You have 44 women's and 42 men's sports to choose.

Basketball is obvious both men's and women's .

I wonder what the most cost effective mix of sports is ?
That would probably be different for a Northern vs Southern school.
Hockey almost always makes money while baseball is terrible for Northern schools.
Baseball in the South can be great look at Coastal.

I would think bowling and rifle would be cheap but who knows.
Track scholarships can be counted twice for indoor and outdoor same for volleyball and beach volleyball.
My thinking is spend as little as possible on non revenue sports.
That way you have more money for the sports that are capable of producing some revenue.

NMSU is adding soccer that seems like a no brainer.
North Dakota dropping baseball makes just as much sense when its too cold to play a home game most of the season.

Kettering University bought Atwood stadium an eleven thousand seats all chair back .They have an ACHA team that plays at a 4600 seat rink. Maybe they start up a D3 program and hockey can play at the highest level who knows.The kettering part is a little random and Davis STish but I figured why not.

Can't answer this question unless you know: Where is the school located, how many students, what are the student body and local area demographics, what NCAA division, is it in a conference that requires certain varsity sports, who are the school's donors and hoped-for donors and what are their interests.

Football
Basketball (M&W)
Baseball
Softball
Wrestling (M)
Volleyball (W)
Swimming and Diving (M&W)
Water Polo (M&W)
Track and Field (M&W)
Cross-Country (M&W)
Soccer (M&W)
Gymnastics (M&W)
Lacrosse (M&W)
Tennis (M&W)
Golf (M&W)

You have your revenue sports and all the other teams leverage the same athletics spaces and competition areas

Tennis and golf should not be NCAA sports, or in the olympics.

(08-25-2016 05:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Tennis and golf should not be NCAA sports, or in the olympics.

Why not?

Cross Country is a must especially if you have a track team, because the runners typically do both. You can get 3 sports out of 1 scholarship athlete, because indoor and outdoor track are counted separately. You can also share coaches between the sports. Track can be a little pricey when it comes to facilities though, and it's always a negative to have to shoehorn a track into your football stadium. Cross Country costs almost nothing though.

Skiing is an inexpensive sport to run in the North if you don't take it seriously, similar to Golf in the South. No facilities to maintain or insure, and the families of student-athletes tend to be wealthy and willing to eat a lot of the cost of participating. I have a feeling Sailing is the same for coastal universities, provided you don't have to transport boats much. Tennis is a notch less wealthy than the aforementioned, with a larger travel schedule.

Women's Rowing is a good sport for matching male equivalencies if you have a suitable body of water and enough regional events to minimize travel. It permits the largest roster and most scholarships of any single women's sport.

On the flip side, Baseball and Softball are terrible choices in the North. They involve huge travel schedules, an inability to play home games for the first half of the season, the highest rate of event cancellations (due to weather), and purpose-built facilities that cannot be used for any other sport. In comparison, a typical rectangular field can be used for soccer and/or field hockey in the fall and lacrosse in the spring.

(08-25-2016 05:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Tennis and golf should not be NCAA sports, or in the olympics.

But running for 9 seconds should be?

I'd like to know which schools that are out there and have no varsity athletics program. I know that here in Minnesota, neither Metro State nor UM Rochester have any athletic programs, and I have no inclination they want to start one.

(08-25-2016 07:25 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  I'd like to know which schools that are out there and have no varsity athletics program. I know that here in Minnesota, neither Metro State nor UM Rochester have any athletic programs, and I have no inclination they want to start one.

Any idea why Metro State of Minnesota doesn't have athletic tems? It was formerly a Jr-Sr undergrad school for primarily JC transfers and adults, so it's was understandable at its formation. Do they even have a Gymnasium? Metro St MN has several campuses so it's spread out in the Twin Cities.

UM- Rochester will primarily be medical, and it is very young, so no surprise there.

If you're going Division I on the cheap:

M/W Basketball
M/W Soccer
M/W Volleyball
M Baseball
W Softball
M/W Cross Country
M/W Indoor Track and Field
M/W Outdoor Track and Field

The only reason baseball and softball are included is the requirement to have each season represented, and because so many conferences require it. A school in a northern location may be able to get by with M/W Lacrosse instead of baseball and softball; although squads are typically larger, there are not many scholarships awarded in lacrosse, and the competition venue can be shared with the soccer teams.

A school with the ability to run its golf course on an auxiliary basis could use golf in lieu of a spring team sport.

Tennis winds up being a money pit because it typically involves a great deal of international recruiting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(08-25-2016 08:10 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  If you're going Division I on the cheap:

M/W Basketball
M/W Soccer
M/W Volleyball
M Baseball
W Softball
M/W Cross Country
M/W Indoor Track and Field
M/W Outdoor Track and Field

The only reason baseball and softball are included is the requirement to have each season represented, and because so many conferences require it. A school in a northern location may be able to get by with M/W Lacrosse instead of baseball and softball; although squads are typically larger, there are not many scholarships awarded in lacrosse, and the competition venue can be shared with the soccer teams.

A school with the ability to run its golf course on an auxiliary basis could use golf in lieu of a spring team sport.

Tennis winds up being a money pit because it typically involves a great deal of international recruiting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks I was just curious I noticed Kettering(Flint,Mi formerly GMI) bought Atwood stadium and plays at Perani arena for hockey. Hockey is just a club sport and they have no football . The football stadium is used for high school football and has artificial turf.UM-Flint is another school across the river from Kettering with only club sports.I would think being in Michigan with so many close hockey programs trying to be like Union College would make sense. The enticing thing is D3 is equal to D1 in hockey. Union plays at Michigan and has made a frozen four. I have no connection to Kettering but I have played at Atwood and Perani formerly the IMA in basketball.

