Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Title IX violations


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#31 uofalbany

uofalbany

    Great Dane

  • Big Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,824 posts

Posted 20 September 2017 - 07:56 AM

Don't know if this was already covered or not, but how out of whack are we in terms of title IX?

 

Now, I'm a novice in this argument.... and not sure who is already included in the title ix allocation , but.....

 

If non-scholarship athletes and walk-ons are included, cheerleaders need to be included as well, if they aren't already.

Being heavily involved in both basketball and football, and other events, they are being given special athletic privilege as well.


Edited by uofalbany, 20 September 2017 - 07:57 AM.

UA Class of '93

 

599489_235629683226336_1094172808_n+(2).


#32 Clickclack

Clickclack

    BPF Bracket Challenge Winner

  • Big Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,630 posts

Posted 20 September 2017 - 08:29 AM

Don't know if this was already covered or not, but how out of whack are we in terms of title IX?

 

Now, I'm a novice in this argument.... and not sure who is already included in the title ix allocation , but.....

 

If non-scholarship athletes and walk-ons are included, cheerleaders need to be included as well, if they aren't already.

Being heavily involved in both basketball and football, and other events, they are being given special athletic privilege as well.

 

From reading the article, it appears roughly 97 woman roster spots. It's significant!



#33 kikuria

kikuria

    Dane

  • Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 126 posts

Posted 20 September 2017 - 02:29 PM

 

 

Another easy (but more expensive way to do this) is elevating women's crew.  The expensive part is the shells which, from my understanding, can be upwards of 50-75k per boat.
Being a former rower and swim club founder, I would love to see both come back but rowing is really costly and isn't a spectator sport. Rowing would be a million to start up with boats, trailer, oars, rowing machines, weights, coach boats, also an issue of where to store the equipment which would be interesting and scholorships. Currently the UA rowing team is unaffiliated with the University so I doubt the new athletic team would get any of their equipment.
Swimming would be cheaper and there is already built in seating area in the PE building, although not cheep just add two lanes and diving boards and your set. Although a diving platform would increase insurance costs.

 
The key to being successful would be a willingness to work with the current team even if it's not affiliated with the University right now.  Also, Crew just isn't as costly as people make it out to be. Especially when comparing it to other sports. Let's help to stop furthering this myth!  As far as spectating goes - when was the last time you were at the Head of the Charles or the Grand Stands of a big regatta? Huge, huge spectating potential - an entire shoreline.  The  $$ come in from sponsorships rather than the gates sales of spectators.
Love your posts, very well written. Last time I was at the Head of the Charles was 2004. Which was my senior year, I was in the College Club Men Varsity 8 race. Yes it is a great spectator race in Boston but that isn't the normal situation. Most races that I have been to as a college and master rower are run by clubs that don't invest in grandstands along a river or lake to allow for great viewing of a race final 250 meters. Boston, Worcester and Philly are the exceptions. Regattas are money makers for clubs and the race organizers make a ton on boat entrance fees. To race in the Head of the Charles was around 200 back when I raced. Not sure what it is now.

Unfortunately according to my math to start a fully scholorshiped D1 program would cost around a million dollars.

The NCAA allows for a maximum of 20 full scholorships for women's rowing. Now this whole conversation got started because of title nine violations. So we are trying to get compliant so let's add the full amount.
So cost of a scholarship using out of state costs are $39,811×20= $778,220.

Average Cost for D1 rowing coach $50,000 not including benefits. Which is a bargin for the work he or she would have to do. $ 828,220. Most likely they would need an assistant coach for recruiting, driving the trailer to races and for extra safety during practice. But for this exercise will leave that out.

Boats Avg Cost for D1 competitive shells 30,000 including tax, so figure you need at least 4 8's just to start 2 Varsity HVW and LTW, 1 JV and 1 Novice. That is 120,000. You could throw in a few 4 and 2 boats but that could come later. 948,220

Oars 4 sets 6,000 (1500 per set) 954,220

Add in a cost of a used dependable Trailer 5,000 959,220, new trailer you could double that price. You also would need to either rent or buy a truck capable of hauling the trailer to races. But that is a cost that is to much of a variable so I will leave that out as well.

