|
Post by coacht on Nov 10, 2021 15:17:30 GMT -5
It's actually harder. My understanding from two coaches ago is if a "minor sport" coach is recruiting an athlete and not giving them any athletic money (e.g. relying on need or merit-based aid to make it work), the recruit goes into the traditional admission process and has to get in without any sort of nod to the recruit as an athlete. No "slots," no Athletic Referral Form, just a "good luck" and hope I see you in the fall. With 2.2 scholarships to work with, even cut very thinly, that's a lot of recruits that have to compete with the larger pool of applicants. Even with a 60% success rate in the Early Decision windows, you need to fill that pipeline with high-academic talent to be sure you have a team. Tack on the observation that HC doesn't stack awards (you get the highest of, not the sum of need, merit and athletic) with the 'no guarantee' process, and it's a tough sell. I would love to be told this is no longer the case. Then again, I'd love to hear that they're doubling the scholarship count across the board too. Not holding my breath. I assume you are talking about golf and tennis. It is clear that in sports like soccer, lacrosse and others that the recruit gets a preliminary decision from Admissions. Otherwise you wouldn't see dozens of HC recruits every year stating that they are committed to HC six months or a year or more prior to the earliest normal admissions decision date. Softball. Before the coach was given 2.2 scholarships to work with (2011 or so) they could get a strong yes/no/maybe in the pre-read process and a 'yes' was considered binding as long as the recruit kept their grades up their senior year. They even had one 'stretch' slot for a 3.8 GPA player that the coach could argue for. Now that they have the scholarship money, anyone they're looking to bring in that doesn't get any of that gets dropped into the Early Decision / Regular Admission pool with no support allowed by the coach. So for the players on the roster that get some money, it's a better system. For the others, a majority, being an athlete didn't help at all. And good luck if a player you "paid for" doesn't pan out. It's a long time until you, or more likely your successor gets that money back.
|
|
|
Post by purplehaze on Nov 12, 2021 18:40:40 GMT -5
An example of the uphill climb for football-playing PL schools vs. non-football - is Field Hockey I would guess American is close to being fully funded with schollies - they won the league and were good enough (nat'l rank 15) to get a bye in the first round Today they lost at #3 Iowa 3-2 - Kind of silly to have such a $ disparity in the league which kills competitiveness
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Nov 12, 2021 22:16:33 GMT -5
An example of the uphill climb for football-playing PL schools vs. non-football - is Field Hockey I would guess American is close to being fully funded with schollies - they won the league and were good enough (nat'l rank 15) to get a bye in the first round Today they lost at #3 Iowa 3-2 - Kind of silly to have such a $ disparity in the league which kills competitiveness That may explain the decision to cut a token three scholarships from the FCS maximum of 63 so the core FB playing PL members would have a slightly smaller disadvantage in minor sports against non-football schools.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Nov 28, 2021 21:30:05 GMT -5
When we have those moments of angst and depression
A Reminder of the Richness and Tradition of Crusader Sports
A mighty wind blew night and day. It stole the Oak Tree's leaves away. Then snapped its boughs and pulled its bark until the Oak was tired and stark.
But still the Oak Tree held its ground while other trees fell all around. The weary wind gave up and spoke, "How can you still be standing, Oak?"
The Oak Tree said, I know that you can break each branch of mine in two, carry every leaf away, shake my limbs, and make me sway.
But I have roots stretched in the earth, growing stronger since my birth. You'll never touch them, for you see they are the deepest part of me.
Until today, I wasn't sure of just how much I could endure. But now I've found, with thanks to you, I'm stronger than I ever knew.
- John Ryder
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Nov 29, 2021 9:47:01 GMT -5
The data below is reformatted from a table included in a forthcoming communication to HC.
The table compares direct spending by sport, and Holy Cross’ rank compared to the seven other PL schools. USMA and USNA not included as they do not submit Title IX reports. As all their athletes are on full scollies, the academies would be ranked 1 and 2 in the league if they were included.
The data is for the 2018-19 academic year. Data for 2019-20 and 2020-21 is affected by COVID. Next year for reliable data will be 2021-22. Data includes scollies cost, coaches' compensation, recruiting expenses, and operating expenses for each sport.
