Jump to content



UAlbany Athletics- America East-
SOCIAL MEDIA: UAlbany Facebook- UAlbany Instagram- UAlbany Twitter- UAlbany Blog-
MEDIA: Albany Student Press- America East TV- ESPN3- Schenectady Gazette- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio Archive interviews- Times Union College Sports- Times Union Sports- WCDB- WOFX 980-
FALL SPORTS LINKS: CAA Football-
WINTER SPORTS LINKS: College Insider- Pomeroy Ratings- Real TimeRPI-
SPRING SPORTS LINKS: Inside Lacrosse- Lax Power Backup Stick-
OTHER FORUMS: America East Forum- Any Given Saturday Forum- Championship Subdivision forum(1-AA Discussion) The Hen House - Siena Forum- Stony Brook Forum- Vermont Forum

kikuria

Big Purple Fans
  • Posts

    209
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by kikuria

  1. I'm not so sure about this...in order to meet the requirements of Title IX I believe I read in the original communication between UA and the governing body administering this program is that it's NOT a strict 1-1 calculation. Title IX speaks to equal opportunity which can be shown with a campus wide survey or similar type polling of the student community asking if there are unmet or unavailable opportunities for females on campus as it related to athletic participation. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong but I could have sworn I read this. UA has NOT demonstrated and clearly CAN'T demonstrate this point and thus is non-compliant by virtue that there are known cases of female tennis players that can't play because there is no program. Restoring this program MAY (maybe, big maybe) in whole or in part restore confidence in that equal opportunity is provided. I'm not sure if my reading is correct on this... I linked to the OCR findings, Resolution Agreement, and Timesunion article. Accommodations of Interests and Abilities is a 3-prong test. When OCR looked at it, UAlbany and Benson could not demonstrate compliance with any of those parts. Surveys are generally considered acceptable to demonstrate that a school is already meeting interest and therefore in compliance. I'd go so far as to say they are essential in some cases. The problem in this situation is that it a survey would only acceptable to OCR if there have been no requests to add a sport as those requests would, by definition, demonstrate interest. The motion for preliminary injunction provided declaration(s) showing that there was 2-3 requests made to add a sport in the last five years - again, demonstrating interest. I was told last weekend that there was another request submitted sometime in November (sorry, don't have details otherwise I would provide them.) Again, demonstrating interest. In the resolution agreement with OCR the school (and therefor Benson): "...will demonstrate that participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments." Agreed upon date is October 1, 2020. I've never understood how they were going to do that base on this quote from Benson: ""We have no plans to add any teams or bring teams back and no plans to cut any programs," Benson said. "We're not in a position from a budgetary standpoint to do that." He suggests in the same article that they're going to roster manage to compliance but OCR said in their findings that they were already doing that. OCR Letter with Findings http://www.timesunion.com/file/237/8/2378-DOE%20finds%20UAlbany%20out%20of%20Title%20IX%2C%20OCR%20letter.pdf Resolution Agreement http://www.timesunion.com/file/237/9/2379-UAlbany%20Title%20IX%20resolution%20agreement.pdf Article that it was pulled from: http://www.timesunion.com/sports/article/Feds-UAlbany-athletics-in-violation-of-Title-IX-12200960.php ******************** Edit: Reinstating tennis could be a step but would not seem sufficient in terms of numbers. But your correct about the fact that having a team when it was cut demonstrated interest.
  2. I agree with you on most of this. But the act of cutting tennis the tennis program is evidence in and of itself of a Title IX violation because it demonstrates that there was interest on campus (wouldn't have mattered if school was in compliance though.) This is the original sin if you will. We'll know in a few weeks in terms of the ruling on the injunction. But I really, really, really agree with you on Benson needing to address the Title IX violations.
