|
Post by GatorVball on Oct 1, 2007 21:27:25 GMT -5
2.) Recruiting. It costs at least 2 scholies for an out of state/country player. For every "out of" we recruit, we lose a recruit. 3.) Very low travel budget. I don't understand what you mean by cost 2 scholies for an out of state/country player. Can you explain that to me? I'd also think that there is more than enough talent in the state of California alone to complete a roster. Also, if their travel budget is so low, why are they always on the road in the pre conference? It seems like year in and year out, UCSB travels in the pre conference as much or more than anyone in the country.
|
|
|
Post by FloridaPerson on Oct 1, 2007 21:46:57 GMT -5
I think it's pretty transparant that bigworst is partial to the worstern pathetic conference or hawai'i'ii'i'ii'ii''ii', what with the charlie wade love and all. That's where the wac comes into play.
|
|
|
Post by bownlovingfreak on Oct 1, 2007 22:03:19 GMT -5
Well the top two teams LBSU and UCSB have recently suffered from lots of transfers. So maybe some youngins looking for college rule them out because they think there are problems there.
|
|
|
Post by TheSantaBarbarian on Oct 1, 2007 23:24:12 GMT -5
"Biggest thing holding back UCSB athletics IS UCSB athletics. Small time thinking and inertia and the whole "laid, back, we in Goleta so we wear flip flops all the time and say stuff like 'groovy' when we coach" mentality.
To her credit, Kathy Gregory has always been a dedicated and professional coach. She rants and raves, but she also goes out of her way to promote her program and women's volleyball in general. Too bad the athletic department she works for is pure crap. "
I don't disagree, to an extent. Many of the things I listed go with our Athletics Director, who seems far more interested in sitting on panels and boards than making connections with the community and students, and fundrasing. I have been a strong proponent of removing him. However, being BCS school is a big advantage. You can make all the fake crying sounds you want, but it won't change the facts.
|
|
|
Post by TheSantaBarbarian on Oct 1, 2007 23:36:57 GMT -5
2.) Recruiting. It costs at least 2 scholies for an out of state/country player. For every "out of" we recruit, we lose a recruit. 3.) Very low travel budget. I don't understand what you mean by cost 2 scholies for an out of state/country player. Can you explain that to me? I'd also think that there is more than enough talent in the state of California alone to complete a roster. Also, if their travel budget is so low, why are they always on the road in the pre conference? It seems like year in and year out, UCSB travels in the pre conference as much or more than anyone in the country. 1.) Because UCSB is a state university, out of state students get charged twice as much as in state. At a school like UCSB, that has only 3 sports that have the full number of scholarships available, if the coach wants an out of state player, they have to use 2 of their scholies to cover the additional cost. 2.) Yes, they do travel, by bus only, and this year none of their trips will be even the distance of Miami to Gainesville. Flying costs a lot more than the bus. In the past they traveled more, both this, and the tightening of scholarships is more recent. LOL The spellchecker suggested "goofball" as the correct spelling of your name.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Oct 1, 2007 23:44:03 GMT -5
Amazing what a couple of years does to a conference. Long Beach State from national title match to national laughingstock. UC Santa Barbara from top 25 rankings to lucky to make the NCAA this year Pacific appears to be on the rebound, but still have a long way to go Cal Poly, Irvine, and CSUN have been performing about as normal as can be expected, it is just that the big three have fallen from grace. So, what happened? Why did this conference formally having several national title contenders each year dip to no-ranked teams? The fall is due in part, or at least coincides somewhat, with Hawaii's leaving the conference.
|
|
|
Post by TheSantaBarbarian on Oct 1, 2007 23:45:08 GMT -5
Well the top two teams LBSU and UCSB have recently suffered from lots of transfers. So maybe some youngins looking for college rule them out because they think there are problems there. I think that more and more the top players are starting to be treated like top players in other sports. Any player coming into Kathy's program and expecting treatment befitting a star, is probably in for a rude shock. For better or for worse, she is definitely old school.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Oct 2, 2007 0:05:06 GMT -5
1.) Because UCSB is a state university, out of state students get charged twice as much as in state. At a school like UCSB, that has only 3 sports that have the full number of scholarships available, if the coach wants an out of state player, they have to use 2 of their scholies to cover the additional cost. Hmmm... if this is the policy at UCSB, they need to re-think some tactics. I don't think you're correct that the volleyball program has to cover more for out-of-state players than in-state. It would make much more sense to apply a waiver to a body regardless of origin.
|
|
|
Post by PierreAmi on Oct 2, 2007 0:30:43 GMT -5
1.) Because UCSB is a state university, out of state students get charged twice as much as in state. At a school like UCSB, that has only 3 sports that have the full number of scholarships available, if the coach wants an out of state player, they have to use 2 of their scholies to cover the additional cost. Hmmm... if this is the policy at UCSB, they need to re-think some tactics. I don't think you're correct that the volleyball program has to cover more for out-of-state players than in-state. It would make much more sense to apply a waiver to a body regardless of origin. A full-ride scholarship covers, amongst other things, tuition. Out-of-state tuition IS approximately twice the amount that would be charged to an in-state student. The volleyball team can recruit two in-state student-athletes for every one out-of-state student that it gives a full-ride to.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Oct 2, 2007 0:39:30 GMT -5
Hmmm... if this is the policy at UCSB, they need to re-think some tactics. I don't think you're correct that the volleyball program has to cover more for out-of-state players than in-state. It would make much more sense to apply a waiver to a body regardless of origin. A full-ride scholarship covers, amongst other things, tuition. Out-of-state tuition IS approximately twice the amount that would be charged to an in-state student. The volleyball team can recruit two in-state student-athletes for every one out-of-state student that it gives a full-ride to. I'm sorry, I think this is ridiculous. If a team recruits a player, they should all be given "tuition waivers" which basically don't cost the athletic department anything. If that's not the case, then, well, that's just stupid.
