(04-02-2017 02:17 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Well that is why I'd make that rule. The whole point is to bring back more Olympic sports at major schools -- their being dropped it is showing up in the men's medal counts in the Olympics. It's insane that so few schools have Men's Volleyball, and yet it's very popular and played at a high level in high school.

Depends on the region. There's no boy's volleyball in either the SC High School League (public) or SC Independent School Association (private). There are few male youth club volleyball leagues. So should the DI schools in South Carolina be forced to add a men's program that their state can't and obviously doesn't support?

(04-02-2017 09:31 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  there shouldn't be any requirement. if you only want 1 team that's what you should be allowed to have.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Agree

Buffalo has dropped four sports, including baseball, to get to the minimum at 16. Baseball, men's soccer, men's swimming are three of the sports being dropped.

(04-01-2017 11:14 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  ...in order to be Division 1. This would seem like a good idea to save schools money all around. Currently you need 7 male and 9 female sports if you are FBS, and 6 male and 8 female if not.

I think it would be better if you would only need 5 male and 7 female if FBS and 4 male and 6 female if not.

With the ability to count cross country, indoor track and outdoor track as three separate sports, the current number makes sense.

A bare bones athletic department might sponsor men's and women's teams in basketball, cross country, indoor track and outdoor track, golf, tennis and soccer (as a required second team sport) to reach 14. I assume schools could use common coaches for men's and women's teams in cross country, indoor track and outdoor track, golf and tennis.

Schools are allowed to offer around half of the total allowed number of scholarships, with an overall minimum of 50 excluding basketball (with an alternative minimum of 38 for higher cost, presumably private, schools).

These are already pretty low thresholds for schools to participate at a division 1 level.

No.Stay at 16.However non-football Div. I schools should have a minimum scholarship number.Ark.St. 203, Little Rock 105(same conference)--that is just ridiculous.Some sort of benchmark should be set on the number of scholarships a DI school must have.If a few schools have to drop to DII---fine.

why should there be a minimum?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(04-03-2017 12:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-02-2017 02:17 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Well that is why I'd make that rule. The whole point is to bring back more Olympic sports at major schools -- their being dropped it is showing up in the men's medal counts in the Olympics. It's insane that so few schools have Men's Volleyball, and yet it's very popular and played at a high level in high school.

Depends on the region. There's no boy's volleyball in either the SC High School League (public) or SC Independent School Association (private). There are few male youth club volleyball leagues. So should the DI schools in South Carolina be forced to add a men's program that their state can't and obviously doesn't support?

I'm in California and every High School has men's water polo, and men's and women's Volleyball and Badminton (co-ed,, you have men's and women's singles, and doubles, and mixed doubles teams). We also have a huge men's soccer participation and growing men's lacrosse. Many more boys than girls play those sports. And yet you get to college, no scholarships for men, only women because of football.

I really don't care what additional sports a school carries, but the P5 conferences, having all the money, should put legislation for themselves to require 22 sports. The NCAA should up the FBS requirement to 18. Now what those sports are, I could care less. If you want table tennis or squash or ice hockey or rugby or rifle, then go for it. In California Ice Hockey is not going to happen, but Volleyball will, and lacrosse. In Minnesota Ice Hockey happens. It's all fine. The concept is to have more sports.

The idea is not to legislate requirement of any particular sports, just that the number be increased. Schools are trying to drop sports to funnel an even more disproportionate amount of funds into Football. So increase the minimums to slow that down. A D-I athletic department should have more sports not less. And if everyone has to carry more, there is no unfair burden.

(04-03-2017 10:03 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  why should there be a minimum?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

The NCAA provides a competitive level for schools that don't want to fund a lot of sports and a lot of scholarships, it's called Division II.

(04-03-2017 11:43 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 12:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-02-2017 02:17 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Well that is why I'd make that rule. The whole point is to bring back more Olympic sports at major schools -- their being dropped it is showing up in the men's medal counts in the Olympics. It's insane that so few schools have Men's Volleyball, and yet it's very popular and played at a high level in high school.

Depends on the region. There's no boy's volleyball in either the SC High School League (public) or SC Independent School Association (private). There are few male youth club volleyball leagues. So should the DI schools in South Carolina be forced to add a men's program that their state can't and obviously doesn't support?

I'm in California and every High School has men's water polo, and men's and women's Volleyball and Badminton (co-ed,, you have men's and women's singles, and doubles, and mixed doubles teams). We also have a huge men's soccer participation and growing men's lacrosse. Many more boys than girls play those sports. And yet you get to college, no scholarships for men, only women because of football.

I really don't care what additional sports a school carries, but the P5 conferences, having all the money, should put legislation for themselves to require 22 sports. The NCAA should up the FBS requirement to 18. Now what those sports are, I could care less. If you want table tennis or squash or ice hockey or rugby or rifle, then go for it. In California Ice Hockey is not going to happen, but Volleyball will, and lacrosse. In Minnesota Ice Hockey happens. It's all fine. The concept is to have more sports.

The idea is not to legislate requirement of any particular sports, just that the number be increased. Schools are trying to drop sports to funnel an even more disproportionate amount of funds into Football. So increase the minimums to slow that down. A D-I athletic department should have more sports not less. And if everyone has to carry more, there is no unfair burden.

