- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: This is what people should be complaining about.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 9:12 am to doubleb
Posted on 6/29/17 at 9:12 am to doubleb
quote:
So you think all 100+ D 1 teams are on equal footing and have a chance?
Did you read what I said? No. I said there are 18 to 20 legitimate contenders with another perhaps dozen with an outside chance.
1
Posted on 6/29/17 at 9:12 am to navy
quote:
Posted by navy on 6/28/17 at 1:31 pm to AtlantaLSUfan quote: Because of title 9 every male scholarship gets a female scholarship. I thought genders didn't play sports ... athletes do? Seems like every college should get a lump sum of schollies to do with as they please with any sport.
I regret I have just one upvote to give
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:21 am to doubleb
quote:
What kills the budget is all the travel, men's and women's even though they are money losers.
Oh I agree and that is my point. Giving athletes free rides doesn't scratch the surface on what drives costs.
quote:
And look at what coaches make in sports that don't make money. Should the WBB coach get 900K? Her sport loses 3 million a season. It's crazy.
All it takes is one school to pay up and the rest are forced to fall in line or they lose all credibility as a competitive program. Look what football coaches are making now. A lot of these guys are ambitious high school PE teachers. Competent coordinators are now requiring multi million dollar contracts.
quote:
Athletic Departments make rules to limit spending because they can't control themselves. These teams travel all over, they have large coaching and administrative staffs, and extravagant facilities.
It's crazy.
I was on a flight with the Univ of Kansas women's rowing team. With the team, coaches, and support staff, there were easily 50 girls on this flight. They were at a 2 day event that required 4 days of travel. I don't even want to think about the costs associated with such an event. I'll bet most Kansas students/alums would be shocked they had a rowing team.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:38 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Did you read what I said? No. I said there are 18 to 20 legitimate contenders with another perhaps dozen with an outside chance.
Oh, I agree with that; so how can they say the schollie limits are there to assure balance when its not balanced as it is?
I think an Ath. Dept. should be allowed to provide scholarships as they see fit as long as they follow Federal laws.
Under the current system administrators and coaches are doing great, but schools keep crying poverty and refuse to expand their programs by giving our more scholarships.
Why can't the kids share the wealth too?
Posted on 6/29/17 at 11:06 am to Broski
I'll plead ignorance when it comes to this matter, but I count 34 players on the baseball roster. Throwing out the matter of title IX (which I agree is ridiculous), it seems to me like 11.7 is a fair number.
10 scholarships seems to be a decent enough "cushion" for kids who you offer that don't turn out to be as good as you hoped.
Are we in an uproar simply because it's a "big 3" sport and has fewer scholarships than non-revenue sports? That's cool. I just want to be on the same page.
10 scholarships seems to be a decent enough "cushion" for kids who you offer that don't turn out to be as good as you hoped.
Are we in an uproar simply because it's a "big 3" sport and has fewer scholarships than non-revenue sports? That's cool. I just want to be on the same page.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 11:30 am to tgerb8
quote:
I'll plead ignorance when it comes to this matter, but I count 34 players on the baseball roster. Throwing out the matter of title IX (which I agree is ridiculous), it seems to me like 11.7 is a fair number.
Is it a fair number when the travel squad is something like 27 players?
Is it a fair number when its common to play 15-20 or more players in a weekend series?
Is it fair when MBB has 13, WBB 15 when their starting teams consist of 5 kids each?
Hockey both men's and women's are allowed 15 each I believe. Is giving baseball 11.7 fair?
I and many others do not think it makes sense.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 12:29 pm to doubleb
This thread is giving me another one of my brilliant ideas:
Form the "Competitive Cooking League" - open to all competitors, male, female, transgender, etc., but only women can earn schollies. Their "practice" facilities will be the cafeterias and other restaurants on campus. They will have a regional competition in the Fall, followed by nationals in the Spring. 85 Scholarships at Division I. That balances out football with about as cost efficient sport as I can name.
I can't even fight off the good ideas.
Form the "Competitive Cooking League" - open to all competitors, male, female, transgender, etc., but only women can earn schollies. Their "practice" facilities will be the cafeterias and other restaurants on campus. They will have a regional competition in the Fall, followed by nationals in the Spring. 85 Scholarships at Division I. That balances out football with about as cost efficient sport as I can name.
I can't even fight off the good ideas.
This post was edited on 6/29/17 at 12:30 pm
Posted on 6/29/17 at 12:37 pm to Broski
I have always said the way to fix this is that football because it is so different and has a roster so large that it should not be counted in regards to title IX.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 1:48 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
This thread is giving me another one of my brilliant ideas:
That would comply with title IX.
It still wouldn't help baseball.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 3:02 pm to doubleb
quote:
It still wouldn't help baseball.
Eventually it would. Scholarship limits are set to accommodate the requirements of Title IX. They are interrelated.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 4:20 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Scholarship limits are set to accommodate the requirements of Title IX. They are interrelated.
They were set for other reasons besides Title IX.
Why would baseball a sport requiring a large roster get only 11.7 scholarships? Because it wasn't a big money maker.
FWIW, girl's softball gets 12 despite a smaller roster.
