(04-15-2020 08:21 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 07:15 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 06:34 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  on campus girl watching is by far the least expensive sport

It is until the SJW crowd accuses you of being a man.

Wear dark sun glasses.

Mirrored sunglasses work best. Periferal vision is key.

(04-16-2020 08:09 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  According to Equity in Athletics, our least expensive sport is far and away our Rifle squad. We're one of the only schools in the nation that has an on-campus indoor shooting range, so the only real cost associated with it is flying 4 or 5 people to other tournaments around the country.

Ammo can get pretty expensive...of course maybe they are using a .22 caliber

(04-15-2020 01:06 PM)TexasTerror Wrote:  It’s cross country.

No field of play needed as we all have places to run. That beats the beach volleyball argument.

No equipment. They can use training equipment of other sports.

You can limit competitions by running “duals” at one meet against multiple schools if they also score it that way. If you do this versus local schools or regional schools, no hotel room nights, etc.

Only need one coach and can keep athlete roster to a handful or so

Yes, this must be the answer. The other inexpensive sports mentioned here (e.g. bowling, beach volleyball) still require at least some type of separate location or court (whether owned or leased). Cross country needs absolutely none of that - you can literally have a $0 facilities budget since you could conceivably run around anywhere on campus and there isn't any specialized equipment. As RobtheAggie in this thread mentioned, the schools that offer scholarships will generally cross-pollinate the cross-country teams with their indoor and outdoor track teams, so even that cost would be mitigated.

Is there any co-ed NCAA school at any division level that *doesn't* have both men's and women's cross-country teams? The proof would be in the pudding if there's near-100% participation of schools for *men's* cross-country (as you'll have a lot more variety of women's sports at football schools due to Title IX).

(04-16-2020 09:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 01:06 PM)TexasTerror Wrote:  It’s cross country.

No field of play needed as we all have places to run. That beats the beach volleyball argument.

No equipment. They can use training equipment of other sports.

You can limit competitions by running “duals” at one meet against multiple schools if they also score it that way. If you do this versus local schools or regional schools, no hotel room nights, etc.

Only need one coach and can keep athlete roster to a handful or so

Yes, this must be the answer. The other inexpensive sports mentioned here (e.g. bowling, beach volleyball) still require at least some type of separate location or court (whether owned or leased). Cross country needs absolutely none of that - you can literally have a $0 facilities budget since you could conceivably run around anywhere on campus and there isn't any specialized equipment. As RobtheAggie in this thread mentioned, the schools that offer scholarships will generally cross-pollinate the cross-country teams with their indoor and outdoor track teams, so even that cost would be mitigated.

Is there any co-ed NCAA school at any division level that *doesn't* have both men's and women's cross-country teams? The proof would be in the pudding if there's near-100% participation of schools for *men's* cross-country (as you'll have a lot more variety of women's sports at football schools due to Title IX).

In D2; 90.6% of schools have men's XC including men's only Morehouse College, leaving 29 co-ed schools not sponsoring a team. For the women; 97.4% of schools have a team including women's only Converse College and Ursuline College, leaving 8 schools without a team including women's only Texas Woman's. So, 7 co-ed schools do not have any XC and 22 co-ed schools have a women's team but not a men's team.

Only basketball has a higher participation percentage. D2 women's volleyball has 95.5% and D2 softball has 93.5% participation with no other D2 sport above 90%.

(04-16-2020 09:52 AM)AZcats Wrote:  

(04-16-2020 09:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 01:06 PM)TexasTerror Wrote:  It’s cross country.

No field of play needed as we all have places to run. That beats the beach volleyball argument.

No equipment. They can use training equipment of other sports.

You can limit competitions by running “duals” at one meet against multiple schools if they also score it that way. If you do this versus local schools or regional schools, no hotel room nights, etc.

Only need one coach and can keep athlete roster to a handful or so

Yes, this must be the answer. The other inexpensive sports mentioned here (e.g. bowling, beach volleyball) still require at least some type of separate location or court (whether owned or leased). Cross country needs absolutely none of that - you can literally have a $0 facilities budget since you could conceivably run around anywhere on campus and there isn't any specialized equipment. As RobtheAggie in this thread mentioned, the schools that offer scholarships will generally cross-pollinate the cross-country teams with their indoor and outdoor track teams, so even that cost would be mitigated.

Is there any co-ed NCAA school at any division level that *doesn't* have both men's and women's cross-country teams? The proof would be in the pudding if there's near-100% participation of schools for *men's* cross-country (as you'll have a lot more variety of women's sports at football schools due to Title IX).

In D2; 90.6% of schools have men's XC including men's only Morehouse College, leaving 29 co-ed schools not sponsoring a team. For the women; 97.4% of schools have a team including women's only Converse College and Ursuline College, leaving 8 schools without a team including women's only Texas Woman's. So, 7 co-ed schools do not have any XC and 22 co-ed schools have a women's team but not a men's team.

Only basketball has a higher participation percentage. D2 women's volleyball has 95.5% and D2 softball has 93.5% participation with no other D2 sport above 90%.

Great info! If the only D2 sport with a higher participation percentage than cross-country is basketball, then I'd imagine that it's similar across all levels. On paper, it's such an easy and inexpensive sport for athletic departments to incorporate into their overall programs.

(04-16-2020 09:52 AM)AZcats Wrote:  In D2; 90.6% of schools have men's XC including men's only Morehouse College, leaving 29 co-ed schools not sponsoring a team. For the women; 97.4% of schools have a team including women's only Converse College and Ursuline College, leaving 8 schools without a team including women's only Texas Woman's.

Except TWU isn't all women. It's 12 percent male, yet without a single intercollegiate sport for men. Haven't heard much from the Title IX community about mandating TWU to be offering proportional sports opportunities.

(04-16-2020 11:30 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(04-16-2020 09:52 AM)AZcats Wrote:  In D2; 90.6% of schools have men's XC including men's only Morehouse College, leaving 29 co-ed schools not sponsoring a team. For the women; 97.4% of schools have a team including women's only Converse College and Ursuline College, leaving 8 schools without a team including women's only Texas Woman's.

Except TWU isn't all women. It's 12 percent male, yet without a single intercollegiate sport for men. Haven't heard much from the Title IX community about mandating TWU to be offering proportional sports opportunities.

Yes, TWU has officially been co-ed since 1994 and I believe a high percentage of the male students are in the medical/nursing programs. I agree that the school needs a name change and add men's sports. D3 Mississippi Women is fully co-ed with baseball; softball; women's volleyball; men's and women's: basketball, cross country, golf, soccer, tennis, and outdoor track & field and now all they need is a name change.

Converse College will change to co-ed Converse University in 2021 and add 7 men's sports including Cross Country.