  3. I've confirmed, Benson was named individually in the suit. You can search most of this stuff on PACER (although not all of it's available.) But whether that's viable from a legal perspective is another matter entirely. I agree with you that he should be covered in his capacity as a state employee unless his contract states otherwise (e.g. illegal wrongdoing, etc ....) Attorney General's office is already defending him and filed a written motioned to have the count against Benson dismissed on the exact basis that you're speaking of. For clarity, I'm not disputing that State is responsible for the defense of the case. To the extend that Benson and company have control - if he decided to re-instate tennis (which he has the authority to do with approval of the President) OR otherwise immediately came into compliance with Title IX, at the very least a motion to dismiss the request for injunction could be made (based on my read of the filing.) If Benson had added a different women's sport to compensate for the lost of tennis, it would be a much weaker argument. The implied idea that "the state" is the one calling the shots here takes responsibility away from Benson, his staff, Title IX Coordinator, etc... They can solve the problem that provides the underlying basis for the suit. They don't need get approval from the AG's office for that.
  4. No disputes on the AAG and their purposes. Standard procedure in face. But Benson is named personally in this case rather than just in his capacity at A.D. None of this negates the fact that the individual campuses and individuals have the ability, if not the desire, to settle the case. Another way to say it - a settlement would not be negotiated without them (unless they are terminated.) The crux of my point is that Benson and company need to get this thing settled. Doubling down is ego driven at best.
  5. I'm of the same thought. Soon as I heard it was a coach of an axe'd program, I said, "figures". Disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind. Had his lovely program been kept, guy would have continued on without batting an eye at the so called Title IX violations. Guy is so old he can't find a tennis gig anywhere else (even the local rec center) so he's forcing UA's hand to try to weasel his way back in. Shmuck. I still think we need to remedy the situation and it should have never gotten to that point...but this Graham dude is a shmuck. Even if there were an injunction, there wouldn't be a requirement for them to bring back Graham, right? Although maybe with an injunction they would be required to go back to the way it was right before tennis was cut. Setting that aside, I'm not sure why Graham or anyone else wanting to have the program reinstated is problematic. It certainly doesn't make them whiners. The real problem is that Benson half-ass'd it and cut tennis without having a plan to add another sport to replace it. He or someone else knew or should have known that it was going to be a problem in terms of Title IX. To be clear, I'm not advocating for tennis. But I'm ripped $iena that the UA people screwed the pooch on this one. I can't help but just laugh if this is true at the amateur hour being run over there...between last second facility policies, lack of communication and now this...what, did NO ONE think this wasn't going to go over well and have a plan? We spent weeks kicking around crew...just bring back tennis and the 6 scholarships or so...and the coaches if it resolves title IX issues and call it a day. How much could that program cost? I'm with you. Bring it back or do whatever needs to be done to settle the damn lawsuit. Get it out of the spotlight and start repairing the damage to the school's image that has been done. Not sure how much it would cost to bring back tennis but it only gets more expensive the longer Benson waits. And I'm not even talking about running the program. If an injunction is issued the room to negotiate gets way smaller and the potential for punitive damages goes through the roof in order to act as a deterrent. Seriously, we're talking the potential of 7-figures given the size of the University. Injunctions mean the judge/court thinks there's a high probability of success in the suit. If the judge said he would issue his ruling at the same time that jurisdiction was settled, it means he probably knows how he's going to rule based on arguments made. Based on what we already know, that ruling is unlikely to favor Benson and UAlbany. Please someone talk some sense into Benson. Completely inaccurate on so many levels. 1. An injunction issued is not for the reasons stated...whatsoever. 2. Benson doesn’t have control over the case...the STATE does...and that is run by the A.G.’s office. Everyone take a damn breath. And no, I’m not defending our school or the decisions that were made. However, until the facts play out...let’s not claim to know what occurred...and what decisions go on in a court room. Benson and company have complete control over whether this continues forward. They are the named defendants. They tell the AG's office to settle and it's done. I take no issue if anything that I stated needs to be corrected. Would rather have accuracy than anything else so please share if you have something specific in mind. But I think you would correct on at least one aspect - I left out showing an irreparable harm. I think we could probably agree that not being able to play this spring would be, by definition, irreparable.
