You know what is funny

[retro44]

is that I think the Women's basketball coaches at u-con and Rutgers earns more than the football coaches DO.

 

[OrangePA]

Well Deserved

 

[Full_Rebar]

I'd laugh if I didn't think that the spending on WBB (and other sports) at SU wasn't taking away from football. Not to that extent, but certainly hurts the number of support staff for recruiting, etc.

For example, W. Lax just spent an entire week in Florida to win by a combined 46-7. Not sure that is exactly an example of spending wisely.

 

[texascpa]

I'd laugh if I didn't think that the spending on WBB (and other sports) at SU wasn't taking away from football. Not to that extent, but certainly hurts the number of support staff for recruiting, etc.

For example, W. Lax just spent an entire week in Florida to win by a combined 46-7. Not sure that is exactly an example of spending wisely.

Did they play Florida? They're usually pretty good.

Just checked. Nope, they play Florida later in the season at the Dome.

 

[Full_Rebar]

Nope- Jacksonville and Stetson on this trip. Florida comes to the Dome.

No issue with a team going away for an extended time to play good competition (like hoops in Maui), but it seems as though these were glorified scrimmages.

 

[texascpa]

Nope- Jacksonville and Stetson on this trip. Florida comes to the Dome.

No issue with a team going away for an extended time to play good competition (like hoops in Maui), but it seems as though these were glorified scrimmages.

Seems like it. But, after those two games they only play 5 more on the road, so I've got to assume that there was enough in the budget for it.

 

[GoSU96]

I'd laugh if I didn't think that the spending on WBB (and other sports) at SU wasn't taking away from football. Not to that extent, but certainly hurts the number of support staff for recruiting, etc.

For example, W. Lax just spent an entire week in Florida to win by a combined 46-7. Not sure that is exactly an example of spending wisely.

The athletic department reported $9.6M in net proceeds after expenses. Womens sports isn't hurting anything.

Unless there is some NCAA restrictions on spending, which there very well could be, SU spends what it spends on recruiting because it chooses to, not because of financial hardship or misallocation of resources.

 

[Full_Rebar]

First, I don't believe that profit number (or any other number reported by any NCAA D1 school).

Secondly, I would say that there is in fact a misallocation of resources currently in the SUAD. As others on this board have pointed out, SU football trails most of the ACC in the number of non-coaching staff members. I believe that more money should be made available to the football program and this could be used to add staff in sports medicine, s&c, recruiting/operations, nutritionist, etc.

I believe that the amount SU spends on non-revenue sports directly impacts football, and isn't very cost-effective. I realize many others don't share this belief, but based on what I know, you can't convince me otherwise.

 

[CuseOnly]

I'd laugh if I didn't think that the spending on WBB (and other sports) at SU wasn't taking away from football. Not to that extent, but certainly hurts the number of support staff for recruiting, etc.

For example, W. Lax just spent an entire week in Florida to win by a combined 46-7. Not sure that is exactly an example of spending wisely.

Title IX requires that you have those teams for equality in sports. As soon as you start cutting sports for women, then you have to cut them for men. It's kind of a requirement by the Federal Government.

 

[GoSU96]

First, I don't believe that profit number (or any other number reported by any NCAA D1 school).

Secondly, I would say that there is in fact a misallocation of resources currently in the SUAD. As others on this board have pointed out, SU football trails most of the ACC in the number of non-coaching staff members. I believe that more money should be made available to the football program and this could be used to add staff in sports medicine, s&c, recruiting/operations, nutritionist, etc.

I believe that the amount SU spends on non-revenue sports directly impacts football, and isn't very cost-effective. I realize many others don't share this belief, but based on what I know, you can't convince me otherwise.

So all those schools are falsly reporting the the Dept. of Education. Why would you do that?

 

[retro44]

Title IX requires that you have those teams for equality in sports. As soon as you start cutting sports for women, then you have to cut them for men. It's kind of a requirement by the Federal Government.

not really true.there is a % they go by in participation rates. They could cut a womens sport if it doesn't put them out of balance

 

[CuseOnly]

First, I don't believe that profit number (or any other number reported by any NCAA D1 school).

Secondly, I would say that there is in fact a misallocation of resources currently in the SUAD. As others on this board have pointed out, SU football trails most of the ACC in the number of non-coaching staff members. I believe that more money should be made available to the football program and this could be used to add staff in sports medicine, s&c, recruiting/operations, nutritionist, etc.

I believe that the amount SU spends on non-revenue sports directly impacts football, and isn't very cost-effective. I realize many others don't share this belief, but based on what I know, you can't convince me otherwise.

Did you not read this:

Title IX requires that you have those teams for equality in sports. As soon as you start cutting sports for women, then you have to cut them for men. It's kind of a requirement by the Federal Government.

