|
Post by n00b on May 7, 2021 10:10:49 GMT -5
It's a relatively cheap sport, in terms of needing a facility (already have an arena), and costs associated with the sport (mostly just balls, uniforms, and shoes ... very little equipment, pads, etc.). It really isn't a cheap sport. You can check out Hartford's EADA report which lists spending by participant: $7,258 Hartford $5,818 Golf $5,481 Softball $4,430 Soccer $3,779 Lacross $677 Track And that's before you consider scholarships, where you need to offer way more to be competitive than equivalency sports.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 7, 2021 10:12:11 GMT -5
Huh? The AE will still have 9 schools. You're effing kidding me ... that 3 of those schools *don't even have a women's volleyball team* !!! Seriously, what the heck?? Let me guess, they have field hockey teams instead. A sport literally no one cares about and very few play in the country. Just silly What's worse is the Atlantic 10, who got an AT LARGE in 2019. They have 5 schools without volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by newenglander on May 7, 2021 10:23:41 GMT -5
So what happens to the athletes there? Most transferring out? What about incoming freshmen?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 7, 2021 10:57:17 GMT -5
So what happens to the athletes there? Most transferring out? What about incoming freshmen? It explains in the linked article. New scholarships will stop being offered starting in the 22-23 year then start competing in D3 in the fall of 2025. Current athletes (including incoming freshmen) won’t be affected at all. At least their scholarships. I guess it isn’t great that when they are juniors and seniors the underclassmen won’t have scholarships. Honestly, this might be a ploy to get donors to step up and get this decision reversed.
|
|
|
Post by ned3vball on May 7, 2021 11:15:16 GMT -5
Potential landing spots: 1) Little East - Seems like the best option with a number of CT schools already there 2) Commonwealth Coast Conference - not great geography wise, but could work, gets the conference to an even 10 for volleyball 3) NEWMAC - Unlikely, but I suppose if the league wanted to get to an even 12
|
|
tncoach
Junior
"what we do in life echoes through eternity!"
Posts: 496
|
Post by tncoach on May 7, 2021 11:30:21 GMT -5
Is it common for a school to drop all the way down to D3 from D1? That just seems odd to me. Agreed. D2 would have been more even. If seeking to save funds, D3 is the better option in New England. There is only one D2 conference in New England, spanning from New Hampshire down to NYC and into upstate NY. By going D3, Hartford not only can easily petition two local conferences with a footprint only in Mass. and CT, but can easily schedule all non-conference matches without extending the footprint much. Plus, they will join principle power region for NCAA D3 athletics, rather than a lower level D2 conference. Having attended grad school there, I can say with 100% certainty that Hartford fits the D3 model perfectly, but would be an outlier in the region if D2. Being in a conference with other nationally prominent universities academically will hold much more appeal to a university like UH.
|
|
|
Post by Semp12 on May 7, 2021 11:56:17 GMT -5
Is it common for a school to drop all the way down to D3 from D1? That just seems odd to me. Birmingham Southern went from D3 to D1, and from what I was told, one of the board of trustees looked at the scholarship budget and pointed out - "we have 256 (I may be off on the number) full athletic scholarships. How many full academic scholarships do we offer?" And the answer was single digits, I want to say it was like 3. And the subsequent conversation led them back to D3, but from what I was told it was more philosophical - we are here to educate, not play sports, and the priorities in the budget should reflect that. Hartford's situation seems very much a financial decision. And in the northeast I think it makes a lot of sense. They send teams to Maine and Baltimore and spend a lot on hotels. If they play in a New England conference not only can they repurpose or cut those scholarships, but they are going to save loads on travel, and presumably salaries (EADA reports averages of 6 figures for head coaches and in the $40k's for FT assistants, which are at or near the top for D3). This probably only works in the Northeast and Mid-west. The Southeast and the West don't have the same density of D3 teams. The only teams between St. Louis and So Cal is Colorado College. In D2 you have bus rides that can run 10-15 hours, which aren't unheard of in D1, but at least you get conference revenue sharing and money games and so on. Those D2 bus rides in the Northeast are not very often 10-15 hours. There is just a ton of schools up there, at every level of the NCAA. D2 definitely is more likely to rough it with the long day trips and skipping the hotel part. Dropping to D2 wouldn't have made much sense if they wanted bigtime savings. Athletic scholarships is going to be their biggest savings, and how low can you really drop that if they still wanted moderately happy/successful teams.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on May 7, 2021 12:17:02 GMT -5
Not certain what Hartford did at the D1 level, but I can't remember seeing their name in any recent NCAA tournament. Is it safe to say they tried to compete at the D1 level but just didn't have the resources/will to succeed ...