Sport / Holy Cross’ rank / Holy Cross $ spent / Highest $ Spent
Baseball / 4th of four / $340,000 / $960,000 M. basketball / 3rd of eight / $2,334,000 / $2,813,000 W. basketball / 5th of eight / $1,807,000 / $2,114,000 Field Hockey / 5th of eight / $955,000 / $1,433,000 Football / 5th of five * / $5,640,000 / $6,942,000 Men’s golf / 6th of six / $92,000 / $424,000 Women’s golf / 4th of four / $61,000 / $575,000 M. lacrosse / 7th of seven / $598,000 / $2,015,000 W. lacrosse / 7th of eight / $815,000 / $1,487,000 M’s rowing ** / ** / $240,000 / ** W’s rowing / 5th of six / $344,000 / $2,236,000 M’s soccer / 6th of eight / $826,000 / $1,398,000 W’s soccer / 7th of eight / $998,000 / $1,681,000 Softball / 6th of six / $698,000 / $1,393,000 M’s swimming / 6th of seven / $133,000 / $691,000 W’s swimming / 7th of eight / $324,000 / $1,126,000 M’s tennis / 6th of seven / $58,000 / $194,000 W’s tennis / 7th of seven / $48,000 / $815,000 M ‘s all track combined / 6th of seven *** / $382,000 / $1,616,000 W’s all track combined 6th of seven*** / $867,000 / $1,586,000 Volleyball 8th of eight / $683,000 / $1,278.000
M’s ice hockey / **** / $1,961,000 / **** W’s ice hockey / **** / $1,252,000 / ****
Indirect expenses / 2nd of eight / $12,347,000 ***** / $13,337,000 ***** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Fordham and Georgetown universities are not included. (If I included GU, the number is very low because GU has $0 for scollies)
** Men’s rowing is not a Patriot League sport.
*** Loyola not included because their track numbers are not combined.
**** Men’s ice hockey and women’s ice hockey compete in different conferences, Atlantic Hockey for the men, and Hockey East for the women. Boston University spent $5,594,000 on M/W ice hockey; Colgate spent $4,569,000.
***** Bucknell’s spending on indirect expenses was $4,760,000; Colgate’s $5,175,000, Lafayette’s $4,468,000. Lehigh is #1.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Nov 29, 2021 12:40:35 GMT -5
This information highlights some of the headwinds HC faces competing against its peers. Interesting though, that HC is 5th of 5 in football and has won 3 straight PL titles.
|
|
|
Post by coacht on Nov 29, 2021 13:27:32 GMT -5
So we're a basketball school. Big surprise.
An interesting measure to include in the coach's evaluation would be where your program ranked in spending versus how you finished the season. Put a bonus clause in your contract for every position you finish above your funding rank...
The Football staff deserves a raise, although they still got over 80% of the top program's funding. For most of the rest competing with a quarter to a third of the money your competition gets means never-ending frustration and a revolving door for the coaches. And M/W Golf? How the hell do you even field a team with that level of funding?
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Nov 29, 2021 13:48:21 GMT -5
So we're a basketball school. Big surprise. An interesting measure to include in the coach's evaluation would be where your program ranked in spending versus how you finished the season. Put a bonus clause in your contract for every position you finish above your funding rank... The Football staff deserves a raise, although they still got over 80% of the top program's funding. For most of the rest competing with a quarter to a third of the money your competition gets means never-ending frustration and a revolving door for the coaches. And M/W Golf? How the hell do you even field a team with that level of funding? ADMB applied a relative-funding-level-for-the-sport yardstick when evaluating coaches. He said that some teams were overperforming given their overall W-L records and that they had fewer scollies and/or their coaches were paid less than most of their peers. He evaluated the coaches of the five sports with scollies thar are at the max limit differently: M/W hoops, M/W ice hockey, and football. He acknowledged that football was at 60 scollies rather than 63, and women's ice hockey was ramping up on the scollies after joining HE. Which is why a key objective in the athletic department strategic plan is to increase the # of scollies in the 'Olympic' sports, and pay coaches more. And presumably this will be reinforced by this objective's inclusion in the overall strategic plan for the college, and which is being finalized over the next 6-7 months. The four key strategic themes in the college's strategic plan are: 1.) Reaffirmation of the Jesuit mission 2.) Promotion of academic excellence 3.) Achieve strength in athletics 4.) Promote the reputation, and improve the position (standing) of the college There will be no strength in athletics when the college is consistently in the bottom quarter of the PL when it comes to spending for most sports. Another clue is the forthcoming $6-8? million investment on the playing fields at the top of the hill. Why increase spectator seating to 3,000 if you field teams that won't draw 300?