|
|
|
Post by GatorVball on Oct 2, 2007 0:47:08 GMT -5
A full-ride scholarship covers, amongst other things, tuition. Out-of-state tuition IS approximately twice the amount that would be charged to an in-state student. The volleyball team can recruit two in-state student-athletes for every one out-of-state student that it gives a full-ride to. I'm sorry, I think this is ridiculous. If a team recruits a player, they should all be given "tuition waivers" which basically don't cost the athletic department anything. If that's not the case, then, well, that's just stupid. Absolutely agree.
|
|
|
Post by Ye Olde Dawg on Oct 2, 2007 1:02:33 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I think this is ridiculous. If a team recruits a player, they should all be given "tuition waivers" which basically don't cost the athletic department anything. If that's not the case, then, well, that's just stupid. "Stupid." Well, from the point of view of trying to field excellent sports teams it may be counterproductive. From the point of view of taking good care of the taxpayers' money it may not be. Trying to serve as many students as possible on a limited budget may be a factor too. No, I don't know anything about UCSB's finances, policies, etc. I'm just saying that what seems "stupid" may simply be a necessary compromise. The Pac-10 schools operate in a world where the NCAA recruiting limitations are basically the only limitations that apply. I guess that's a luxury some other programs don't have.
|
|
|
Post by PierreAmi on Oct 2, 2007 1:26:30 GMT -5
A full-ride scholarship covers, amongst other things, tuition. Out-of-state tuition IS approximately twice the amount that would be charged to an in-state student. The volleyball team can recruit two in-state student-athletes for every one out-of-state student that it gives a full-ride to. I'm sorry, I think this is ridiculous. If a team recruits a player, they should all be given "tuition waivers" which basically don't cost the athletic department anything. If that's not the case, then, well, that's just stupid. So if the team were to offer a recruit a partial scholarship of say, a $2,000 contribution towards annual out-of-state tuition costs of $18,000, would it not seem reasonable that the student-athlete should pay the balance of $16,000? What about an in-state athlete receiving the same $2,000 contribution towards annual tuition of $8,000? That athlete would have to find $6,000. That's the way it works.
|
|
|
Post by GatorVball on Oct 2, 2007 1:50:03 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I think this is ridiculous. If a team recruits a player, they should all be given "tuition waivers" which basically don't cost the athletic department anything. If that's not the case, then, well, that's just stupid. So if the team were to offer a recruit a partial scholarship of say, a $2,000 contribution towards annual out-of-state tuition costs of $18,000, would it not seem reasonable that the student-athlete should pay the balance of $16,000? What about an in-state athlete receiving the same $2,000 contribution towards annual tuition of $8,000? That athlete would have to find $6,000. That's the way it works. But volleyball isn't a partial scholarship sport. If I'm understanding this correctly from UCSB's standpoint, they are basically too cheap to pay for the out of state tuition of their student athletes.
|
|
|
Post by Netter on Oct 2, 2007 1:53:53 GMT -5
It is not a good rule and the UC system and the Cal State system should really change this deal. But like the WAC, the Big West historically only has had a few dominant teams and the rest have had a tough go. It has gone through a slump but it is showing signs of improvement. Years ago only really LBSU, Pacific and UCSB were the continual front runners. Many of the reasons brought up so far are valid and a number of reasons have contributed but I think the following 2 had the most impact:
1) 9/11 - after this horrific event players and parents even more so did not want to be far from home. Knowing this many of the Big West schools left the radar for many recruits. 2) The Economic downturn of the early part of this decade caused fiscal concerns for the non Pac-10 UC schools and the Cal State system. At some point then, some of these schools' policies changed toward out of state athletes. Some programs were flat out told only recruit Calif. players.
The evidence is in the Big West rosters. Some schools have better funding through boosters or other sources. Some out of state players too could be walk ons. I have heard that foreign players get sometimes a contribution from their homeland towards education.
Of the UC schools: UCSB, UC Davis & UC Riverside all have all CA rosters. UC Irvine has 1 out of state player. Of the Cal State schools: Cal Poly has 4 out of state & 1 foreign player. LBSU has 3 out of state & 2 foreign. Northridge - 1 out of state, 1 foreign, Fullerton - 2 out of state The only private is Pacific and they don't have the fiscal constraints or rules that the others are governed by. The have 5 out of state and 2 foreign and historically have had a mix from various states, especially from the midwest.
Around 2002-2003, a lot of these schools just stopped going to a lot of out of state tournaments to recruit and just concentrated on SCVA and NCVA league games and tournaments. The whole landscape changed.
But today, some teams are improving, some are not. Cal Poly has been on the rise these past 2 years. LBSU is not the powerhouse but well ranked and a solid team. Pacific, UC Irvine and Fullerton are improving. UC Davis is just transitioning from Div 2 to Div 1. Northridge has been and is respectable. UCSB seems to be a little down right now but has been strong for years. UC Riverside doesn't have the talent but always gives a great effort in their games. If I checked the Big West overall standings I'd probably find more teams with winning records than not.
Other conferences have risen in this decade and gotten stronger, no doubt, but I see recent improvement taking place in the BW conference and hopefully its a trend.
|
|