget when it comes to recruiting, etc?

Do soccer or softball have top tier facilities like men's hockey does? What more could be done for WBB or VB on that front? I can't prove it, but I'm quite sure that is a big reason women's hockey gets the prime, top tier treatment -- no additional facilities investments need be made. And facilities (construction and cost of ownership) are a big expense. 

The example give by jdub spells it out pretty well. 

[UND-1]

26 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

I thought something similar until I started looking into the numbers. Volleyball is the first one I thought of. Back of the napkin example (and again there are a lot more factors than this): Men's hockey is likely in the top 10% of funding, if not higher. That would mean VB would need to be top 30 in spending in D-1. That would require UND to spend around $1.6 million+ on volleyball, which means UND would need to add almost $1 million to its volleyball budget. The only issue is that Volleyball is 12 scholarships and MIH is 18, so you still need to find another (smaller) sport to fund at a higher level to get the proportionality down.

If you wanted to do basketball, the WBB budget would likely need to be around $3.8 million, which is an increase of over $2.5 million (and you still might be short a couple scholarships, but maybe close enough at 18 and 15).

This makes it clear that it is definitely possible to eliminate women's hockey, but it probably doesn't save the amount of money that everyone (myself included) thinks/hopes it would in the grand scheme of things. And again, this is all separate from the fact that WIH needs to a)have a budget accurately reflects what they are getting and b)looking at taking a little bit of haircut once the accurate numbers are figured.

What sport is NDSU spending "football-type" money/facilities on for their women?

[Oxbow6]

Just now, UND-1 said:

What sport is NDSU spending "football-type" money on for their women?

I know it's not calf roping...................................................................

[The Sicatoka]

6 minutes ago, UND-1 said:

What sport is NDSU spending "football-type" money/facilities on for their women?

Show me NDSU's books and I'll probably be able to show you. 

However, frankly, who cares what NDSU is doing? Are we sure they are doing it right? Are they ripe for a "prong" or "tier" lawsuit? We don't know. 

< re-read the first sentence of this post here > 

 

Somewhere in this I'm sure I've said "Hammersmith" three times.

[UNDBIZ]

5 minutes ago, UND-1 said:

What sport is NDSU spending "football-type" money/facilities on for their women?

Perhaps they are able to compare their football spending to FBS schools, in which case they don't spend much. 

[UND-1]

2 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Show me NDSU's books and I'll probably be able to show you. 

However, frankly, who cares what NDSU is doing? Are we sure they are doing it right? Are they ripe for a "prong" or "tier" lawsuit? We don't know. 

< re-read the first sentence of this post here > 

Let me know when somebody files a lawsuit down there.  Hopefully, I will still be alive.  

All the while we run a 1.4 million dollar deficit because we "need" to match tiers.  WTF.  

[UND-1]

6 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Show me NDSU's books and I'll probably be able to show you. 

However, frankly, who cares what NDSU is doing? Are we sure they are doing it right? Are they ripe for a "prong" or "tier" lawsuit? We don't know. 

< re-read the first sentence of this post here > 

Shouldn't it be quite obvious after 10 minutes of research to see if they have a Women's sport that is playing in a facility anywhere near the level of the Fargodome and the football locker rooms they have in there?  

The answer is they don't and it's not even close.

[The Sicatoka]

2 minutes ago, UND-1 said:

All the while we run a 1.4 million dollar deficit because we "need" to match tiers. 

I'd say re-read this:

http://forum.siouxsports.com/topic/23311-president-kennedy-message-on-athletics/?page=41#comment-891301

[UNDvince97-01]

7 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Sure, but what about travel and equipment and other obvious expense equity checks for auditors (or SJWs). 

Just so I'm clear on the intent of your message, are you citing as fact, that UND legally was not capable to cut womens hockey because of Title IX compliance?  No way around it?

[UND-1]

1 minute ago, The Sicatoka said:

I'd say re-read this:

http://forum.siouxsports.com/topic/23311-president-kennedy-message-on-athletics/?page=41#comment-891301

Answer the question, somebody.  What does NDSU fund for women that is even close to football - as in millions?  JDub's writeup does not equate to what I asked.  

We are being told that UND needs to fund a Womens sport with money/facilities somewhat close to Mens Hockey.  Why if other schools don't?

[UNDvince97-01]

57 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

I believe it rhymes with Garvin Dindows.

