How much does Syracuse spend on each sport?

OttoMets

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
14,307
Like
17,980
You can be in compliance by having direct proportionality between the percentages of each s e x and the number of athletic opportunities for each s e x (BTW, the male players most big-time WBball teams practice against count as females for Title IX purposes), you can offer as full a slate of sports as your students show interest in (not having a field hockey team won't hurt your Title IX compliance numbers if you can show no one wants to play even though you tried to start a team), and, I imagine, if like Stanford and ND you offer basically every sport at the fully funded level there's nothing more you can do despite your majority female situation because you've maxed out. I've never claimed omniscience on every aspect of Title IX, but I do know, for example, that schools with just a WLax team are unlikely to start a MLax team without dropping another sport (like Richmond did) because they're using WLax to get closer to Title IX proportionality.

I said he must not be a fan of Title IX because just about every women's sport is non-revenue for just about every school and he said he hates non-revs.

24 rowers and 3 cox are in 3 8-seat races .
8 rowers are in the 2 4-seat races.
Plus novice races, usually at least 1 8-seat plus cox.
That's 35 (not counting novices) on the water each regatta.

Stanford, 46 on the non-lightweight rowing roster. UWashington (this year's champion), 64 on the rowing roster. UTexas (this year's runner-up), 64 on the rowing roster. Maybe other schools should re-evaluate their roster size in order to be more competitive because theirs seems to be too small?

I know you enjoy looking down your nose at others a lot. Be careful in your choice of direction.
You can be in compliance by having direct proportionality between the percentages of each s e x and the number of athletic opportunities for each s e x (BTW, the male players most big-time WBball teams practice against count as females for Title IX purposes), you can offer as full a slate of sports as your students show interest in (not having a field hockey team won't hurt your Title IX compliance numbers if you can show no one wants to play even though you tried to start a team), and, I imagine, if like Stanford and ND you offer basically every sport at the fully funded level there's nothing more you can do despite your majority female situation because you've maxed out. I've never claimed omniscience on every aspect of Title IX, but I do know, for example, that schools with just a WLax team are unlikely to start a MLax team without dropping another sport (like Richmond did) because they're using WLax to get closer to Title IX proportionality.

I said he must not be a fan of Title IX because just about every women's sport is non-revenue for just about every school and he said he hates non-revs.

24 rowers and 3 cox are in 3 8-seat races .
8 rowers are in the 2 4-seat races.
Plus novice races, usually at least 1 8-seat plus cox.
That's 35 (not counting novices) on the water each regatta.

Stanford, 46 on the non-lightweight rowing roster. UWashington (this year's champion), 64 on the rowing roster. UTexas (this year's runner-up), 64 on the rowing roster. Maybe other schools should re-evaluate their roster size in order to be more competitive because theirs seems to be too small?

I know you enjoy looking down your nose at others a lot. Be careful in your choice of direction.
Boom.
 

RandomGuy

All Conference
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
2,426
Like
4,507
I'm glad I was invited. I, a Black man, am allowed to feel this way.
I'll guess you are on the "pay the players" side of that argument. If that were to happen, would it soften your stance on title IX? Title IX is always used to argue against pay.

That argument HAS traditionally been split on racial lines, although it is changing. Former NCAA head, that coined the phrase "student athlete", admitted a few years back, that the NCAA has become a "plantation system." Unpaid workers generating riches.

I'm all for title IX. Gals should get to kick A$$, too. It's also in the original spirit of college sports, before the $$ took over. I'm one of those weirdos that thinks all of those things are possible.
 

longtimefan

All American
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
5,009
Like
4,396
What athletic prowess? If the rest of the world didn't field Uber drivers to play on their teams, the USWNT would be in the same boat as the men. It's easy to dominate in the kiddie pool. When you have to swim on the deep end, you see what you're made of.
That is such an uninformed opinion. It should not go unchallenged.

What are the two most popular sports worldwide? Basketball and football (soccer), with apologies to cricket. And American women are ultra-competitive in both.

Of course, American men lead the pack in basketball. They would be competitive in soccer if American football did not siphon off the great majority of top-flight field athletes.

So, I expect that U.S. women will remain in the mix in both major sports going forward, regardless of investments made by other countries, led by the Europeans.

The US was smart (or lucky) enough to get decades headstart on the rest of the world turning its female athletes loose. Credit, or blame, Title IX.
 

Townie72

All American
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
5,474
Like
5,709
That is such an uninformed opinion. It should not go unchallenged.