I would rather individual athletic departments have the choice to add or subtract sports based upon their individual needs and desires than being dictated to by the NCAA. Schools like Clemson, who's athletic department is self-sufficient, should not be forced to just throw money into endless money pits without any chance of ever being able to recoup it. If Clemson decides to spend money on football it is protecting it's cash cow as football is what funds the rest of the athletic department. When football suffered at Clemson during the 1990's so did the rest of the athletic programs because the money wasn't there for facility improvements, equipment, etc. Once football improved so has everybody else. Every sport either has seen massive facility improvements or upgrades or is in the process of getting them.

I think some people on this thread have completely lost the idea of what college sports are supposed to represent. If you are only interested in football, and want your university to stop supporting anything else, then maybe college sports isn't what you should be into.

(04-04-2017 11:14 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  I think some people on this thread have completely lost the idea of what college sports are supposed to represent. If you are only interested in football, and want your university to stop supporting anything else, then maybe college sports isn't what you should be into.

To be fair that is only one or two people.

What most of us who are opposed to raising the minimum are opposed to is forcing schools to spend millions on sports that have little fan value and absolutely no chance of ever turning a profit.

(04-04-2017 11:24 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 11:14 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  I think some people on this thread have completely lost the idea of what college sports are supposed to represent. If you are only interested in football, and want your university to stop supporting anything else, then maybe college sports isn't what you should be into.

To be fair that is only one or two people.

What most of us who are opposed to raising the minimum are opposed to is forcing schools to spend millions on sports that have little fan value and absolutely no chance of ever turning a profit.

Why should "being able to turn a profit" be a motive to keep a sport? Or any college extra-curricular activity? Unless you are Grand Canyon or Liberty, the motive behind college is to not turn a profit, but to provide a wide-range of experiences.

(04-04-2017 11:26 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 11:24 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 11:14 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  I think some people on this thread have completely lost the idea of what college sports are supposed to represent. If you are only interested in football, and want your university to stop supporting anything else, then maybe college sports isn't what you should be into.

To be fair that is only one or two people.

What most of us who are opposed to raising the minimum are opposed to is forcing schools to spend millions on sports that have little fan value and absolutely no chance of ever turning a profit.

Why should "being able to turn a profit" be a motive to keep a sport? Or any college extra-curricular activity? Unless you are Grand Canyon or Liberty, the motive behind college is to not turn a profit, but to provide a wide-range of experiences.

Because someone has to pay for it.

For private schools I have no problem with that. Neither do I have any problem with self-sustaining public school athletic departments.

But when you are talking about public schools who are dependent on money from your college's general fund to sustain athletics I do have a problem with it. Taxpayer money shouldn't be used to provide the "experience" of someone playing volleyball.

(04-04-2017 10:15 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 11:43 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 12:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-02-2017 02:17 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Well that is why I'd make that rule. The whole point is to bring back more Olympic sports at major schools -- their being dropped it is showing up in the men's medal counts in the Olympics. It's insane that so few schools have Men's Volleyball, and yet it's very popular and played at a high level in high school.

Depends on the region. There's no boy's volleyball in either the SC High School League (public) or SC Independent School Association (private). There are few male youth club volleyball leagues. So should the DI schools in South Carolina be forced to add a men's program that their state can't and obviously doesn't support?

I'm in California and every High School has men's water polo, and men's and women's Volleyball and Badminton (co-ed,, you have men's and women's singles, and doubles, and mixed doubles teams). We also have a huge men's soccer participation and growing men's lacrosse. Many more boys than girls play those sports. And yet you get to college, no scholarships for men, only women because of football.

I really don't care what additional sports a school carries, but the P5 conferences, having all the money, should put legislation for themselves to require 22 sports. The NCAA should up the FBS requirement to 18. Now what those sports are, I could care less. If you want table tennis or squash or ice hockey or rugby or rifle, then go for it. In California Ice Hockey is not going to happen, but Volleyball will, and lacrosse. In Minnesota Ice Hockey happens. It's all fine. The concept is to have more sports.

The idea is not to legislate requirement of any particular sports, just that the number be increased. Schools are trying to drop sports to funnel an even more disproportionate amount of funds into Football. So increase the minimums to slow that down. A D-I athletic department should have more sports not less. And if everyone has to carry more, there is no unfair burden.

I would rather individual athletic departments have the choice to add or subtract sports based upon their individual needs and desires than being dictated to by the NCAA. Schools like Clemson, who's athletic department is self-sufficient, should not be forced to just throw money into endless money pits without any chance of ever being able to recoup it. If Clemson decides to spend money on football it is protecting it's cash cow as football is what funds the rest of the athletic department. When football suffered at Clemson during the 1990's so did the rest of the athletic programs because the money wasn't there for facility improvements, equipment, etc. Once football improved so has everybody else. Every sport either has seen massive facility improvements or upgrades or is in the process of getting them.

They do have choice. Your school Clemson being an FBS school has to offer X number of sports with a total of not less than 200 scholarships. Men's and women's basketball is the only required sport that they have to offer to stay at the D1 level.

(04-04-2017 12:19 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 10:03 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  why should there be a minimum?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

The NCAA provides a competitive level for schools that don't want to fund a lot of sports and a lot of scholarships, it's called Division II.

That's not an answer to the question.