Ya but you don’t switch to a club sport and retain the staff. If you’re looking to cut operating expenses in half, yet retain the same number of sports, you switch the non rev sports to club and remove top heavy expenses first which is entire coaching staff.
So then clubs would have to fund raise or pay monthly dues to support their staff.
This is also why another poster quoted John Abdou who said coaches need to make themselves indispensable to the school.
I actually think big 4 have less of a chance of survival compared to non football schools? FYI when title IX came down many schools chose to cut male programs rather than add female. I can see that happening again. It’s swift. Painful.
College water polo programs should follow Brown’s model and get private donors to endow money, so the program doesn’t have to be reliant on their school’s athletic department. Many schools like Harvard, Bucknell, Cal, Pomona-Pitzer are doing this now in some form. More will be needed if our beloved sport is to thrive in the future.
That would be terrible, but I am pretty sure they have outside endowment to support the program. Please don’t post things without any information unless substantive details can be shared with said post.
This fits the mold of a program I’d assume would get cut. State school, they need more money for football to try and be competitive and no realistic way to fund raise for water polo, don’t want to (can’t afford) to expand scholarships to women.
San Jose roster has 15 international players on it.
for funding programs - I wonder if distance for competition will be the new concern / avoiding flights and hotels - for example the SCIAC is all within a bus ride day-trip. Conferences like the Big West (with the exception of UC Davis) are pretty local. We may have to re-draw conference lines to a more geographical focus to save teams
Yes, flying to Colorado Springs, 2 nights of hotel, bus rides all for one game is a bit tough to swallow when you are on a tight budget. 20 people, 10-15K depending on flight cost and if you provide meals.
You’ll still have walk ons in non-revenue sports. Technically you could have walk ons in revenue sports as well, but highly unlikely as they will be using all available scholarships in those two sports.
With no more scholarship limits, it’s more likely you see some schools go to zero scholarships than fully funding (men’s) non revenue sports!
Indeed. Everyone in D1 that opts in to the settlement. In theory you could see schools, not opt in and they would continue as before with scholarship limits. However, let’s say they are in a conference where everyone else has opted in, you could see that external pressure prevail. In fact, that’s why everyone is assuming that all 105 roster spots for football will be fully utilized.
I think that’s a bit of a different issue. The 16 player limit has been instituted for “fair play”. You have some teams whose rosters are not much more than 16 players. Brown and Harvard for instance have -16 players I believe. More importantly, look at any FINA/Olympic games and they have those same kinds of limits except they’re even lower at 13 players.