What are the two most popular sports worldwide? Basketball and football (soccer), with apologies to cricket. And American women are ultra-competitive in both.

Of course, American men lead the pack in basketball. They would be competitive in soccer if American football did not siphon off the great majority of top-flight field athletes.

So, I expect that U.S. women will remain in the mix in both major sports going forward, regardless of investments made by other countries, led by the Europeans.

The US was smart (or lucky) enough to get decades headstart on the rest of the world turning its female athletes loose. Credit, or blame, Title IX.
The sport that is the world's most popular is Men's soccer (or football which is what the rest of the world calls it)

Women playing the sport is virtually unheard of. There are teams, but the relationship between Manchester United Men's Team and the Women's team is like MLB versus Single A. It's the WNBA versus the real NBA.

Title IX which forced colleges to expand their women's teams seems to me like a form of Government subsidy.

Overall, after a period of growth, soccer participation in the US has fallen significantly in the last few years.
 
Last edited:

creatorsgame

All American
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Messages
6,591
Like
11,974
Overall, after a period of growth, soccer participation in the US has fallen significantly in the last few years.
The participation numbers are indeed on a downward trend, at least last I knew. I wonder how much of this is related to parents and players fed up with the pay-to-play model?

My high school players (apart from 1 incoming freshman I know of) don’t play club ball. In a rural school district they aren’t driving to the other side of the county or into Raleigh, nor can most afford to access the sport in this manner. What they do instead is play a lot of pickup ball. Organize it at a school or park and just play. They don’t get coaching but they are at least getting touches on the ball. Also, there isn’t an emphasis on winning. They play hard and do it because they love the game. I wonder how much the over-emphasis on playing to win (at least at the younger levels) impacts participation rates? I think it can spoil it for kids that are just trying to have fun before they decide they want to take the sport to a more advanced level, and they prematurely walk away from the game.
 

nzm136

All Conference
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
2,666
Like
3,007
Two points:
1.) Women's sports in this country might not have appeared in the first place without Title IX
2.) If they would not "entirely" disappear, what percentage would? What percentage do you think should?
1. Point #1 is irrelevant to right now. Unless I get my hands on a time machine, I really didn’t care how it happened. It happened, and it won’t change.

2. Point #2 is stupid speculation, but I’ll play ball. 100%>X>0%. That’s how much should and would.
 

Cheriehoop

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
7,580
Like
17,147
Women in non-rev sports at UVa usually have as good an admissions package as the non-athletes. Are there onesies and twosies that got "Look the other way" admissions? Of course there are. I won't include WB-ball in this discussion.

One of UVa's "dirty little secrets" is the affirmative action program it runs to admit males. Roughly 70% of each class would be female without it, so there already are females being turned down who would otherwise get in.
What you say about male admittance in favor of women isn’t just at UVA. The excuse I heard was wanting their student demographics as close to 50% male and 50% female as they can. Admittance criteria for men vs women is different and adjusted accordingly. Less men apply for colleges, less men have higher grades/scores and admittance criteria is lowered for males.
 

longtimefan

All American
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
5,009
Like
4,396
1. Point #1 is irrelevant to right now. Unless I get my hands on a time machine, I really didn’t care how it happened. It happened, and it won’t change.

2. Point #2 is stupid speculation, but I’ll play ball. 100%>X>0%. That’s how much should and would.
You're the one who made the original "stupid" comment. And, a pretty condescending one, at that.
 

GoSU96

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
12,393
Like
14,415
It'd be social Nirvana for the 30% of the students that are male.
= Geneseo in the late 70's/early 80's, which some of us in this community had the privilege of experiencing.

It ain't a bad thing.
 

RaleighSUfan

Scout Team
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
358
Like
449
My 2 cents on Women's Rowing:

Rowing is an extremely expensive sport to administer. Racing 8 shells can cost over $40K. This excludes accessories. I've been to the Syracuse boathouse on the North end of Onondaga Lake... they probably have around 40-50 boats on hand (this includes 8's, 4's, 2's and singles). Most high-end Div. I schools carry 60-70 athletes on their roster. Of the 60ish athletes, about 40 are recruited/scholarship athletes. These 40 athletes split the maximum 20 scholarships if the program is fully funded (Syracuse and Virginia are both fully funded). Most athletes are partial scholarship athletes. Only a handful are on full rides... mostly from Australia/New Zealand or England. The other major cost to rowing programs is the travel. Most regattas require significant travel. In additional to travel for the athletes, the boats and equipment need to be transported.