Yet another myth.

[Oxbow6]

Obviously women's hockey is not going to be cut so Kennedy just needs to be a swift executioner at this point and get this over with.

[UNDvince97-01]

60 division 1 mens ice hockey programs in the NCAA.

35 division 1 womens ice hockey programs in the NCAA.

AMAZINGLY......25 institutions are way out of whack with their Title IX compliance.

Or they are much more smarter than us....

Or they choose to be compliant in other ways.

[The Sicatoka]

17 minutes ago, UNDvince97-01 said:

Just so I'm clear on the intent of your message, are you citing as fact, that UND legally was not capable to cut womens hockey because of Title IX compliance?  No way around it?

I'm stating nothing as fact and made no such statement. I'm saying, based on jdub's posts on tiering discussion, it's pretty easy to use WIH to balance out MIH. Why? It'd be more expensive to "tier" in some other women's sports at UND. 

[The Sicatoka]

14 minutes ago, UND-1 said:

We are being told that UND needs to fund a Womens sport with money/facilities somewhat close to Mens Hockey.  Why if other schools don't?

Are they in compliance with the law? (I don't know.) 

[UNDBIZ]

15 minutes ago, UND-1 said:

Answer the question, somebody.  What does NDSU fund for women that is even close to football - as in millions?  JDub's writeup does not equate to what I asked.  

We are being told that UND needs to fund a Womens sport with money/facilities somewhat close to Mens Hockey.  Why if other schools don't?

I believe jdub was implying our "national rank" in spending for a women's sport must be similar to a men's sport.  We're top 10 in MIH so we need to be top 6 in WIH, or something like that.  NDSU funds football very well, for an FCS school, but if the comparison is made to FBS schools, they are still pretty low on the totem pole.  They're probably mid-level of all D1 for football, so they just need to fund one women's sport at a mid-level compared to how other schools fund that one women's sport.

Not sure how valid it is, but that's how I read jdub's post.

[The Sicatoka]

11 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

Obviously women's hockey is not going to be cut so Kennedy just needs to be a swift executioner at this point and get this over with.

Completely agree. 

You and I must be "pull the Band-Aid off fast" guys.

[UND-1]

OK.  How does Alabama get around it?

[The Sicatoka]

1 minute ago, UNDBIZ said:

... They're probably mid-level of all D1 for football, so they just need to fund one women's sport at a mid-level compared to how other schools fund that one women's sport.

Not sure how valid it is, but that's how I read jdub's post.

Not a women's sport, but a similar number of athletes. I'd guess VB and softball (and probably soccer too) for them. But "mid level" funding of those sports is relatively cheap (versus top level spending on those). 

[Oxbow6]

4 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

I believe jdub was implying our "national rank" in spending for a women's sport must be similar to a men's sport.  We're top 10 in MIH so we need to be top 6 in WIH, or something like that.  NDSU funds football very well, for an FCS school, but if the comparison is made to FBS schools, they are still pretty low on the totem pole.  They're probably mid-level of all D1 for football, so they just need to fund one women's sport at a mid-level compared to how other schools fund that one women's sport.

At least that's how I read jdub's post.

So how does Alabama with it's FB program, just as one example, deal with similar spending/funding for any women's sport in this "tier"/"'national rank" argument?  Maybe I should sleep at a HIE tonight but I don't get it?

 

Edit: Looks like UND-1 beat me to it by a minute.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Oxbow6

[The Sicatoka]

2 minutes ago, UND-1 said:

OK.  How does Alabama get around it?

Got their books? I see they have gymnastics and rowing. I'm guessing it's not hard to fund top tier in those to balance football. 

Assume Bama is top 10% in FB spending. What's it take to be top 10% in spending on gymnastics or rowing? (Probably a rounding error in the FB budget.) 

[mksioux]

Let's say jdub's explanation is mostly correct and that "tiering" is the reason womens hockey can't be dropped.  Then why not make that publicly known through the IAC process, rather than just saying womens hockey is untouchable and have the public debate and speculate on why womens hockey was spared?  You can debate the public nature of this whole process, but if you're going to have a public spectacle where coaches come begging for their programs, why not have it at least do some good and explain once and for all why womens hockey is untouchable?  Instead, the one area where some sunshine may have actually done some good, Kennedy makes a unilateral decision and takes it off the table.