|
|
Post by vbnerd on Aug 22, 2024 20:23:41 GMT -5
So Ohio State is tiering sports... t.co/iDrWK75EFR"We'll still have scholarships, we'll still have programs," (OSU President Ted) Carter said. "Some of those sports may start to look and act a little bit more like a club sport, but yet compete at the Division I level and still travel and still compete."So if the richest department in the country is doing this, is the real question, who ISN'T going to be tiering their offerings? And if a school chooses to pull resources from volleyball for instance, should that team stay in the Big 10? Should Nebraska and Wisconsin and Penn State have to play 5-6 non or partially funded programs as part of their league schedule? Title IX still exists. I’d be shocked to see a volleyball program’s resources slashed. But tOSU offers 33 sports. According to their EADA report (not always reliable, I know. But it’s the best we have) fencing has an operating budget of $343k, golf is nearly $500k, gymnastics is over $500k, ice hockey is over $2.3 mil, tennis and lacrosse is just under $1m each. Those are the sports that should be worried. I believe the baseball coach just left to go back to be an assistant at TCU due to the culture... which I took as a sign that OSU baseball maybe is not going to be a priority when they tier the programs. But again, what is the purpose of paying to fly them to LA and Seattle and Maryland and New Jersey for league games if they are not supposed to be able to be competitive? Who wouldn't be better off playing the Horizon League with Youngstown St and Cleveland St? And Title IX exists, but Ohio State is getting Learfield Cup points in women's tennis, women's golf, women's rowan and women's track... so if "deprioritizing" women's volleyball at Ohio State means they can press their advantage in 4 other sports they are already more successful in, and still maintain title IX compliance, isn't that a conversation? I'm not saying they will, but I think that kind of thinking is going to happen all over the country. And if Northwesthern for instance says "Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn State, UCLA, USC and Washington have won 15 of the last 25 championships, but we are great at Field Hockey Women's Lacrosse and Women's Tennis, and we want to stay that way - it would not shock me. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 22, 2024 20:38:53 GMT -5
But again, what is the purpose of paying to fly them to LA and Seattle and Maryland and New Jersey for league games if they are not supposed to be able to be competitive? Who wouldn't be better off playing the Horizon League with Youngstown St and Cleveland St? That's quite a bit of overstating the travel demands. Big Ten baseball plays 24 conference games, meaning only 4 road series. The odds of them flying to all four of the four schools you mentioned is basically zero. Two flights per season is probably more normal. For baseball, it's the necessity of flying south in preseason that really adds costs. tOSU went to Arizona (for 10 days), Las Vegas, and California for the first four weekends of the season. Big Ten travel will be a piece of cake compared to that. It could happen. More likely at a place like Northwestern and Maryland than Ohio State. But it WOULD shock me if the de-prioritization meant reduced scholarships. Things like chartered flights, coaching salaries, and revenue sharing dollars might be on the chopping block though. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Aug 22, 2024 22:47:24 GMT -5
But again, what is the purpose of paying to fly them to LA and Seattle and Maryland and New Jersey for league games if they are not supposed to be able to be competitive? Who wouldn't be better off playing the Horizon League with Youngstown St and Cleveland St? That's quite a bit of overstating the travel demands. Big Ten baseball plays 24 conference games, meaning only 4 road series. The odds of them flying to all four of the four schools you mentioned is basically zero. Two flights per season is probably more normal. For baseball, it's the necessity of flying south in preseason that really adds costs. tOSU went to Arizona (for 10 days), Las Vegas, and California for the first four weekends of the season. Big Ten travel will be a piece of cake compared to that. It could happen. More likely at a place like Northwestern and Maryland than Ohio State. But it WOULD shock me if the de-prioritization meant reduced scholarships. Things like chartered flights, coaching salaries, and revenue sharing dollars might be on the chopping block though. Revenue sharing is absolutely not a factor for lower tier sports. But I cannot see them flying students commercial to go cross country, especially where there is not a direct flight, for a sport that is non-competitive by plan, so again, do some teams start to play outside the Big 10? That's the thought that keeps coming back to me in these comments. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 23, 2024 0:02:54 GMT -5
And if a school chooses to pull resources from volleyball for instance, should that team stay in the Big 10? Doesn't the Big Ten have rules about that? I know the PAC-12 used to have four mandatory sports: Football, Women's Volleyball, Men's Basketball, and Women's Basketball. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 23, 2024 6:31:53 GMT -5