As far as admittance to schools like Virginia and Duke for Rowing athletes... they do have a certain number of exceptions each year for athletes under the students with "special talents" exception. However, I know for a fact that at schools like Duke, Virginia and Georgetown don't just let in any student that happens to row. These schools might allow a student-athlete with an SAT score of 1,200+ to be admitted vs. their normal standard of 1,400+. In other words, they're not just letting in anyone.
 

FloridaFan

2nd String
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Messages
575
Like
829
I don’t understand the dislike of Non-revenue and women’s sports. Heck with the increased revenue from football and basketball I would look to potentially increase investments in all sports and look to add others such as golf/bowling (if we do not offer those)
 

nzm136

All Conference
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
2,666
Like
3,007
You're the one who made the original "stupid" comment. And, a pretty condescending one, at that.
I’m sorry I hurt your feelings. I’ll buy you a sticker if we ever meet LOL

But Title IX is an inefficiency and a drain, no matter how desperately you want it to not be. It’s no different than putting strings on gifts. Limiting someone’s choices does not improve the expected value of their decisions unless you have better information than they do. And, unless your contention is that the federal government better understand SU’s needs better than SU admins do, then you’re wrong. If you contention is that the federal government is better positioned, then the implications of your outlook on life are significantly against the grain of history, and I hope you like gambling.
 

Hoo's That

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
7,871
Like
10,776
And there are male athletes on Olympic sports teams who think 85 FB scholarships is an absurdity.
*just not smart ones

Pulling back on the thing keeping the lights on is a bad idea.
The present level of 85 scholarships is a reduction from what it was during the days of Ben Scwartzwalder at SU, Bear Bryant at Bama and Darrel Royal at Texas. Back then, it was over 100. When the 85 limit came in the coaches universally screamed that football would die at that level. I guess they were wrong. Membership in D-1A requires that each player be given a whole scholarship, if they're given any money, so the 85 scholarships go to 85 players. In D-1AA and D-2, the players can be given partial scholarships. There is a limit on the number of total scholarships that each school can give (X) and how many players can get them (Y), and Y>X. Could D-1A football survive survive in its present state on 75 or 80 whole scholarships? That's still more than the 60-something that D-1AA can give out. Could it survive on 75 scholarships that can be spread over up to 90 players (which would mean a bunch of walk-ons would now get some money)?
 

Townie72

All American
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
5,474
Like
5,709
The present level of 85 scholarships is a reduction from what it was during the days of Ben Scwartzwalder at SU, Bear Bryant at Bama and Darrel Royal at Texas. Back then, it was over 100. When the 85 limit came in the coaches universally screamed that football would die at that level. I guess they were wrong. Membership in D-1A requires that each player be given a whole scholarship, if they're given any money, so the 85 scholarships go to 85 players. In D-1AA and D-2, the players can be given partial scholarships. There is a limit on the number of total scholarships that each school can give (X) and how many players can get them (Y), and Y>X. Could D-1A football survive survive in its present state on 75 or 80 whole scholarships? That's still more than the 60-something that D-1AA can give out. Could it survive on 75 scholarships that can be spread over up to 90 players (which would mean a bunch of walk-ons would now get some money)?
Any change in the system that reduces the number of full scholarships significantly affects high-tuition cost schools like Syracuse.

In the days of the 100+ scholarsips, schools like Alabama had huge rosters in part to deny those athletes to other schools they competed with.
 

Hoo's That

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
7,871
Like
10,776
Any change in the system that reduces the number of full scholarships significantly affects high-tuition cost schools like Syracuse.

In the days of the 100+ scholarsips, schools like Alabama had huge rosters in part to deny those athletes to other schools they competed with.
That was the biggest reason for the huge scholarship rosters.

"I can't guarantee he will play for the University of Texas, but I can guarantee he won't play against the University of Texas." - Darrell Royal discussing a particular UTexas recruit.
 

Cheriehoop

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
7,580
Like
17,147

Townie72

All American
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
5,474
Like
5,709
I'm not sure what the ideological bent is of truthorfiction is, but I'll bet it has one.

The cbssports article clearly states "scrimmage".

But a 5-2 score in a scrimmage does say something about the relative quality of the two teams. Five goals in 90 minutes of regular play is pretty much scoring at will. (Sort of like the USAWT against the Thailanders)

Maybe we should have a game bewtween the USAWT and the Boys under-17's.