|
|
|
Post by alum on Nov 29, 2021 14:47:11 GMT -5
PP
1. Could you tell us which school spends the most in each sport? 2. Is it possible to estimate scholarships per school per sport with this data. 3. Nit picking--Loyola has XC but not track for men. They do have both for women.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Nov 29, 2021 15:03:17 GMT -5
PP 1. Could you tell us which school spends the most in each sport? 2. Is it possible to estimate scholarships per school per sport with this data. 3. Nit picking--Loyola has XC but not track for men. They do have both for women. you can kind of estimate how many scholarships are given out. But you must first guess how much is being spent on coaches salaries, recruiting expenses, and a couple of other items.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Nov 29, 2021 15:16:39 GMT -5
Just a history major but, bison, that sounds like "no" as too many unknown variables. But what do I know?
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Nov 29, 2021 16:49:35 GMT -5
PP 1. Could you tell us which school spends the most in each sport? 2. Is it possible to estimate scholarships per school per sport with this data. 3. Nit picking--Loyola has XC but not track for men. They do have both for women. 1. That's easy, but probably not until next week. 2. It's easy to calculate the number of scollies awarded for all sports, the number of scollies per sport would require making assumptions about spending on coaches' salaries for that sport, and recruiting expenses for that sport. Operating expenses are known so Total -operating expenses, - coaches salaries, - recruiting expenses = $ in scollie aid for that sport. 3. Which is why I excluded Loyola from the mix. They spend diddly on women's track too. In 2019-20 (latest available) HC spent $6.64 million on scollies for men; $5.18 million on women's scollies. Presuming 91 known scollies for football (60), m's ice hockey (18), m's hoops (13). = 91 x $70,000 per full scollie - $6.37 million. Roughly leaving four full scollies for the other men's sports. That's a very crude calculation. And HC could very well be 'hiding' need-based financial aid awards in some sports, except for those sports where need-based aid to an athlete makes that athlete a counter, e.g., football, basketball. For comparison, Bucknell spent $6.7M on scollie aid for the men, and $8.3M for the women. That's a 44 scollie difference for women's sports between HC and Bucknell. And women's ice hockey at HC is not factored in the comparative difference.. Bucknell does have a women's water polo team, so perhaps ice hockey and water polo are a wash, at least in 2019-20..
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Nov 29, 2021 17:25:22 GMT -5
Fabulous info. The Devil seems to be lounging in "Indirect Expenses." What are they?
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Nov 29, 2021 19:09:27 GMT -5
Fabulous info. The Devil seems to be lounging in "Indirect Expenses." What are they? Indirect expenses could be described as overhead and G&A (general and administrative) and not allocated to a specific sport. For example, medical insurance for athletes is an indirect expense, as would conference affiliation fees, salaries and costs associated with the athletic director's office, maintenance of athletic facilities, etc. etc., Why HC spends $7 million or more on indirect expenses than do other PL schools is the $64 question. All the potential answers I have created over the years have not panned out. HC was with the rest of the pack 10 or more years ago, and then jumped ahead. Initially, I thought it was related to spending on architects for new facilities, or for major improvements / rehabilitation of playing venues, e.g., a new rug for field hockey. But there is no reason this discontinuity should continue year after year after year. Lehigh has 2,000 more undergrads than HC, so on a per student basis, HC spends more on athletics than does Lehigh. By that metric, HC is #1 in the Patriot League. HC spends more on athletics on a per undergraduate basis than does Boston College!!