Rowing Machines 20 (1100 per erg) 22000 981,220

Coaches boats 2 (5000 per boat) 991,220

Additional Expenses that I am sure are high include insurance, transportation for practice and races, storage fees at either at Albany Rowing Club, Mohawk Rowing or where the current club team practices. Then you have race fees which can run between 100-300 per boat depending on the regatta.

Again it would be expensive to start the program. Now doubt all the scholorships would not be given out in year 1. However in four years after the program is full funded it would exceed over a million. Wish it was cheeper.
BTW the current club coach is a really great coach. Hope to make it up to Saratoga for the Head of the Fish this fall.

 

 

Please, please, please don't fall into this trap!!  I know you mean well but this is exactly what people tell Athletic Directors when they don't want to see rowing elevated . Don't perpetuate false-hoods!   

 

Regarding rectifying UAlbany's Title IX violations - the letter was clear, the violation was ultimately about female athlete headcount not scholarships.  More specifically, proportionality.

 

I'm trying to be gracious because you're another member of the rowing community. It's not your calculations that are incorrect - it's that your underlying premise and assumptions regarding D1 rowing. Those are VERY flawed.    I sense that you're well intentioned but this is just not how Division 1 crew REALLY works.

 

To illustrate my point - Although I told you that the only programs that have ever purchased a fleet of new boats at the outset were out of the Big 12 with big time football, you insist on throwing out numbers that rely on purchasing brand new boats to have an NCAA program. It just isn't done so it's difficult for me to understand why you would think that UAlbany would or even should do it. Perhaps you missed what I wrote but I wanted to bring it to your attention again.  I really hope it's not because your a boat snob :) 

 

Let's unpack a few of the other items in your post.

 

You treated scholarships the same way as you did boats.  You stated: "... this whole conversation got started because of title nine violations. So we are trying to get compliant so let's add the full amount." 

 

The violations were ones of disproportionate opportunities for women, not expenditures on scholarships. Again this is about headcount. 

 

But as a point of of information, are you aware that not a single Division 1 program has EVER been started with the full compliment of allowable scholarships? EVER. There are, in fact, only a small handful of programs that offer 20 even now.  And those programs were elevated in the mid 1990's.  It takes time to get there and most haven't yet. There are even a number of schools with ZERO or very few that perform very well. UMASS would be an example of very, very few scholarships but has made the finals of NCAA's as well as the 'tournament' a few times.  I know the number but I'm not sure it's public knowledge so am choosing not to share here.

 

I want to reiterate this - not a single Division 1 program has ever started with all 20. Few have all 20.

 

There's also a practical side to this - it screws up your recruiting pipeline.  It CAN be done but it just isn't and never had been.

 

You also used out of state tuition - why? It does cover 75% of your original $1 million

 

You cited a bunch of other numbers that aren't "start-up" costs but rather "game-day" or operational expenses which have reporting requirements. That means you can look at what other schools are spending on their programs.  It's not as much as you might think.  When you look at per-athlete expenses -  Crew and cross country usually compete for the least expensive per-athlete.   

 

There is some good news - the ongoing costs of running a a crew program in the Northeast/New England is low in part because you can drive 3 hr  in virtually any direction can get more  competition than you can fit into an annual schedule. Again, these expense on a per-athletes basis are roughly the same as cross-country. 

 

So please for the love of that that is good in this world, stop with these crazy numbers. At least If your goal is to find a path forward for women's crew. Other, keep rolling with it as I'll infer as necessary.

 

But I pose it differently -- how many current NCAA programs are spending $1 million year? I know the answer btw. It's publicly available information. Which, as you might deduce, is why I'm being so crazy-cakes about the numbers you're throwing out. They just don't reflect how Division 1 programs actually operate.

 

Regarding current coach - I 'know' him in the sense that people in rowing know another (will take my phone calls and answer questions if I text) but not much further than that.  I've heard good things though - approachable, fair, knowledgeable, intense, and that the athletes like and respect him. Get in touch with him. My bet is that he'll confirm the essence of what I wrote. Might even have some specifics about the current situation that he'd be willing to share.



#34 kikuria

kikuria

    Dane

  • Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 126 posts

Posted 20 September 2017 - 02:44 PM

Don't know if this was already covered or not, but how out of whack are we in terms of title IX?

 

Now, I'm a novice in this argument.... and not sure who is already included in the title ix allocation , but.....