The Woman's team demand for equal pay is a little crazy. The Men's World Cup had 77 times more revenue.
 

orangecuse

All American
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
5,174
Like
6,359
I'm not sure what the ideological bent is of truthorfiction is, but I'll bet it has one.

The cbssports article clearly states "scrimmage".

But a 5-2 score in a scrimmage does say something about the relative quality of the two teams. Five goals in 90 minutes of regular play is pretty much scoring at will. (Sort of like the USAWT against the Thailanders)

Maybe we should have a game bewtween the USAWT and the Boys under-17's.

The Woman's team demand for equal pay is a little crazy. The Men's World Cup had 77 times more revenue.
100% agree with this. Hey, while we are at it, those WNBA gals should demand and get equal pay as those NBA'ers. ;):rolleyes:
 

nzm136

All Conference
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
2,666
Like
3,007
The present level of 85 scholarships is a reduction from what it was during the days of Ben Scwartzwalder at SU, Bear Bryant at Bama and Darrel Royal at Texas. Back then, it was over 100. When the 85 limit came in the coaches universally screamed that football would die at that level. I guess they were wrong. Membership in D-1A requires that each player be given a whole scholarship, if they're given any money, so the 85 scholarships go to 85 players. In D-1AA and D-2, the players can be given partial scholarships. There is a limit on the number of total scholarships that each school can give (X) and how many players can get them (Y), and Y>X. Could D-1A football survive survive in its present state on 75 or 80 whole scholarships? That's still more than the 60-something that D-1AA can give out. Could it survive on 75 scholarships that can be spread over up to 90 players (which would mean a bunch of walk-ons would now get some money)?
You took this a different way than what I meant. A school that doesn’t give out all available scholarships in fbs football pits itself at a HUGE competitive disadvantage in the sport for a number of reasons. And schools that don’t prioritize football to at least some extent risk ending up like UConn.

Would you want UVA to trade places with our friends in CT? I wouldn’t want SU to.

Although taking the comment it like you did, I’d still argue going below 85 is a bad idea of SU, as it decreases the divide between the P5 and the g5, and SU makes a lot of money being on the right side of that divide (see UConn), and that cash felts enhance the other sports.
 

Hoo's That

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
7,871
Like
10,776
You took this a different way than what I meant. A school that doesn’t give out all available scholarships in fbs football pits itself at a HUGE competitive disadvantage in the sport for a number of reasons. And schools that don’t prioritize football to at least some extent risk ending up like UConn.

Would you want UVA to trade places with our friends in CT? I wouldn’t want SU to.

Although taking the comment it like you did, I’d still argue going below 85 is a bad idea of SU, as it decreases the divide between the P5 and the g5, and SU makes a lot of money being on the right side of that divide (see UConn), and that cash felts enhance the other sports.
What I was trying to get across was having all of D-1A reduced to that number of scholarships not what amounts to "unilateral disarmament" by School X through reducing to 70 (just to throw out a number) while everyone else is still at 85. P5, G5, everyone else, it doesn't matter; the max number of scholarships for the entirety of D-1A is reduced from the 85 it is now.
 

longtimefan

All American
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
5,009
Like
4,396
I'm not sure what the ideological bent is of truthorfiction is, but I'll bet it has one.

The cbssports article clearly states "scrimmage".

But a 5-2 score in a scrimmage does say something about the relative quality of the two teams. Five goals in 90 minutes of regular play is pretty much scoring at will. (Sort of like the USAWT against the Thailanders)

Maybe we should have a game bewtween the USAWT and the Boys under-17's.

The Woman's team demand for equal pay is a little crazy. The Men's World Cup had 77 times more revenue.
Men's World Cup is much more valuable than the Women's.

But if we're talking about the US teams--and I thought we were--the women's team sells more jerseys and has higher TV ratings. They deserve to be compensated at a level equal to or greater than the US men.
 

Townie72

All American
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
5,474
Like
5,709
Men's World Cup is much more valuable than the Women's.

But if we're talking about the US teams--and I thought we were--the women's team sells more jerseys and has higher TV ratings. They deserve to be compensated at a level equal to or greater than the US men.
More valuable? Well there's an understatement if there was ever one.

The Men's World Cup generates 77 times more revenue. That's 7700%.

As a percentage of the gross, the women are significantly overpaid.
 

Top Bottom