It is interesting that a track athlete can count as three scholarships .
Volleyball players can count as two if you have beach volleyball.
Baseball in the North is a waste of time if your not P5.
Some schools should have soccer but have long standing money losing sports instead.
Some schools have to many sports and starve the main ones.

A new Division III program cannot play Division I men's ice hockey unless if it upgrades its entire athletic program to Division II. In theory, if enough members of Division II sponsored men's ice hockey, Division II could have its own national championship, which would be a predicament for schools like Minnesota State, UAH, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(08-25-2016 08:55 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  A new Division III program cannot play Division I men's ice hockey unless if it upgrades its entire athletic program to Division II. In theory, if enough members of Division II sponsored men's ice hockey, Division II could have its own national championship, which would be a predicament for schools like Minnesota State, UAH, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DIII has it's own ice hockey national championship. Granted, there isn't very many teams outside New England, New York, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

NAIA doesn't have sponsor ice hockey now, but it will be in a couple years.

Most new college athletic programs start out in NAIA or a Christian association.

I originally posted this at USCHO.com.
http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?11...-and-a-fix

It seems to fit here as well:

Quote:By now most of us have seen that hockey, and probably all of athletics, at UAA and UAF is headed for the gallows.

I say part, a significant part, of the problem is the NCAA's model of "divisions". The NCAA mandates 14 sports if you're DI (FCS) or 16 sports (FBS) or some other numbers for DII or DIII. Basically, the NCAA mandates "n" sports to be sponsored if you want to play at Division "M".

Instead, wouldn't it be wonderful if the NCAA allowed a school to just play what makes sense for it, and at the level that makes sense for it. I'm over a decade into calling for a "cafeteria plan" for NCAA sports. The Alaska situation has me bringing it up again.

I say the NCAA should define by sport, not by division, the levels and limits of play (a "cafeteria" plan).

For example (a hypothetical):
- four tiers of football: 85 max, 65 max, 45 max, and 20 max scholarship
- three tiers of basketball: 14 max, 9 max, 2 max scholarships
- two tiers of hockey: 18 max, 3 max scholarships
and so on. The levels (and maybe even spending caps, what a concept, per level!) could be worked out at the sport level by the sport experts.

Why do I say this? Say your school wants to play DI mens hockey and DII M/WBB and DIII W bowling and nothing else. So what. Who's that really hurt? Follow the rules for what you're playing and that's that.

Instead, we have a situation where all the programs at both Alaska schools may well disappear. How does that help student athletes? Worse? We have schools everywhere pouring monies that could go toward academics instead toward required athletic programs that do nothing more than continue to generate even more red ink.

I say the schools know what is sustainable in their markets. Let them play and support what works for them.

(And before you bring up Title IX, that's Federal law, not the NCAA. Each school would work that out internally ensuring equity.)

(08-25-2016 05:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Tennis and golf should not be NCAA sports, or in the olympics.

I'm fine with Olympics, especially now that it's the pros, but "sports" that are something you can go and play with your roommate on a Saturday afternoon should not be NCAA sports and thus subsidized by schools (and ultimately taxpayers).

So go play tennis, go golf, take a swim, or a jog or sprint in the park.

I believe NCAA sports should be true team sports e.g. BB, FB, Hockey, VB, soccer.


(Holy cow, did I just kinda-sorta agree with MplsBison?)

Why would a Division III school want to play football or hockey against a school that gets hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars annually from the Division I Basketball tournament?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(08-25-2016 10:36 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Why would a Division III school want to play football or hockey against a school that gets hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars annually from the Division I Basketball tournament?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ask RIT, Colorado College, Clarkson, RPI, American International, Union etc. They do it.

(08-25-2016 10:36 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Why would a Division III school want to play football or hockey against a school that gets hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars annually from the Division I Basketball tournament?

Because they know what plays and sells in their market. See: Colorado College hockey or Johns Hopkins lax.

Give the schools the chance to make good fiscal decisions sport by sport instead of being forced to add a bunch of guaranteed red ink.

(08-25-2016 07:33 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(08-25-2016 07:25 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  I'd like to know which schools that are out there and have no varsity athletics program. I know that here in Minnesota, neither Metro State nor UM Rochester have any athletic programs, and I have no inclination they want to start one.

Any idea why Metro State of Minnesota doesn't have athletic tems? It was formerly a Jr-Sr undergrad school for primarily JC transfers and adults, so it's was understandable at its formation. Do they even have a Gymnasium? Metro St MN has several campuses so it's spread out in the Twin Cities.

UM- Rochester will primarily be medical, and it is very young, so no surprise there.

They don't have any infrastructure for any athletics, not even a PE program. Given the lack of space available at their two campuses, that's understandable. Even if the campuses were consolidated to a single location, it doesn't have the alumni depth to milk an athletic department upon and won't for another 20 years. UM Rochester on the other hand could, if there's any will power, offer athletics as it broadens it's academic offerings. But that too, is decades off.

Metro St (St Paul, MN .... not the one in Denver) could be a good candidate to have a DII or DIII athletic dept in the future. Its prez thinks 20k enrollment by 2020. That said, most its students are non-traditional and may prefer not paying for athletics. Students would have to cite a fee on themselves to pay for athletic dept, plus to build facilities from scratch and/or rent facilities.

UMR is a research campus, mainly to compete/cooperate with Mayo. I don't think it has undergrads at the moment. Maybe one day it could become like Duluth.

I'd prefer if the UM system only had the Duluth, Roch and TC campuses. Morris and Crookston should either be private or in MNSCU.