|
Post by n00b on Jul 23, 2024 9:00:05 GMT -5
Most Power 4 schools don't even have men's soccer. I don't see why they'd care enough to piss athletes off by making way bigger cuts than other sports. That's a big part of this re-structuring process. Don't make anybody mad enough to sue. Why were men's soccer rosters so big? Do you need a starter and three back-ups at all 11 positions? Because more college want to be student athletes than there are spots for. And that’s because even when receiving no scholarship money, athletes get WAY more out of being on the team than universities get for the team existing. #StudentAthletesAreNotEmployees
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 23, 2024 11:51:08 GMT -5
This makes more sense and in line with what we're hearing about football and baseball. Edit to add, this just came up from searching Twitter. I have NO CLUE if this is a reliable source. But they do have nearly 50k followers. Here is the article I was referencing www.soccerwire.com/soccer-blog/how-the-house-v-ncaa-lawsuit-may-cut-some-college-soccer-rosters-in-half/"As mentioned earlier, this will vary between schools (based on how much of the revenue sharing will be given to each women’s soccer program at each individual school) but as a general estimate, it looks to be as low as 18 players for some Power 4 programs. It could also be as high as 22-24 players."
I was posting from memory. It would have been more accurate to say 18-24.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 23, 2024 11:55:31 GMT -5
The only ratio I shared where men were the majority was Va Tech. If I transposed numbers somewhere, my bad. You cite examples less than 57/43, was my point. Oh, I was just showing that not everybody is 50/50. The scholarships ratio is going to look different at different schools. FWIW, instead of adding women's sports, you can also add seats in your engineering and architecture programs. That's an option until lawyers and judges get involved, then you probably need to add women's sports.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 23, 2024 12:18:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 23, 2024 13:07:27 GMT -5
Correct. Everything I've read is that revenue sharing will be permissive but not required. Meaning any school can choose to do it. Or they can choose not to. Which is basically how all financial aid is now. Auburn can give 12 full scholarships plus cost of attendance plus Alton scholarships, while UMass-Lowell* has the budget to split up 4 scholarships to their athletes. *UMass-Lowell is a D1 school that dropped volleyball a few years ago. I didn't want to imply I knew the exact financial situation of any particular low-budget D1 program.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 23, 2024 15:22:45 GMT -5
Correct. Everything I've read is that revenue sharing will be permissive but not required. Meaning any school can choose to do it. Or they can choose not to. Which is basically how all financial aid is now. Auburn can give 12 full scholarships plus cost of attendance plus Alton scholarships, while UMass-Lowell* has the budget to split up 4 scholarships to their athletes. *UMass-Lowell is a D1 school that dropped volleyball a few years ago. I didn't want to imply I knew the exact financial situation of any particular low-budget D1 program. I think the assumption has been the P4 is in, and others are out. Also, some conferences have talked about having their own limits. This suggests to me that the number of teams planning to find the money for revenue sharing is likely going to be bigger than I had expected.
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 23, 2024 20:50:35 GMT -5
Oh, I was just showing that not everybody is 50/50. The scholarships ratio is going to look different at different schools. Certainly they will. But it calls into question that the national average for publics actually is 60/40. Certainly not flagships, which is all I care about. Maybe some rinky-dink satellite campuses are 70/30, I don't really see that as that interesting.
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 23, 2024 20:52:00 GMT -5
The institutional data is less defined. According to what? If schools were using FTE, they would be reporting fractional numbers. I've only ever seen whole numbers. (Will admit I've hardly searched every school in the database.)
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 24, 2024 1:00:17 GMT -5
The institutional data is less defined. According to what? If schools were using FTE, they would be reporting fractional numbers. I've only ever seen whole numbers. (Will admit I've hardly searched every school in the database.) The meaning of the statement I made is that the institutional data required for the report is not as defined as the head count data for participation. The reason is that many institutions report their institutional data differently. As to your point, FTE is not expressed in fractional numbers. It is in fact a conversion from fractional numbers to whole numbers. It is true that it is mostly significant from an accounting or budgeting standpoint (state or federal funding is most often based on FTE), but the point is that FTE vs Head Count can serve different purposes, and can be used interchangeably depending on the benefit (and the guidelines).
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 24, 2024 7:02:54 GMT -5
Oh, I was just showing that not everybody is 50/50. The scholarships ratio is going to look different at different schools. Certainly they will. But it calls into question that the national average for publics actually is 60/40. Certainly not flagships, which is all I care about. Maybe some rinky-dink satellite campuses are 70/30, I don't really see that as that interesting. I mean I guess Berkely (55/43) is the flagship, but UCLA isn't a rinky-dink satellite campus, and at 60/38 and 1% they are notable and 50/50 athletic split won't cut it there.
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Jul 24, 2024 12:40:53 GMT -5
Also notable from that Tweet is the women's soccer roster number is lower than the current average D1 roster as well (by only 5-10% though). If that's a signal, volleyball rosters might get set at something like 16. VB cap will be 18. Why are we talking about soccer? This post from two days ago is the lead story. 18 roster limit confirmed by today's article in Yahoo Sports.... Also, every sport is equivalency now, so lots of flexibility to offer partials: sports.yahoo.com/sources-ncaa-to-increase-scholarships-for-sports-with-football-getting-roster-limit-of-105-players-164300598.htmledit: I didn't see the new thread on this, five minutes before my post LOL
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2024 13:28:39 GMT -5
Also notable from that Tweet is the women's soccer roster number is lower than the current average D1 roster as well (by only 5-10% though). If that's a signal, volleyball rosters might get set at something like 16. VB cap will be 18. Told ya
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 24, 2024 21:11:50 GMT -5
Certainly they will. But it calls into question that the national average for publics actually is 60/40. Certainly not flagships, which is all I care about. Maybe some rinky-dink satellite campuses are 70/30, I don't really see that as that interesting. I mean I guess Berkely (55/43) is the flagship, but UCLA isn't a rinky-dink satellite campus, and at 60/38 and 1% they are notable and 50/50 athletic split won't cut it there. I have my doubts that the national average at public flagships is 60/40. That's fine that UCLA is up there. You also posted that Alabama and Georgia aren't that far off, which is a surprise to me, but I accept.
Personally, I don't see a good argument for why athletics participation ever needs to be driven beyond 50% female, at any school. The whole point was equality.
|
|
|
Post by katn on Jul 26, 2024 16:45:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 26, 2024 17:18:10 GMT -5
I was going to post some Tweets but good lord there is so much stuff. Just go to Dellenger's Twitter and read the last several Tweets: x.com/RossDellenger
|
|