 

[CuseOnly]

not really true.there is a % they go by in participation rates. They could cut a womens sport if it doesn't put them out of balance

Correct, but if you assume that we are in balance currently which I am sure SU is, what do you think would happen if you cut a female sport that had say 20 women on the team (field Hockey, Lacrosse). Yup, you guessed it, you would have to get in line with participation rates and cut a program on the men's side with men's sports which is why I brought it up.

 

[rosconey]

its about spending stupid money for a girls sports coach's and the olympic sports-

we spend a boatload for them-that takes away from revenue producers like football and hoops

 

[retro44]

Correct, but if you assume that we are in balance currently which I am sure SU is, what do you think would happen if you cut a female sport that had say 20 women on the team (field Hockey, Lacrosse). Yup, you guessed it, you would have to get in line with participation rates and cut a program on the men's side with men's sports which is why I brought it up.

you got me looking and there are 11 women teams vs. 7 for men

and holy cow there are 63 women on the rowing team, I never would have guessed it.

 

[Scooch]

SU Olympic sports were largely a joke under Jake. It made us look Mickey Mouse compared to a lot of serious D-1 athletic departments.

I'm very pleased with what Doc Gross has done to rectify that.

 

[Ghost]

Kittens - the answer to that questions is always kittens. This thread went off the rails from the jump.

 

[CuseOnly]

you got me looking and there are 11 women teams vs. 7 for men

and holy cow there are 63 women on the rowing team, I never would have guessed it.

The biggest money losers in college athletics are Men's lacrosse believe it or not and Rowing in general. There are 3 different ways a college can be in compliance actually.
http://www.nwlc.org/resource/debunking-myths-about-title-ix-and-athletics

The 63 women on the rowing team doesn't compare to the 85 on a football team that is why there are more women's teams than men's. Also, one of the ways to stay in compliance is to keep the sports teams gender ratios the same as the student population.

It also tells you that if your daughter wants to get a scholarship, get her into rowing

 

[Full_Rebar]

its about spending stupid money for a girls sports coach's and the olympic sports-

we spend a boatload for them-that takes away from revenue producers like football and hoops

This is exactly what I am talking about. Having competitive teams is great, blowing a bunch of money on them, when you don't need to spend that much, isn't a good thing.

I'm in the camp that you spend more on football to build it back up, and when you start seeing a bigger return there, put some of that profit back into the olympic sports.

Yes, I believe all colleges fudge the numbers reported to the DOE. People I know tell me that the schools can manipulate the numbers in a few different ways.

 

[Moontan]

Money is spent on the non-revenue sports in order to:

1. Compete for championships
2. Climb in the various all-sports standings/rankings

These things help build the SU brand... for athletics and otherwise.

 

[GoSU96]

This is exactly what I am talking about. Having competitive teams is great, blowing a bunch of money on them, when you don't need to spend that much, isn't a good thing.

I'm in the camp that you spend more on football to build it back up, and when you start seeing a bigger return there, put some of that profit back into the olympic sports.

Yes, I believe all colleges fudge the numbers reported to the DOE. People I know tell me that the schools can manipulate the numbers in a few different ways.

Schools might change the allocations in how they account for revenue and expenses between programs, and they hide losses by taking money from outside to at least show they break even, but why would SU show a bottomline number of $9.6M to the positive if they weren't.

 

[Full_Rebar]

Go- That's what I don't understand, especially with the push to have the BE exit fee spread out across campus so that it wouldn't drain the Athletics budget (as SU's CFO put it), and the delays in the IPF start. I find it hard to believe that 9.6 million was suddenly spent on other things in Athletics, but I think it has to do with public perception..which means more about campus and SU constituents than the general public (I used to work at SU and know many who did/still work in the AD, so this is where it comes from).

Believe me, I hope that it is accurate and a true reflection of what the ACC move will allow SU to do moving forward, but what I still hear makes me a skeptic. Trust me, I'll be very happy if this is another occasion where I am proven wrong.

 

[GoSU96]

Go- That's what I don't understand, especially with the push to have the BE exit fee spread out across campus so that it wouldn't drain the Athletics budget (as SU's CFO put it), and the delays in the IPF start. I find it hard to believe that 9.6 million was suddenly spent on other things in Athletics, but I think it has to do with public perception..which means more about campus and SU constituents than the general public (I used to work at SU and know many who did/still work in the AD, so this is where it comes from).

Believe me, I hope that it is accurate and a true reflection of what the ACC move will allow SU to do moving forward, but what I still hear makes me a skeptic. Trust me, I'll be very happy if this is another occasion where I am proven wrong.

I've heard the same things about Gross spending like a drunken sailor so I don't know where the $9.6 comes from or what it is being used from.