That's quite a bit of overstating the travel demands. Big Ten baseball plays 24 conference games, meaning only 4 road series. The odds of them flying to all four of the four schools you mentioned is basically zero. Two flights per season is probably more normal. For baseball, it's the necessity of flying south in preseason that really adds costs. tOSU went to Arizona (for 10 days), Las Vegas, and California for the first four weekends of the season. Big Ten travel will be a piece of cake compared to that. It could happen. More likely at a place like Northwestern and Maryland than Ohio State. But it WOULD shock me if the de-prioritization meant reduced scholarships. Things like chartered flights, coaching salaries, and revenue sharing dollars might be on the chopping block though. Revenue sharing is absolutely not a factor for lower tier sports. But I cannot see them flying students commercial to go cross country, especially where there is not a direct flight, for a sport that is non-competitive by plan, so again, do some teams start to play outside the Big 10? That's the thought that keeps coming back to me in these comments. You can’t imagine student athletes flying commercial? That’s how everybody traveled until like 5 minutes ago and still how the vast majority of teams team travel. In some ways, you aren’t totally wrong. Like I mentioned, Big Ten baseball only played 24 games last year (SEC played 30). That allows teams to schedule more local nonconference games. But the point of conferences is for these 18 athletic departments to align and compete against each other. I don’t see that changing. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Aug 23, 2024 8:38:44 GMT -5
And if a school chooses to pull resources from volleyball for instance, should that team stay in the Big 10? Doesn't the Big Ten have rules about that? I know the PAC-12 used to have four mandatory sports: Football, Women's Volleyball, Men's Basketball, and Women's Basketball. The only rule I know for sure is that if six member schools sponsor a sport at the varsity level, then I think it either becomes eligible to be or has to become an officially sponsored Big Ten conference sport.
See men's hockey.
|
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Aug 23, 2024 9:16:11 GMT -5
Revenue sharing is absolutely not a factor for lower tier sports. But I cannot see them flying students commercial to go cross country, especially where there is not a direct flight, for a sport that is non-competitive by plan, so again, do some teams start to play outside the Big 10? That's the thought that keeps coming back to me in these comments. You can’t imagine student athletes flying commercial? That’s how everybody traveled until like 5 minutes ago and still how the vast majority of teams team travel. In some ways, you aren’t totally wrong. Like I mentioned, Big Ten baseball only played 24 games last year (SEC played 30). That allows teams to schedule more local nonconference games. But the point of conferences is for these 18 athletic departments to align and compete against each other. I don’t see that changing. Yes, the SEC was the "Delta Regional Conference" because everybody was flying through Atlanta on Sunday night, but they were short, regional flights. It's the annual, cross country flights for a low tiered sport that I'm referring to. Columbus to Eugene with a layover in Phoenix plus travel time and TSA lines is 10 hours each way. If you are not investing to be competitive in the conference, why do that to the student-athletes? Why spend $20k on flights to send an under-funded, under supported team to play a fully funded USC, for instance? And FWIW, I don't see the logic in sending BYU women's tennis and men's soccer to Morgantown, West Virginia, because Fox/ESPN want to show Colorado at UCF in football. The point of the conferences WAS for these athletic departments to align, but TODAY it is to generate as much money as possible and if they are making money by flying non-revenue sports all over, I'm missing something. |
|
|
|
Post by Friday on Aug 23, 2024 13:39:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Aug 23, 2024 20:51:20 GMT -5
Why is this example important? |
|
|
|
Post by Friday on Aug 24, 2024 13:33:17 GMT -5
Why is this example important? If women's soccer is pulling offers from 2025 PSAs, you don't think it is going to start happening in volleyball? And/or current players may be asked to leave? Many teams are at or over 18 players this season not counting any committed 2025s. |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Aug 24, 2024 14:16:59 GMT -5
Why is this example important? If women's soccer is pulling offers from 2025 PSAs, you don't think it is going to start happening in volleyball? And/or current players may be asked to leave? Many teams are at or over 18 players this season not counting any committed 2025s. In volleyball, it was stated that the average roster in D1 was 18.1. I'm going to assume the average roster of P4 schools is approximately the same. An average of 18.1 versus a current scholarship limit of 12 indicates that at least 1/3 of current rosters are non-scholarship players. I would think most coaches will end up "cutting" non-scholarship players before pulling a 2025 scholarship offer though a 2025 walk-on offer being pulled is a possibility. Also remember that more than the normal number of players will be out of eligibility after this season - 2020 class using their COVID year (non redshirts) and 2021 class (non redshirts) which is the first senior class that didn't get a COVID year. I also wouldn't use a single example (without any background info) as a sign of impending doom. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Aug 25, 2024 6:58:46 GMT -5
Why is this example important? If women's soccer is pulling offers from 2025 PSAs, you don't think it is going to start happening in volleyball? And/or current players may be asked to leave? Many teams are at or over 18 players this season not counting any committed 2025s. The old way was a max of 12 scholarships.