|
|
|
Post by fillfittonfield on Dec 3, 2021 14:51:51 GMT -5
Fabulous info. The Devil seems to be lounging in "Indirect Expenses." What are they? Indirect expenses could be described as overhead and G&A (general and administrative) and not allocated to a specific sport. For example, medical insurance for athletes is an indirect expense, as would conference affiliation fees, salaries and costs associated with the athletic director's office, maintenance of athletic facilities, etc. etc., Why HC spends $7 million or more on indirect expenses than do other PL schools is the $64 question. All the potential answers I have created over the years have not panned out. HC was with the rest of the pack 10 or more years ago, and then jumped ahead. Initially, I thought it was related to spending on architects for new facilities, or for major improvements / rehabilitation of playing venues, e.g., a new rug for field hockey. But there is no reason this discontinuity should continue year after year after year. Lehigh has 2,000 more undergrads than HC, so on a per student basis, HC spends more on athletics than does Lehigh. By that metric, HC is #1 in the Patriot League. HC spends more on athletics on a per undergraduate basis than does Boston College!! PP: Do you think this might just be a case where HC defines “indirect expenses” more broadly than its PL peers? I assume there isn’t a standard or uniform set of guidelines that Athletic Departments must follow when it comes to this type of reporting. Just a guess.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Dec 6, 2021 18:32:32 GMT -5
Indirect expenses could be described as overhead and G&A (general and administrative) and not allocated to a specific sport. For example, medical insurance for athletes is an indirect expense, as would conference affiliation fees, salaries and costs associated with the athletic director's office, maintenance of athletic facilities, etc. etc., Why HC spends $7 million or more on indirect expenses than do other PL schools is the $64 question. All the potential answers I have created over the years have not panned out. HC was with the rest of the pack 10 or more years ago, and then jumped ahead. Initially, I thought it was related to spending on architects for new facilities, or for major improvements / rehabilitation of playing venues, e.g., a new rug for field hockey. But there is no reason this discontinuity should continue year after year after year. Lehigh has 2,000 more undergrads than HC, so on a per student basis, HC spends more on athletics than does Lehigh. By that metric, HC is #1 in the Patriot League. HC spends more on athletics on a per undergraduate basis than does Boston College!! PP: Do you think this might just be a case where HC defines “indirect expenses” more broadly than its PL peers? I assume there isn’t a standard or uniform set of guidelines that Athletic Departments must follow when it comes to this type of reporting. Just a guess. The link below is to the NCAA's instructions for filling out the annual revenue and expense report. ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/finance/2021NCAAFIN_AgreedUponProcedures.pdfColleges and universities use the NCAA revenue and expense report to prepare the school's Title IX submission to the Department of Education The latter report summarizes the data in the NCAA report, and a lot of detail is lost, particularly on the revenue side. The Title IX reports are publicly available. The NCAA reports generally are not, except for those public universities where state 'sunshine' laws keep them from being secreted away in the vaults of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Note that debt service for capital facilities can be included as an indirect cost in the NCAA report. (When I last read the instructions for the Title IX report, debt service for major athletic projects was to be excluded from that report.) Regardless of whether debt service is in or out of the HC reports, the great differential between HC and most of the PL when it comes to indirect expense totals precedes by years the construction of Luth and reconstruction of much of Hart.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Dec 7, 2021 7:59:22 GMT -5
Indirect expenses could be described as overhead and G&A (general and administrative) and not allocated to a specific sport. For example, medical insurance for athletes is an indirect expense, as would conference affiliation fees, salaries and costs associated with the athletic director's office, maintenance of athletic facilities, etc. etc., Why HC spends $7 million or more on indirect expenses than do other PL schools is the $64 question. All the potential answers I have created over the years have not panned out. HC was with the rest of the pack 10 or more years ago, and then jumped ahead. Initially, I thought it was related to spending on architects for new facilities, or for major improvements / rehabilitation of playing venues, e.g., a new rug for field hockey. But there is no reason this discontinuity should continue year after year after year. Lehigh has 2,000 more undergrads than HC, so on a per student basis, HC spends more on athletics than does Lehigh. By that metric, HC is #1 in the Patriot League. HC spends more on athletics on a per undergraduate basis than does Boston College!! PP: Do you think this might just be a case where HC defines “indirect expenses” more broadly than its PL peers? I assume there isn’t a standard or uniform set of guidelines that Athletic Departments must follow when it comes to this type of reporting. Just a guess. Some further history on the anomalously high indirect spending at HC and Lehigh. IIRC, the early discussion about this on the old board first centered on an explanation that Lehigh was hosting the pre-season football camp for the Philadelphia Eagles. The thought being that the extraordinary expense associated with that (and the expense was certainly offset by revenue) was the probable explanation for Lehigh's high $ amount.. For Holy Cross, the thought was the expense was probably the architect and engineering fees associated with iterative designs for what would become the Luth. Well, the Eagles have long abandoned summers in Bethlehem, and the Luth has long been built, and the indirect expense line item remains high for both schools. Colgate is one the very few schools (to my limited knowledge) that breaks out spending on athletics in its audited financial statement. (The number, IIRC, has always aligned with the total expense line item in the Title IX report.) In the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021, Colgate spent $24.0 million, a drop of nearly $4 million from the $27.9 million spent in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2020. HC has always buried athletics spending in auxiliary services, and the amount would be unknown if it were not for the Title IX reporting. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 2020, HC spent $33.8 million on athletics.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 7, 2021 9:16:26 GMT -5
First of all, I don't have enough interest to read deeply into the financials. But based on limited accounting knowledge
1) are administrative salaries counted separately? If not, that's a big chunk. On that line of thinking, Jeff Oliver would have been an indirect expense for the department. At least for basketball, that Oliver has been replaced with Woelmer, who would be directly charged to basketball.