 

If non-scholarship athletes and walk-ons are included, cheerleaders need to be included as well, if they aren't already.

Being heavily involved in both basketball and football, and other events, they are being given special athletic privilege as well.

 

I'm commenting way too much but ... There was a court case about this that came out of Quinnipiac Univeristy. Cheerleading may NOT be used towards Title IX. - http://www.espn.com/...-sport-title-ix


Edited by kikuria, 20 September 2017 - 02:45 PM.


#35 B9j2j6s

B9j2j6s

    Great Dane

  • Big Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,248 posts

Posted 20 September 2017 - 08:55 PM

Love the enthusiasm of another rower on this site, also what I always enjoy about this site is the knowledge I learn from other posters.

First of not a boat snob haha learned to row my novice year on a wooden hull Kasper 4. Which for those unfamiliar is heavy as all hell and is used often as wall decorations you would see at a TGIFridays. The 30k number was an estimate based on a classified ad on the Vespoli website for a 2013 V1 DM 8 for 27k. Vespoli is a very popular maker of racing shells and the V1 is their top of the line model. They have cheeper models but a lot of your d1 recruits most likely rowed in these models on their club teams. So it would help with recruiting if you have them in your fleet.

I used the out of state tuition amount because that was sited by the GDAC in promotions for giving for football. Fascinating to learn about the realities of D1 womens rowing. Since we disagree about the cost of starting a program what do you believe a estimated cost of starting a program from scratch would be?

As for the current coach talked to him before, used to be RPI coach when I rowed. Nice man. Enjoyed a little crew chat. I live near the walk way over the hudson and my sons love walking and taking a ride in the stroller. Only down part is that I always am a little eger to be on the water when I see boats practicing. Again thanks for the discussion, knowledge and what you believe the costs would be.

Edited by B9j2j6s, 20 September 2017 - 08:58 PM.


#36 dslyank

dslyank

    Great Dane

  • Big Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 945 posts

Posted 21 September 2017 - 09:10 AM

I kind of like the idea of having crew and I think Kikuria's modest start-up budget figures could probably work. But what I do not understand, is even if we did offer the max 20 scholarships (which I agree we would probably not) wouldn't we still need 77 walk-ons to meet our IX requirements. How many typically are needed to make a women's crew team?

 

Also, we must have been out of IX compliance long before tennis was cut. If we are 97 "opportunities " short, even with walk-ons tennis would not put a dent in that amount.

 

Before we got talking about crew, someone mentioned swimming/diving as an option. But I recall (could be wrong), when we gave up swimming as a DIII sport, one of the reasons was our pool was not even ncaa DIII compliant. In fact it would have to be totally replaced; could not even be modified??? Anyone know if this is true and cost estimates to replace??



#37 godanesgo99

godanesgo99

    Great Dane

  • Big Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 771 posts

Posted 21 September 2017 - 09:23 AM

There are other measures to showing compliance than just the pure number of athletes.

I think I read UA was not planning on adding any sports, but that may have only been adding back any sports that were cut (IE. Tennis).

Add roster spots to WLAX and Softball to match the roster size of the men's team and adding a bunch of competitors to womens cross country & the Track and field team and they could probably make up 40-50 spots in a season or 2. That alone would probably show enough progress to meet the requirements of the agreement.

I don't know how many roster spots are on a crew team, but if the 20 number was correct, then now the school is within 30.

UA Class of '99

Go Danes!


#38 dslyank

dslyank

    Great Dane

  • Big Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 945 posts

Posted 21 September 2017 - 09:49 AM

THIS IS A TOTALLY OFF THE WALL AND ABSURD POST. PLEASE IGNORE OR TOTALLY SKIP IF YOU DESIRE. I MUST HAVE TOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS.

 

Anyhow, considering we our out of compliant on "OPPORTUNITIES." We could solve our problem by posting signs on campus, advertising for 97 women in excellent/good academic standing to walk-on and join a varsity women's team of their choice. They would not even have to practice or work a sweat if they so desired. They would only need to attend a requisite # of practices (# sport specific ncaa sanctioned.) They could use the time for studies and tutors would be provided (a small additional expense for graduate assistants would not significantly affect the athletic budget much.) A uniform and laundering service would be provided (another small expense) and they would need to attend the minimum # of homes games required to maintain ncaa participation standards. Since, walk-ons are not required to attend road games, they would be provided the opportunity to travel @ their own expense {car pooling recommended & a list of sleaze  (I mean inexpensive) motels would be provided.}  And if you think such an ad would generate too much of a response [and I doubt this], or the additional expenses too detrimental, simply post the signs in such remote locations that almost no one see's them. Remember we are only creating an "opportunity." Dictionary definition: " a set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something."