The new way is a max of 18 scholarships.
I don't really have a ton of gushing sympathy for the 19th, 20th, 21st ... who were going to be walk-ons with no scholarship, now no longer having a roster spot. They'll have to move down the food chain of schools, and perhaps land somewhere that they actually have a chance to play. Seems like a win?
|
|
|
|
Post by vbcrazy555 on Aug 25, 2024 9:34:05 GMT -5
If women's soccer is pulling offers from 2025 PSAs, you don't think it is going to start happening in volleyball? And/or current players may be asked to leave? Many teams are at or over 18 players this season not counting any committed 2025s. The old way was a max of 12 scholarships.
The new way is a max of 18 scholarships.
I don't really have a ton of gushing sympathy for the 19th, 20th, 21st ... who were going to be walk-ons with no scholarship, now no longer having a roster spot. They'll have to move down the food chain of schools, and perhaps land somewhere that they actually have a chance to play. Seems like a win?
Does anyone have an idea when this will be approved? Or when will schools start telling 2025 recruits if they don’t have a spot for them on their roster? |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Aug 25, 2024 10:09:19 GMT -5
The old way was a max of 12 scholarships. The new way is a max of 18 scholarships. I don't really have a ton of gushing sympathy for the 19th, 20th, 21st ... who were going to be walk-ons with no scholarship, now no longer having a roster spot. They'll have to move down the food chain of schools, and perhaps land somewhere that they actually have a chance to play. Seems like a win?
Does anyone have an idea when this will be approved? Or when will schools start telling 2025 recruits if they don’t have a spot for them on their roster? the question for recruits is not about those players beyond #18 do you really want to be THe #14 full schollie player with $10k a year on a team you likelly won't even play for ? are the fancy locker rooms such a big draw. and you are a top 500 player 60 P4 schools x 18 = 1080 players. |
|
|
|
Post by vbruh on Aug 25, 2024 10:23:19 GMT -5
If women's soccer is pulling offers from 2025 PSAs, you don't think it is going to start happening in volleyball? And/or current players may be asked to leave? Many teams are at or over 18 players this season not counting any committed 2025s. In volleyball, it was stated that the average roster in D1 was 18.1. I'm going to assume the average roster of P4 schools is approximately the same. An average of 18.1 versus a current scholarship limit of 12 indicates that at least 1/3 of current rosters are non-scholarship players. I would think most coaches will end up "cutting" non-scholarship players before pulling a 2025 scholarship offer though a 2025 walk-on offer being pulled is a possibility. Also remember that more than the normal number of players will be out of eligibility after this season - 2020 class using their COVID year (non redshirts) and 2021 class (non redshirts) which is the first senior class that didn't get a COVID year. I also wouldn't use a single example (without any background info) as a sign of impending doom. Another way to look at the impact this will have is how Team USA constructed its Olympic roster, and how difficult it was to pick the last few spots and the alternate for 13 player roster cap. Granted, the NCAA cap is 18 and you have more subs, but if you look at a specific example, you can see the coach’s dilemma. Florida will return 5 L/DS in 2025 in Hoyle, Canaan, Cornier, Lee, and Vogel. They add Dezeney and Lily Hayes, arguably a top 5 Bro in this entire class. That’s 7 littles. That’s not feasible as that would only allow 11 other positions. I foresee programs to look at a set # at each position with max 4 L/DS, and also see some uncomfortable conversations with UF players and staff after the season. |
|