2) Even if the general AD staff, marketing, etc is in a different bucket than indirect expenses, wouldn't everything associated with Luth be an indirect expense?
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Dec 7, 2021 14:22:34 GMT -5
First of all, I don't have enough interest to read deeply into the financials. But based on limited accounting knowledge 1) are administrative salaries counted separately? If not, that's a big chunk. On that line of thinking, Jeff Oliver would have been an indirect expense for the department. At least for basketball, that Oliver has been replaced with Woelmer, who would be directly charged to basketball. 2) Even if the general AD staff, marketing, etc is in a different bucket than indirect expenses, wouldn't everything associated with Luth be an indirect expense? The AD's office would be an indirect expense. That would encompass all admin employee compensation, -- other than administrative employees who work for only one team. An administrative employee who only works for one team would probably be classified as a direct expense charged to that team., e.g.., the Director of Basketball Operations Jeff Oliver's compensation would be an indirect expense. A strength and conditioning coach who only works for the football program should be a direct expense for the football program. I think all trainers are indirect expenses as they work on more than one team. With respect to the Luth, all or nearly all of the expenses incurred in maintaining and operating Luth would be categorized as indirect expenses. If hypothetically the rowing tank in Luth was used only for men's rowing, then I think that expense would be a direct expense of that rowing program. (Whether anyone would bother with such low-level minutiae is another matter.) Comparing expenses for academic year 2019-20. for Sacred Heart (which has football and hockey), Fairfield, Quinnipiac, and HC, illustrating that HC's indirect expense is extraordinary when compared to other New England Div I schools. . Total expenses / indirect expenses (expenses not allocated by sport)Holy Cross $33.8M / $12.3M Sacred Heart $25.0M / $4.8M Fairfield $21.1M / $7.3M Quinnipiac $27.8M / $4.3M UMass' indirect expenses are $8.8M Merrimack's $6.6M
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Dec 8, 2021 17:09:59 GMT -5
The Title IX database is now functioning for 2019-20 (you couldn't create Excel files for many weeks).
Between 2019-20 and 2018-19, the difference in total scollie $ awarded for all sports for the five PL schools with football.