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 7, 2021 14:47:14 GMT -5
Birmingham Southern went from D3 to D1, and from what I was told, one of the board of trustees looked at the scholarship budget and pointed out - "we have 256 (I may be off on the number) full athletic scholarships. How many full academic scholarships do we offer?" And the answer was single digits, I want to say it was like 3. And the subsequent conversation led them back to D3, but from what I was told it was more philosophical - we are here to educate, not play sports, and the priorities in the budget should reflect that. Hartford's situation seems very much a financial decision. And in the northeast I think it makes a lot of sense. They send teams to Maine and Baltimore and spend a lot on hotels. If they play in a New England conference not only can they repurpose or cut those scholarships, but they are going to save loads on travel, and presumably salaries (EADA reports averages of 6 figures for head coaches and in the $40k's for FT assistants, which are at or near the top for D3). This probably only works in the Northeast and Mid-west. The Southeast and the West don't have the same density of D3 teams. The only teams between St. Louis and So Cal is Colorado College. In D2 you have bus rides that can run 10-15 hours, which aren't unheard of in D1, but at least you get conference revenue sharing and money games and so on. Those D2 bus rides in the Northeast are not very often 10-15 hours. There is just a ton of schools up there, at every level of the NCAA. D2 definitely is more likely to rough it with the long day trips and skipping the hotel part. Dropping to D2 wouldn't have made much sense if they wanted bigtime savings. Athletic scholarships is going to be their biggest savings, and how low can you really drop that if they still wanted moderately happy/successful teams. Sorry, I meant that as far as masses of other schools dropping down. Hartford may save on travel but I'm not sure Utah Valley or South Alabama would save that much. In some locations it may make as much sense to stay D1. In the northeast, as you point out, it has greater advantages.
|
|
|
Post by volleydadtx on May 7, 2021 14:54:26 GMT -5
D2 presents the worst of D1 and D3 combined. You have practically zero national relevance or exposure, yet you are still funding athletic scholarships.
D1 has its pros and cons, as does D3. D2 has the cons of both, but the benefits of neither. I have never understood why a school would be D2 to begin with. You're either in the scholarship athletics business, or you're not. Pick your poison, but you don't need to take two doses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2021 17:00:27 GMT -5
UMass Lowell cut Women’s Volleyball after the 2018 season That is absurd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2021 17:05:16 GMT -5
It really isn't a cheap sport. You can check out Hartford's EADA report which lists spending by participant: $7,258 Hartford $5,818 Golf $5,481 Softball $4,430 Soccer $3,779 Lacross $677 Track They spent $7258/participant on Hartford? The fact that you're ranking Golf as #2 shows how silly of a metric it is. Golf is an expensive sport? Clearly things are being factored in here other than what I specifically mentioned (equipment, uniforms, having to build a facility, etc.). Would guess travel and coaching salaries are by far the biggest factors, there. where you need to offer way more to be competitive than equivalency sports. Headcount or equivalency has nothing to do with it. The scholarship maximum is the cost. If it's 3 scholarships, then it's three. Just because you can spread 3 around to 10 ladies in equivalency sports don't make them cheaper to be "more competitive".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2021 17:07:50 GMT -5
What's worse is the Atlantic 10, who got an AT LARGE in 2019. They have 5 schools without volleyball. This is truly mind boggling. You can use the exact same facility as basketball, and I bet all five of those schools have basketball. You don't need a field facility, which I bet all five have, and probably all five have teams that play on fields. You're telling me that women's soccer generates more fan interest/TV viewership/donations/school spirit (whatever) than women's volleyball??? Silly and stupid.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on May 7, 2021 17:09:50 GMT -5
It really isn't a cheap sport. You can check out Hartford's EADA report which lists spending by participant: $7,258 Hartford $5,818 Golf $5,481 Softball $4,430 Soccer $3,779 Lacross $677 Track They spent $7258/participant on Hartford? The fact that you're ranking Golf as #2 shows how silly of a metric it is. Golf is an expensive sport? Clearly things are being factored in here other than what I specifically mentioned (equipment, uniforms, having to build a facility, etc.). Would guess travel and coaching salaries are by far the biggest factors, there. where you need to offer way more to be competitive than equivalency sports. Headcount or equivalency has nothing to do with it. The scholarship maximum is the cost. If it's 3 scholarships, then it's three. Just because you can spread 3 around to 10 ladies in equivalency sports don't make them cheaper to be "more competitive". The EADA report is garbage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2021 17:13:41 GMT -5
D2 presents the worst of D1 and D3 combined. You have practically zero national relevance or exposure, yet you are still funding athletic scholarships. D1 has its pros and cons, as does D3. D2 has the cons of both, but the benefits of neither. I have never understood why a school would be D2 to begin with. You're either in the scholarship athletics business, or you're not. Pick your poison, but you don't need to take two doses. This type of argument can really be extended as high up as you want to go, save for the couple handfuls of schools at the tip-top that generate massive revenues (Texas, Ohio State, etc.).
Having anything nice, costs money. The benefits can be reasonably clear, though not necessarily tangible and difficult to measure. School pride in winning a championship, perhaps an increase in giving, maybe a bit more interest from students/applications.
DII could be a way for a school to realistic win a championship, that it wouldn't be able to in DIII without any scholarships. Agree that doing so will bring minimal attention/relevance from the major national (college) sports media. But it's something. The school has to decide if that is worth it.
|
|