  6. I'm of the same thought. Soon as I heard it was a coach of an axe'd program, I said, "figures". Disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind. Had his lovely program been kept, guy would have continued on without batting an eye at the so called Title IX violations. Guy is so old he can't find a tennis gig anywhere else (even the local rec center) so he's forcing UA's hand to try to weasel his way back in. Shmuck. I still think we need to remedy the situation and it should have never gotten to that point...but this Graham dude is a shmuck. Even if there were an injunction, there wouldn't be a requirement for them to bring back Graham, right? Although maybe with an injunction they would be required to go back to the way it was right before tennis was cut. Setting that aside, I'm not sure why Graham or anyone else wanting to have the program reinstated is problematic. It certainly doesn't make them whiners. The real problem is that Benson half-ass'd it and cut tennis without having a plan to add another sport to replace it. He or someone else knew or should have known that it was going to be a problem in terms of Title IX. To be clear, I'm not advocating for tennis. But I'm ripped $iena that the UA people screwed the pooch on this one. I can't help but just laugh if this is true at the amateur hour being run over there...between last second facility policies, lack of communication and now this...what, did NO ONE think this wasn't going to go over well and have a plan? We spent weeks kicking around crew...just bring back tennis and the 6 scholarships or so...and the coaches if it resolves title IX issues and call it a day. How much could that program cost? I'm with you. Bring it back or do whatever needs to be done to settle the damn lawsuit. Get it out of the spotlight and start repairing the damage to the school's image that has been done. Not sure how much it would cost to bring back tennis but it only gets more expensive the longer Benson waits. And I'm not even talking about running the program. If an injunction is issued the room to negotiate gets way smaller and the potential for punitive damages goes through the roof in order to act as a deterrent. Seriously, we're talking the potential of 7-figures given the size of the University. Injunctions mean the judge/court thinks there's a high probability of success in the suit. If the judge said he would issue his ruling at the same time that jurisdiction was settled, it means he probably knows how he's going to rule based on arguments made. Based on what we already know, that ruling is unlikely to favor Benson and UAlbany. Please someone talk some sense into Benson.
  7. I'm of the same thought. Soon as I heard it was a coach of an axe'd program, I said, "figures". Disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind. Had his lovely program been kept, guy would have continued on without batting an eye at the so called Title IX violations. Guy is so old he can't find a tennis gig anywhere else (even the local rec center) so he's forcing UA's hand to try to weasel his way back in. Shmuck. I still think we need to remedy the situation and it should have never gotten to that point...but this Graham dude is a shmuck. Even if there were an injunction, there wouldn't be a requirement for them to bring back Graham, right? Although maybe with an injunction they would be required to go back to the way it was right before tennis was cut. Setting that aside, I'm not sure why Graham or anyone else wanting to have the program reinstated is problematic. It certainly doesn't make them whiners. The real problem is that Benson half-ass'd it and cut tennis without having a plan to add another sport to replace it. He or someone else knew or should have known that it was going to be a problem in terms of Title IX. To be clear, I'm not advocating for tennis. But I'm ripped $iena that the UA people screwed the pooch on this one.
  8. For you lawyers out there: According to the article, the judge sent the case back to state court, which Graham says he actually never really filed? So it appears the judge is waiting a "week" for the state to rule on a case that they do not even have? What does this all mean or is the article typical TU bad reporting???? Also, still interested if anyone knows what UA's response/remedy to the ncca was/is or even if it was ever made???????? I just spoke directly with someone that was in the courtroom for the hearing as an observer (they're from the Binghamton area and had a law student visiting them. Thought it would be "fun.") The judge did NOT send it back to state court. The attorney representing UAlbany claimed that the case had been ruled on in state court which would mean that he (Fed judge) wouldn't have jurisdiction. He was giving both sides a change to respond before he issues his ruling on the injunction. Plaintiff's attorney has 7 days to file a brief explaining that they did not actually file in state court and therefore the Fed Court has jurisdiction. State has 7 days to respond. Judge stated from the bench that he would then issue a ruling on jurisdiction and injunction at the same time. Apparently the the judge said that he couldn't find anything to indicated that it had been ruled on previously but he wanted to make certain before issuing his ruling. Feedback from the observer was that it came at the last minute like the attorney for UAlbany was scrambling and trying to come up with a way to delay things. And that he had presented something the Fed Judge said didn't have anyone's signature on it (state court judge?). There was some question about why it wasn't included when the school originally responded to the plaintiff's motion. Here's the thing - you can check online as to whether the case was done in state court. Hell, I did. If the online system is accurate, UAlbany is really really screwed. It's not good to waste a judge's time.