Bucknell +$200K increase over 2018-19 Colgate +650K increase Holy Cross -700K decrease (Most of the cut was on the women's side). Lafayette +900K increase Lehigh +50K increase
My guess is that HC cut the women's side to 'create' $ for future women's ice hockey scollies.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Dec 8, 2021 22:53:22 GMT -5
The Title IX database is now functioning for 2019-20 (you couldn't create Excel files for many weeks). Between 2019-20 and 2018-19, the difference in total scollie $ awarded for all sports for the five PL schools with football. Bucknell +$200K increase over 2018-19 Colgate +650K increase Holy Cross -700K decrease (Most of the cut was on the women's side). Lafayette +900K increase Lehigh +50K increase My guess is that HC cut the women's side to 'create' $ for future women's ice hockey scollies. That's a morale bomb in the sports that were cut. It appears HC moved up to Hockey East without having the money to pay for it. Is the perceived prestige of HE worth cutting scholarships in other sports and thus almost guaranteeing continued losing in those sports? Some of the schools in HC's old women's hockey league moved up to D-1 in the new NEWHA. That was probably the baby step HC could afford to take without cutting scholarships in other sports and would have possibly provided HC with a second D-1 winning program to be proud of. Where was Father Brooks when the women's Olympic sports needed him? If Men's Hockey gets an invite to HE, will the men's Olympic sports lose their scholarships also? Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Dec 9, 2021 8:16:59 GMT -5
The Title IX database is now functioning for 2019-20 (you couldn't create Excel files for many weeks). Between 2019-20 and 2018-19, the difference in total scollie $ awarded for all sports for the five PL schools with football. Bucknell +$200K increase over 2018-19 Colgate +650K increase Holy Cross -700K decrease (Most of the cut was on the women's side). Lafayette +900K increase Lehigh +50K increase My guess is that HC cut the women's side to 'create' $ for future women's ice hockey scollies. That's a morale bomb in the sports that were cut. It appears HC moved up to Hockey East without having the money to pay for it. Is the perceived prestige of HE worth cutting scholarships in other sports and thus almost guaranteeing continued losing in those sports? Some of the schools in HC's old women's hockey league moved up to D-1 in the new NEWHA. That was probably the baby step HC could afford to take without cutting scholarships in other sports and would have possibly provided HC with a second D-1 winning program to be proud of. Where was Father Brooks when the women's Olympic sports needed him? If Men's Hockey gets an invite to HE, will the men's Olympic sports lose their scholarships also? Ugh. The repercussions are probably even worse than you perceive with respect to the Olympic sports on the women's side. The reduced amount for women's scollies includes the first year of ramp-up scollies for women's ice hockey, which ought to have been 4-5 full scollies. So the net loss for the Olympic sports on the women's side was possibly $1 million or more, --0in essence, most of a whole recruiting class for the Olympic sports. (And the scollie $ should increase year-over-year because of the increased cost of attendance.) With respect to the men and HE, they are already at the NCAA cap for ice hockey scollies. Moving to HE would not affect the number of scollies elsewhere. I am fairly certain this was a one-year aberration, because of the very serious Title IX implications. If this was/is not corrected and reversed in 2020-21, and 2021-22, then HC could be looking at cutting football scollies. (As has been discussed elsewhere , the M:F ratio of incoming first-years is trending toward more women than men.) I can't believe they really were so stupid, and its possible the decision was made as ADNP was out the door, and ADMB had yet to enter. ADNP was acutely aware of Title IX when it came to distributions of the CAF among the various teams. Scollie $ for women in 2018-19. $5,796,000 Scollie $ for women in 2019-20. $5,182,000
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Dec 9, 2021 8:46:52 GMT -5
FWIW, I looked at the three non-football PL schools.
AU's increase mostly covered the increased cost of attendance. BostU cut the men by $425,000, increased the women by $600,000+ Loyola held serve, increases are for higher cost of attendance.
Georgetown increased $ for both the men and women, by >$200,000 each. Fordham decreased the men by about $200,000, increased the women by about the same amount.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Dec 9, 2021 11:29:26 GMT -5
The Olympic sports women didn't complain when their schollies got cut and the Olympic sports men didn't complain when their women's sports counterparts originally got those scholarships instead of them - at least to the point it would be mentioned on Crossports since I have been active.
The only complaining I've noticed on Crossports is that filtering out of the football team.
Either the HC Athletic Dept. is communicating skillfully with student athletes and their families or perhaps it's human nature to have the confidence to speak up more when you feel you've earned it with your performance.
Either way, HC is reaping the benefits of offering 27 sports but gulping hard when it comes time to pay for competitiveness.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Dec 9, 2021 11:58:41 GMT -5
The Olympic sports women didn't complain when their sch ollies got cut and the Olympic sports men didn't complain when their women's sports counterparts originally got those scholarships instead of them - at least to the point it would be mentioned on Crossports since I have been active.The only complaining I've noticed on Crossports is that filtering out of the football team. Either the HC Athletic Dept. is communicating skillfully with student athletes and their families or perhaps it's human nature to have the confidence to speak up more when you feel you've earned it with your performance. Either way, HC is reaping the benefits of offering 27 sports but gulping hard when it comes time to pay for competitiveness. Olympic sports men's teams lost their scholarships before Al Gore invented the internet. Men's track scholarships have been gone since 1980 when women started receiving them. We knew then that Title IX demanded it. I will be annoyed if I find that women's track has lost scholarships to pay for women's hockey.
|
|