darell1976 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 The Olympic practice arena (200 x 100 sheet) between The Ralph and The Betty can hold about 1000. As far as baseball facilities making a difference (ala Newman): May 15, 2006, Minnesota wins at NDSU 11-10, attendance 503 at Newman Field. That's a little better than 10% full. That's the "most excitement" game of the year and it's really not all that much better than UND's 2006 season average of 324. The college baseball season is tough in this climate. 503!!!! Wow i am shocked, i thought with a great field plus a major team like the Gophers would be more, i was wrong. But a new field in GF to replace Kraft wouldn't be bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Some teams have started switching to an all fieldturf baseball field (only the pitching mound and home base areas are dirt). Probably something worth considering in our climate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USA Hockey Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I agree. That money can go towards a sport that would maybe actually draw crowds. I can't remember which poster is on the lacrosse bandwagon but thats the route to go. There are two aspects of this. First, many baseball players (and UND athletes in general) read these boards and given the amount of hard work they put into this sport, they don't really appreciate people putting down the sport and the team that could potentially have a lot of success. Second, I have been more than well informed that there is no intention to cut the sport of baseball at the Division 1 level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlsiouxfan Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Put me in the category of being strongly against adding lacrosse at UND. Adding the sport would be super expensive due to travel and this only gets worse if we have to pay for games and practice time at the Alerus Center. Baseball may not draw much but I'm unconvinced that lacrosse would draw much better. High costs and low revenues make lacrosse look a lot like our womens' hockey program that's already a cash drain. Keep the baseball program, it's a sport people actually care about and plus has tons of alumni who will donate money during the D-I move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlsiouxfan Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 has women's hockey attendance been increasing nationally (don't know) you think a 12000 seat facility is great for a team which averages 298 fans a game, in a sport where only two teams average 800+? http://www.uscho.com/stats/attendancew.php there is a reason the Minnesota women play in a smaller arena and Wisco is looking to build a smaller women's arena Does the betty have ice capabilities- would be perfect size for women's hockey In my opinion women's hockey is another Title IX poison pill that will kill the sport of collegiate hockey at a lot of small to mid-size universities. It doesn't draw well anywhere and has incredible costs. It's not worth starting if you can avoid it and only schools who are seriously committed to college hockey will add it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stromer Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 There are two aspects of this. First, many baseball players (and UND athletes in general) read these boards and given the amount of hard work they put into this sport, they don't really appreciate people putting down the sport and the team that could potentially have a lot of success. Second, I have been more than well informed that there is no intention to cut the sport of baseball at the Division 1 level. I actually love baseball. It is my favorite sport to play and is pretty good to watch. Doesn't mean I can't be in favor of dropping it for the greater good of athletics at UND. Just because it was added in place of other sports doesn't mean it was the right or wrong thing to do. I just happen to think there are better options out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammersmith Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 503!!!! Wow i am shocked, i thought with a great field plus a major team like the Gophers would be more, i was wrong. But a new field in GF to replace Kraft wouldn't be bad. Just an FYI, but Minn games at Newman have also brought in 1,019 in 2006 and 922 in 2005. I'm not sure why only 503 showed up for the 2007 game since it was a pretty nice day(high 60's/no rain), but it's possible that a Tuesday night game coupled with a 14-29 record to that point caused people to not care about it. It's also possible that the 4-10 loss earlier in the season may have played a part. Now, that's not saying that 500+ crowds are common at Newman. To the contrary, you can count the number of those games on two hands, and games with UND are responsible for almost half of them(Minn games account for the other half). In fact, average attendance for NDSU at Newman is pretty sad; 255 for 2007, 490 for 2006(only 6 home dates), 350 in 2005, and 349 in 2004. In short, it doesn't matter how nice of a facility you may have, people will only show if the product is good. At NDSU, baseball is just about last on the priority list(men's golf may be lower), so it's a very difficult situation for the coaches. Now that our budget has reached the $11M+ mark, I hope additional resources can be devoted to the baseball program. As for you guys, I'd hate to see you drop a program, but baseball would have to top the list of options. You have more than enough sports to satisfy the DI minimum(need 14, have 20) and no local conferences require baseball. Also, you potentially are in such good Title IX complience, you could even drop a women's sport if you also dropped baseball(even W Hockey if you really wanted to). Talk about helping your bottom line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 has women's hockey attendance been increasing nationally (don't know) I have no idea. I guess I just meant that women's hockey is a better fit in Grand Forks, ND than baseball. We have a hockey culture here both at the school and the city/region, the surrounding region produces high quality players, and all the collegiate national women's hockey powers are all close to us for similar reasons as those, (UofM, UM-Duluth, Wisconsin). I just think that pieces are in place for women's hockey to be successful someday. I can't say the same thing about baseball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I agree. Women's hockey right now is in its infancy stages, just like Womens Basketball in the day. Now look. Who would have thought it might have outdrawn the men back in the day? Now we have Womens Pro Basketball. I only see Womens Hockey as a potential to grow. More HS programs are adding womens hockey teams, so that is good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlsiouxfan Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 I agree. Women's hockey right now is in its infancy stages, just like Womens Basketball in the day. Now look. Who would have thought it might have outdrawn the men back in the day? Now we have Womens Pro Basketball. I only see Womens Hockey as a potential to grow. More HS programs are adding womens hockey teams, so that is good. Yes, and Women's Pro Basketball doesn't make money either. I'm going on the record and saying that Women's Hockey will never, ever make money anywhere. Let alone UND. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 21, 2008 Author Share Posted January 21, 2008 If college sports was about making money (in the truest, capitalistic sense; with no subsities from university funds or student fees; just spectator revenues) I'd speculate there'd be: - fewer than 50 football programs - about 100 basketball programs - a handful of hockey programs and really not much else. In general, college athletics is a loss leader (like that 24-pack of soda for $4 at the grocery store). It's out there to get you interested in what else is there. Ask yourself: Would a school really maintain a wrestling or swimming program if there wasn't a mandated minimum number of sports/teams by the NCAA? Would a school really maintain the womens sports (and fiscal losses) it takes to balance out football per Title IX if not for Title IX? In the world we live in we've created a situation where the true cost is an afterthought. All you can do in that world is try to minimize the losses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Why then does UND maintain 20 programs when 14 is the minimum required for FCS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 22, 2008 Author Share Posted January 22, 2008 Your answer is above: Title IX. UND has chosen to meet Title IX via the proportionality option (in my opinion that's the safest route). Athletic "grants in aid" (NCAA-speak for scholarships) at UND are aligned to the breakdown of the general student population. If the M/F ratio is 52/48 then 52% of grant will go to male athletes, 48% to female athletes. Now, with FB having a big number of grants and no corresponding womens sport you have to have the womens sports to balance the number of FB scholarships. UND runs with 9 mens but 11 womens sports, and most of the womens minor sports run closer to the NCAA scholarship limits to balance FB. In the roughest sense: MH balances WH MBB balances WBB Baseball balances Softball M S&D balances W S&D M Track (In and Out)/CC balances W Track (In and Out)/CC M Golf balance W Golf Football takes Volleyball, Soccer, and Tennis to balance it out. And those aren't enough. The NCAA limits for grants for a team for womens BB, S&D, and Softball (and Track?) are higher than the corresponding mens team limits. Why? To create a mechanism to try to balance out football. Some schools are trying to grant "cheering" and "dance team" scholarships as "athletics" aid in an effort to balance out Title IX. And do you think "womens crew" or (sorry) "womens equestrian" is really the hot new sport or just a way to try to create scholarship opportunities for women? All those teams aren't cheap, but they're still cheaper than a Title IX lawsuit (and the bad press that'd come with it). Again, ask yourself: Would a school really maintain the womens sports (and fiscal losses) it takes to balance out football per Title IX if not for Title IX? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 That makes perfect sense, yet, as you just laid out: MH balances WH MBB balances WBB Baseball balances Softball M S&D balances W S&D M Track (In and Out)/CC balances W Track (In and Out)/CC M Golf balance W Golf Football takes Volleyball, Soccer, and Tennis to balance it out. So why not cut 6 sports from the above list and still maintain title IX that way? You could even cut just the track and XC programs and that would be 6 programs right there. Has UND ever been nationally competitive in track/XC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coach daddy Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 I gave this material to my students one year. Sorry I couldn't just attach it to the reply but I couldn't find an attachment option on this page. This may make the Title IX talk a little more clear to all who read. About Title IX Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 is the landmark legislation that bans sex discrimination in schools, whether it be in academics or athletics. Title IX states: "No person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal aid." Athletics has created the most controversy regarding Title IX, but its gains in education and academics are notable. Before Title IX, many schools refused to admit women or enforced strict limits. Some statistics highlighting the advancements follow: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Your answer is above: Title IX. UND has chosen to meet Title IX via the proportionality option (in my opinion that's the safest route). Athletic "grants in aid" (NCAA-speak for scholarships) at UND are aligned to the breakdown of the general student population. If the M/F ratio is 52/48 then 52% of grant will go to male athletes, 48% to female athletes. Now, with FB having a big number of grants and no corresponding womens sport you have to have the womens sports to balance the number of FB scholarships. UND runs with 9 mens but 11 womens sports, and most of the womens minor sports run closer to the NCAA scholarship limits to balance FB. In the roughest sense: MH balances WH MBB balances WBB Baseball balances Softball M S&D balances W S&D M Track (In and Out)/CC balances W Track (In and Out)/CC M Golf balance W Golf Football takes Volleyball, Soccer, and Tennis to balance it out. And those aren't enough. The NCAA limits for grants for a team for womens BB, S&D, and Softball (and Track?) are higher than the corresponding mens team limits. Why? To create a mechanism to try to balance out football. Some schools are trying to grant "cheering" and "dance team" scholarships as "athletics" aid in an effort to balance out Title IX. And do you think "womens crew" or (sorry) "womens equestrian" is really the hot new sport or just a way to try to create scholarship opportunities for women? All those teams aren't cheap, but they're still cheaper than a Title IX lawsuit (and the bad press that'd come with it). Again, ask yourself: Would a school really maintain the womens sports (and fiscal losses) it takes to balance out football per Title IX if not for Title IX? I wonder if mplsbison is going to apply for the AD job. He's sure concerned about the workings of the UND athletic dept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 22, 2008 Author Share Posted January 22, 2008 I wonder if mplsbison is going to apply for the AD job. He's sure concerned about the workings of the UND athletic dept. Get 'im an application! :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 22, 2008 Author Share Posted January 22, 2008 So why not cut 6 sports from the above list and still maintain title IX that way? Ya'know, I had a long and logical answer typed out for this. Instead I highlighted it and then hit "delete". I choose to respond this way: If it's a good strategy, recommend it to Gene Taylor. 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.