  9. Story in the Albany Student Press about the Federal Lawsuit that was filed. http://www.albanystudentpress.net/university-sued-over-title-ix-sports-dicrimination-charges/
  10. Story in the Albany Student Press about the Federal Lawsuit that was filed. http://www.albanystudentpress.net/university-sued-over-title-ix-sports-dicrimination-charges/
  11. I would have no objections to women's crew. The reason they dropped tennis was due to a lack of conferences they could join...at least that was the official one. A little research shows that it would not be a barrier to crew as it appears there are lots of conferences including the CAA and the MAAC that would be a good fit. Crew seems to be quite popular at the local HS level and there's activity all the time on the Hudson and Mohawk rivers. It's cited in articles that women's crew is popular at the big football schools to balance off football scholarships. So I say go for it! I've been doing a ton of research. It appears that the current team starting attending an early season MAAC invitational in 2012 and performed reasonably well (particularly notable since they would have had no institutional support.) It also looks like they see those same schools on at least one other occasion during the regular spring season. Since Women's Golf is already an Associate Member of the MAAC, it's not a stretch to think that Crew could also join as an Associate Member. The MAAC Championships for Crew is an AQ for NCAA's so there would be a direct line to post season play. It's also realistic since the they've already been able to hang with the current MAAC program. The CAA also has a championships that is an AQ. Again, direct line to post season play. The current team doesn't really travel in those circles for competition so there's no direct comparison to be make. But we know that football is already an Associate Member. It's not a leap to see the team join that conference too. It's also my understanding that there's an opening as an Associate Member for Crew just left the conference. I scanned the resolution between UA and the OCR and it appears that Nov 30, 2017 is the date by which UA has to have a plan and procedure in place for interested parties to submit requests to add new intercollegiate sports. So maybe that will be the point at which any requests will be taken seriously. I have no inside knowledge at all, just what I read in the newspaper and their links. Good luck with it! This is good to know. I'll pass along to the people that I'm in contact with. Hate to say it but I'm playing the fan sitting in the "cheap seats" who wears his Monday Morning Quarterback jersey
  12. Can't say that I disagree with anything that you've written other than cutting a men's sport (I think that baseball is more like to be on the chopping block because they already have a roster cap in place.) I'm just not in favor of cutting men's opportunities; just expanding them for women. Looking through a bunch of old Title IX cases, more than a fair share initially cited cost as a barrier and sought dispensation from the courts. They were summarily smacked on the back-side and told to find the money even if it meant taking it from other places. It is on the University as a whole, not just Athletics, to find the money. There is more than enough $$$ flowing the the school to cover the cost of adding Crew. But solving the Title IX problem has to be elevated to priority status. My suggestion would be to start small and grow the budget over time as resources become available. But headcount, headcount, headcount is what really matters right now. Get the monkey off the back. For what it's worth, it's also my understanding that the current team has a very organized and supportive (financially) alumni base. I was told that they refuse to give to the school because of the way that Crew has been treated in the past and the overall lack of support for those athletes. So they just send their dollars to an outside not-for-profit or pay for things directly. Quick example: I spoke with one alum who said that when the team travels it's common for alumni to simply pay for the hotel rooms directly. He said that he and his wife "sponsor" one of the trips every year and cover all the rooms for it. Find me team or any other group on campus that can say that! Whatever culture they've created there, they're doing something right.
  13. I agree with you that comparable sports like MLAX and WLAX don't have equivalent roster numbers (I have my theories as to why.) But you are factually incorrect regarding a women's spor which has the same number of participants as Football. Women's Crew is the ONLY sport that can offset rosters from football as it very often has the same number of participants as football. Let me provide you some specific examples which I hope will get you to reconsider. These following numbers are the reported roster number from the 2015-2016 school year for men's football and Women's Crew. Michigan - 125 Football - 108 Women's Crew Washington - 114 (football) - 143 (Women's Crew) Wisconsin 117 (football) - 176 (Women's Crew) Michigan State - 120 (football) - 90 (Women's Crew) ************************************ Title IX is the law of the land whether or not people agree with it. The most important question now is how do we come into compliance? Women's Crew is the ONLY solution to the school's Title IX violations that doesn't include cutting a men's sport.