  • Eli likes this

#39 Clickclack

Clickclack

    BPF Bracket Challenge Winner

  • Big Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,630 posts

Posted 21 September 2017 - 10:16 AM

THIS IS A TOTALLY OFF THE WALL AND ABSURD POST. PLEASE IGNORE OR TOTALLY SKIP IF YOU DESIRE. I MUST HAVE TOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS.

 

Anyhow, considering we our out of compliant on "OPPORTUNITIES." We could solve our problem by posting signs on campus, advertising for 97 women in excellent/good academic standing to walk-on and join a varsity women's team of their choice. They would not even have to practice or work a sweat if they so desired. They would only need to attend a requisite # of practices (# sport specific ncaa sanctioned.) They could use the time for studies and tutors would be provided (a small additional expense for graduate assistants would not significantly affect the athletic budget much.) A uniform and laundering service would be provided (another small expense) and they would need to attend the minimum # of homes games required to maintain ncaa participation standards. Since, walk-ons are not required to attend road games, they would be provided the opportunity to travel @ their own expense {car pooling recommended & a list of sleaze  (I mean inexpensive) motels would be provided.}  And if you think such an ad would generate too much of a response [and I doubt this], or the additional expenses too detrimental, simply post the signs in such remote locations that almost no one see's them. Remember we are only creating an "opportunity." Dictionary definition: " a set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something."

 

CDqD1KV.jpg


  • Eli likes this

#40 UAalum72

UAalum72

    Great Dane

  • Big Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,893 posts

Posted 21 September 2017 - 10:36 AM

Kinda devious. I like it. But wouldn't be a good look if some muckraking reporter does a story on it, even if it's allowed.

 

Another expense, I'm sure you'd have to get insurance for all these athletes.

 

I looked at the men's lacrosse stats, and of the 40+ players listed, twelve played in fewer than ten games, so maybe you wouldn't need all 97 more women if they cut a few of the men walkons.


  • Eli likes this

#41 uofalbany

uofalbany

    Great Dane

  • Big Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,824 posts

Posted 21 September 2017 - 10:49 AM


Don't know if this was already covered or not, but how out of whack are we in terms of title IX?
 
Now, I'm a novice in this argument.... and not sure who is already included in the title ix allocation , but.....
 
If non-scholarship athletes and walk-ons are included, cheerleaders need to be included as well, if they aren't already.
Being heavily involved in both basketball and football, and other events, they are being given special athletic privilege as well.

 
I'm commenting way too much but ... There was a court case about this that came out of Quinnipiac Univeristy. Cheerleading may NOT be used towards Title IX. - http://www.espn.com/...-sport-title-ix
They need to revisit those cases. Other cases need to be initiated. For not to count cheerleading teams and cheerleading squads as part of equal athletic opportunity, is beyond absurd. There are seven men's teams and nine women's teams. There are almost as many members on a cheerleading squad as there are on a football team. Cheerleading is an extension on all of our sports teams including men's and women's basketball, football, Etc. Women on the cheerleading squad are given opportunity in the form of competition, athletic participation, etc.

The whole thing smells like bull$iena. At some point, enough is enough.

Edited by uofalbany, 21 September 2017 - 10:51 AM.

UA Class of '93

 

599489_235629683226336_1094172808_n+(2).


#42 Clickclack

Clickclack

    BPF Bracket Challenge Winner

  • Big Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,630 posts

Posted 21 September 2017 - 10:55 AM

 

 

Don't know if this was already covered or not, but how out of whack are we in terms of title IX?
 
Now, I'm a novice in this argument.... and not sure who is already included in the title ix allocation , but.....
 
If non-scholarship athletes and walk-ons are included, cheerleaders need to be included as well, if they aren't already.
Being heavily involved in both basketball and football, and other events, they are being given special athletic privilege as well.

