kikuria

Not precisely. I went down a rabbit hole years ago and spent way too much time researching this (my wife will never forgive me.) The program was always technically a "club" but that meant something different when it was founded in 1984. Club Sports then were generally sports the University would track towards varsity-status. Direct support from the Athletic Department ended in 1991 though the team maintained informal support. It's unclear why the school never formalized varsity-status. Based on some of the documents I tracked down, it appears that the University made the decision in roughly 1990/1991 to begin elevating athletics in terms of divisions. The school moved to Division 2 in 1995 before the subsequent move to Division 1. It's important to understand that there wasn't a profound distinction in rowing in the 1980's and early 1990's. No one was well funded so clubs could make a run at it. The biggest distinction was whether or not you had a paid coach. Which was a consequence of 100 years worth of alumni to draw from. The program moved into the student government oversight era during the 1991/1992 school year and it appears to have been a scramble to survive. There was a solid group of seniors that made it work. But 20 years old's don't plan the way a Department does (longer term.) The teams had ups and downs typical of club programs. Ups coincided with having a coach of reasonable caliber. Downs tended to occur when it was heavily "student run" (student run clubs can't hold a candle to ones with professional leadership - no matter how hard one tries.) There was always an occasional crew that would do well but very little programmatic stability and success. It would be like Track and Field having the occasional athlete in a particular event do well rather than the success it has had across many events with a wide range of athletes over a long period (not a perfect analogy.)

Family obligations have kept me offline and I come back to lots of new stuff. My two cents - Chris Chase is a good fit. The challenges with "starting up" aren't the same as coming into a fully established program where you're maximizing what you already have and look to extend it. He's got deep relationships in the rowing community and should be able to leverage that into a recruiting advantage. I'm sure there will be growing pains. As long as he has enough resources (doesn't need to be the most, but does need to be enough) and is given the time to build, UAlbany has some real advantages that have been overlooked for decades. I always believed if you built it, people would come. I say that from a place of optimism while trying to be brutally objective.

Didn't even think to check there

Has anyone heard about coaching staff? I did some digging but haven't been able to find anything. Asked around and am hearing the guy who has been coaching for years has little/no interest because of his regular job and having young kids (apparently a small army of them.)

Last I checked there were 7 or 8 MAAC schools sponsoring women's rowing. May have the details a bit off though.

MAAC is most logical. The "club" team was running in that circle already. And doing well.

Correct! Overdue but happy to see Benson and company finally pulled trigger.

Yes. They've decided to run the University as a social service agency rather than a center of excellence. They use different words but the meaning is clear.

I do try. But only occasionally!

And the Office of Civil Rights/Department of Education still haven't blessed the school declaring it in Title IX compliance. Self-inflicted wounds over and over again (like all the staffing choices you listed.)

Thinking it's a business decision by the Times Union. UA athletics has been pouring advertising dollars towards the TU over the last few years. That kind of coverage kills the golden goose. UAlbany has many former TU staffers working for them now. Piss off the school with your coverage, sport reporters won't get access to the locker room or and beat reporters will get less access to on campus people. That's how the game is played and both sides know it.

It's interesting that the court made clear that they are NOT saying the University is in compliance with Title IX (seemingly acknowledging they are not.) The optics aren't good when trying to recruit. Female high school athletes think 2x about coming to Albany just making the problem worse. I also looked at the reported enrollment numbers. Looks to be nearly 500 more women now than men. It's been a few years but the last time I looked those numbers the school was nearly even and sometimes even had more males enrolled. That's a big shift in a short period. If enrollment is changing that dramatically, how does the school get into compliance?!! EDIT: 520 more women than men as of June 30, 2020 report.

Reading the article and the trying to get through the ruling. Basis of the dismissal appears to be because the school has current agreement with the Office of Civil Rights. And court doesn't want to step in while in effect? Am I reading that correctly?What happens if school doesn't meet the deadline?Note: Notwithstanding my love for rowing and previous advocacy for the addition of Women's Crew, I recognize that ship sailed (or rowed) long ago. Bummer but reality sets in at some point.

Sadly, I've been heads down for a few months now. If it weren't for twitter, it would have take a few weeks for me to figure out the score of the game. So there's that at least.

Anyone see this article? Towards the bottom is includes a small part about UAlbany owing the NCAA $30,000 for hosting the first round of football playoffs. https://www.timesunion.com/sports/article/Low-turnout-for-UAlbany-football-playoff-victory-14873033.php