  14. Your correct, it hasn't been handled well by the Athletic Department or the larger Administration as a whole. To balance football you have to FIRST address the roster number gap and THEN address any budgetary issues that arise (note: roster gap was the primary concern of the OCR report.) I had a conversation about 20 years ago with the Senior Women's Administrator for another Division 1 school. She said "There's always money for priorities." So maybe the FIRST thing should be elevating this to a priority for the Department. So important that should be, if necessary, to the exclusion of other things until fully resolved. This thing will be fixed ASAP if it's that much of for Benson, Athletics, and the University as a whole. But here's the thing, the only solution(s) to the Title IX roster problem is the addition of Crew or the cutting of a men's sport with a big roster. There's no way to hit those roster numbers any other way. The most straightforward is adding Crew because you can literally have the 97 women they need on a Crew roster. Will the school have to some spend money to do it? Of course. Does it have to take away from Men's sports? No freaking way. That's a matter of choice.
  15. I posted this as park of another thread but thought I'd include it since you mentioned the CAA. ************ I've been doing a ton of research. It appears that the current team starting attending an early season MAAC invitational in 2012 and performed reasonably well (particularly notable since they would have had no institutional support.) It also looks like they see those same schools on at least one other occasion during the regular spring season. Since Women's Golf is already an Associate Member of the MAAC, it's not a stretch to think that Crew could also join as an Associate Member. The MAAC Championships for Crew is an AQ for NCAA's so there would be a direct line to post season play. It's also realistic since the they've already been able to hang with the current MAAC program. The CAA also has a championships that is an AQ. Again, direct line to post season play. The current team doesn't really travel in those circles for competition so there's no direct comparison to be make. But we know that football is already an Associate Member. It's not a leap to see the team join that conference too. It's also my understanding that there's an opening as an Associate Member for Crew just left the conference.
  16. I would have no objections to women's crew. The reason they dropped tennis was due to a lack of conferences they could join...at least that was the official one. A little research shows that it would not be a barrier to crew as it appears there are lots of conferences including the CAA and the MAAC that would be a good fit. Crew seems to be quite popular at the local HS level and there's activity all the time on the Hudson and Mohawk rivers. It's cited in articles that women's crew is popular at the big football schools to balance off football scholarships. So I say go for it! I've been doing a ton of research. It appears that the current team starting attending an early season MAAC invitational in 2012 and performed reasonably well (particularly notable since they would have had no institutional support.) It also looks like they see those same schools on at least one other occasion during the regular spring season. Since Women's Golf is already an Associate Member of the MAAC, it's not a stretch to think that Crew could also join as an Associate Member. The MAAC Championships for Crew is an AQ for NCAA's so there would be a direct line to post season play. It's also realistic since the they've already been able to hang with the current MAAC program. The CAA also has a championships that is an AQ. Again, direct line to post season play. The current team doesn't really travel in those circles for competition so there's no direct comparison to be make. But we know that football is already an Associate Member. It's not a leap to see the team join that conference too. It's also my understanding that there's an opening as an Associate Member for Crew just left the conference.
  17. I have it on very, very good authority that the school was NOT meeting demand insomuch as there were at least TWO requests to add a specific women's sport in the last five years. If true, it scares the hell out of me because according to the OCR report "The University stated that it has not received and written or oral requests to expand the men's and/or women's intercollegiate athletic programs in the last five(5) years." It appears that supporting evidence exists which I'm hoping to get a copy. Pointing out what might be obvious, but lying to a federal agency during an investigation is bad news.