 
I'm commenting way too much but ... There was a court case about this that came out of Quinnipiac Univeristy. Cheerleading may NOT be used towards Title IX. - http://www.espn.com/...-sport-title-ix
They need to revisit those cases. Other cases need to be initiated. For not to count cheerleading teams and cheerleading squads as part of equal athletic opportunity, is beyond absurd. There are seven men's teams and nine women's teams. There are almost as many members on a cheerleading squad as there are on a football team. Cheerleading is an extension on all of our sports teams including men's and women's basketball, football, Etc. Women on the cheerleading squad are given opportunity in the form of competition, athletic participation, etc.

The whole thing smells like bull$iena. At some point, enough is enough.

 

 

Are cheerleaders on scholarship?



#43 uofalbany

uofalbany

    Great Dane

  • Big Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,824 posts

Posted 21 September 2017 - 01:06 PM

Feds: UAlbany athletics in violation of Title IX
 
Lack of comparable opportunities for women; no fines, agreement for a three-year plan to increase ops

 

In other words, all of this because of the tennis geek Gordon Graham.

He was upset because he lost his job and and couldn't milk UAlbany anymore.


Edited by uofalbany, 21 September 2017 - 01:16 PM.

UA Class of '93

 

599489_235629683226336_1094172808_n+(2).


#44 godanesgo99

godanesgo99

    Great Dane

  • Big Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 771 posts

Posted 21 September 2017 - 03:23 PM

Could they give a scholarship for Football to a soccer star woman who could be a kicker, then call the football team a coed sport? Women would have equal opportunity to join the team if they could make the cut?

Edited by godanesgo99, 23 September 2017 - 09:46 AM.

UA Class of '99

Go Danes!


#45 kikuria

kikuria

    Dane

  • Purple Fans
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 126 posts

Posted 23 September 2017 - 09:40 AM

I kind of like the idea of having crew and I think Kikuria's modest start-up budget figures could probably work. But what I do not understand, is even if we did offer the max 20 scholarships (which I agree we would probably not) wouldn't we still need 77 walk-ons to meet our IX requirements. How many typically are needed to make a women's crew team?

 

Also, we must have been out of IX compliance long before tennis was cut. If we are 97 "opportunities " short, even with walk-ons tennis would not put a dent in that amount.

 

Before we got talking about crew, someone mentioned swimming/diving as an option. But I recall (could be wrong), when we gave up swimming as a DIII sport, one of the reasons was our pool was not even ncaa DIII compliant. In fact it would have to be totally replaced; could not even be modified??? Anyone know if this is true and cost estimates to replace??

 

Crew/Rowing is attractive because it is an equivalency scholarship sport. Most people probably already understand that that means there is no restriction on how many athletes can be on scholarship, but there is a limit on the number of scholarships a team can have. Have 5 scholarships - spread it out however you need to. 

 

For Division 1, there's no minimum or maximum roster size so Crew it is scalable in either direction. You simple enter events based on your rosters size. But you do need a MINIMUM of 23 to field an entire team at the NCAA's Championships (spread over 3 difference events.)  Team sizes vary widely.  Quick example - The University of Washington won NCAA's in 2017.  Their reported roster size for the 2015-2016 school year was 143.  It was roughly the same last year.  It was as high as 180 in a few years before that.  

 

Said differently, Crew is a school's football team on the water (in terms of roster size possibilities.)

 

The part about Crew than can be attractive in terms of Title IX numbers is that you can use a combination of traditional off-campus recruiting and on-campus (walk-on) recruiting.  Walk-ons are novice (not having any previous rowing experience) but typically have an athletic background.  Roughly ZERO cost to a budget to get them in the door because they're already on campus (but you need administration support to find ways to get the word out.)  

 

With traditional off-campus recruiting, if you add a program it they will come.  Girls that row in high school are making college decisions based on whether on not they can continue to row - not whether they're getting a scholarships. They just love to row.  The evidence for this is that the Ivies still do quite well on the recruiting front and are prohibited from offer athletic based scholarships.

 

Regarding whether or not we would need to close the entire entire gap to be in compliance.  My research says that no school has been found to be out of compliance so long as they are within the 5% range so long as they are making progress (Meaning that being at 5% is a problem - but temporarily acceptable so long is it's a step forward say from 7, 8, or 9%. Cannot be the final number though. Three years at 5% will get you dinged again.)


Edited by kikuria, 23 September 2017 - 09:43 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users