Men's Hockey gets 18 and guess what? So does Women's Hockey. Men's lacrosse gets 12.6 and Women's Lacrosse gets 12. Why is that?
Men's tennis gets 4.5 and Women's gets 8. MBB gets 13 and WBB gets 15.
Men's wrestling gets 9.9 (there's no women's wrestling) and Women's rowing gets 20 (there is no men's rowing).
Where do these numbers come from? Is there any common denominator? In some sports women get more, men get less. In one men get more, in one they get the same. In some men have it and women do not.
Now LSU doesn't have all of these sports. We limit the numbers. Stanford and other universities choose to have more varsity teams and provide scholarships because they want to do it.
Before there were scholarship numbers someone had to say let's limit each sport to X. Why baseball with 11.7 and women's WBB with 15? Baseball usually has ten starters and WBB only has 5; yet they get way more scholarships. Why?
Posted on 6/29/17 at 4:39 pm to BlackCoffeeKid
quote:
quote:
I don't believe that is correct. My daughter played D2 soccer and most of the players were on partials.
I don't know the details but my understanding of Title IX is that for every male sport offered there must be a female sport offered.
There are 3 methods I think. some of them depend upon percentage of the school population by gender. One method is even number of scholarships. Sense there is no "female football", the other sports have to adjust. There are more female track ships than male for example.
In some smaller schools, it is not scholarships, but rather participation. In those cases, if you want to run track (walk on), you need to recruit one or more females to participate on some athletic team.
All I really know is it is really complicated. Unless you want to spend a lot of time researching the issue, just know that recognize the 11.7 is due to financial issues and Title IX.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 4:43 pm to Broski
"Genders don't play sports, athletes do."
These are the exact words from the NCAA's latest commercial. If they truly believe this, then I don't see how Title IX is still relevant.
If they want to keep hiding behind it, then half the football team needs to feel like women so we can get more scholarships for other sports that actually make money.
These are the exact words from the NCAA's latest commercial. If they truly believe this, then I don't see how Title IX is still relevant.
If they want to keep hiding behind it, then half the football team needs to feel like women so we can get more scholarships for other sports that actually make money.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 4:48 pm to doubleb
quote:
Why would baseball a sport requiring a large roster get only 11.7 scholarships? Because it wasn't a big money maker.
FWIW, girl's softball gets 12 despite a smaller roster.
Which sport do you think makes more money of the two?
Those scholarship numbers are directed by Title IX
Posted on 6/29/17 at 7:27 pm to Broski
Lacrosse? It gets more than baseball. It gets one less than MBB.
There is no rhyme or reason why Lacrosse gets more than baseball.
There is no rhyme or reason why Lacrosse gets more than baseball.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 8:45 pm to doubleb
The problem smaller schools have is, if LSU were able to put every kid on full scholarship in baseball, we'd never lose again. A lot of good players get spread out by us only having 11.7. Where Davidson only had 3 and won a regional, half the country would shut down their programs if they had to compete with the SEC at a number like 20 scholarships.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 9:00 pm to BlackCoffeeKid
LSU had a nationally ranked men's gymnastics team AND nationally ranked men's wrestling team until title IX came along......... poof, gone overnight!
Posted on 6/29/17 at 9:17 pm to Broski
This is why sat/act scores and gpa are so important in baseball. If can get a player that can help the team and not have to give up part of a scholarship it's huge
Posted on 6/29/17 at 9:35 pm to chalmetteowl
quote:
The problem smaller schools have is, if LSU were able to put every kid on full scholarship in baseball, we'd never lose again. A lot of good players get spread out by us only having 11.7. Where Davidson only had 3 and won a regional, half the country would shut down their programs if they had to compete with the SEC at a number like 20 scholarships.
So to help Davidson, Southern and others compete, LSU and the other schools are to chop up 11.7 scholarships to fill their roster of 34.
How does that help Davidson? They have to do the same thing, right? The best players are still going to LSU.
MBB gets 13,schollies. That's plenty. WBB gets 15 and that's plenty. 11.7 isn't near enough for baseball and forces kids to chop up aid.
Btw, chopping up aid shuts out kids from less prosperous families. You limit those because they can't get a full ride under the current system. It's not practical to give a whole schollie to one kid as you can in hoops and football.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 9:48 pm to doubleb
quote:
They were set for other reasons besides Title IX.
Title IX still affects the totals, period. And all the crazy imbalances you note. Many schools won't field a men's wrestling team because no revenue and that's even more to balance out with female scholarships.
Now, you're right that there is a huge dose of straight up arbitrariness to the limits. Like Equestrian. Huge amount of scholarships relative to the number of athletes competing in the sport. But, again, that is a part of the balancing act they're trying to do.
I'm not poo-pooing the costs, either, but football scholarships at Division I are absolutely not being limited because of cost. That's a completely unsupportable argument. I believe every school would make a decision to have or not have a sport based on raw revenue/interest numbers, if football were exempted and all other things were equal. And if that happened, I think the numbers of baseball scholarships would go up. Maybe not a lot. Maybe not to 27 or whatever (which would make sense if you consider that most team sports have a 1st string, backup and third string player). And if it went up to 16 or 18, softball would have to get 16 or 18.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News