  18. Add Women's Crew as a Varsity Sport - Title IX Since this got a lot of play on another thread it seems as though it should get it's own. Quick Recap: UAlbany Athletics has been found to be in violation of Title IX and that the school has offered fewer athletic opportunities for women than required by law. Mark Benson and UAlbany need to find a way to make up 97 roster spots either through adding a women's sport, reducing the total number of male athletes, or some combination of the two. This thread is intended to help make the case that adding Women's Crew is the obvious and logical choice for at least the following reasons: (1) It is the only Women's sport that can offset the size of a football roster - 100+ rosters are not uncommon; (2) It is the only sport that provides a cost-effective solution on a per athlete basis - consistent with Cross Country; (3) There are already an established and LARGE group of students rowing that have indicated they would be open to becoming an NCAA program. The notion that the equipment costs are exorbitant and therefore prohibitive has already been debunked so I'd rather not revisit that. But will show how a started up program can be done for an equipment purchase of roughly $20,000. I have tons of questions. Throwing out a couple now. Is Crew a good fit for the Athletic Department? Are there cultural hurdles to overcome? What are the non-financial barriers to adding a Crew team?
  19. Pres. Rodriguez' reference to a 3-year plan is somewhat misleading (probably not deliberately so) insomuch as it's really just the timeline of the Resolution Agreement signed with the Feds. http://www.timesunion.com/file/237/9/2379-UAlbany%20Title%20IX%20resolution%20agreement.pdf There aren't any specifics about the plan either. The real issue still seems to be how are they going to resolve the numbers issue without adding a sport. IMO, it can't be done unless school cuts a men's sport. And one with a pretty big roster at that.
  20. My understanding is that they've been trying to grow rosters for WLAX and the other sports for years. I had someone tell me in a difference context "A woman doesn't want to be number 23 on a roster when she can do other stuff on campus. A guy just likes playing lacrosse with his buddies even if he never gets to play in a game." As far as not planning on adding a sport, I read this as well. The school and Benson specifically are going to have to make a decision on what the best course of action is. But I think they would be best served by PR'ing the snot about ADDING a sport and becoming the model of pursing equity. Turn the bad press into a positive. The flip side of not adding a sport and just trying to do this through roster management is that you have to believe that national women's organizations are watching how this is unfolding. They're going to try to head off the blame game here. Just look at the above comment about blaming Gordon Graham and tennis for filing the complaint. Let's blame the school since it's a problem that has existed for years. Not the person that actually said it outloud (so to speak.) More serious, it does make me angry that it's the damns schools fault for not getting out ahead of this issue to turn adding a sport into positive press. Instead they're having to react. Bahhhhhhh! The choice seems to be a PR Nightmare vs PR Windfall. Add Women's Crew and a get nearly 100 athletes since it's the obvious and logical choice. Do it on the cheap by working with the group of students already rowing. Put additional resources into it over time as the budget permits. Everyone's happy and this issue goes away.
  21. 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.)
  22. 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/college-sports/story/_/id/8245864/appeals-court-affirms-cheerleading-not-sport-title-ix
  23. 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.
  24. They already do this. Just compare the application rate to the admit rate. Women make up a significantly larger percentage of the applications. Women are admitted at a dis-proportionally lower rate. I thought this was common knowledge but apparently not. Now that I think about it, maybe someone should be looking whether this constitutes a violation too (only marginally sarcastic.) It's buried somewhere in this I think: http://www.albany.edu/ir/whatdata.htm
  25. 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. Have you tried to reach out to Mark Benson on this? You clearly have passion for the subject matter at hand and apparently know what you speak of quite eloquently. There may be a real opportunity here to study this subject and perhaps bring it to fruition. I'd love for the University to find whatever funding was needed to not only resolve the Title IX matter but I'd argue more important offer a great opportunity for the young woman who would join the program. Clickclack - Turns out that the answer to your question is way more interesting that I would have expected. First off, I have not personally communicated with Mark Benson on the subject (or any other for that matter.) But what I JUST had explained to me is that students and/or alumni communicated with Benson a few years ago right after he first started as the AD. It was described as a warm and cordial meeting but that he indicated the school wasn't in a budgetary position to add a sport. The thing that sticks with me as the following which is as close to an exact quote as one gets: "I think it was made pretty clear to him since it was stated directly. We literally said 'We want Crew to be a solution - not a problem. If the school adds a sport, we want Crew to be the obvious and logical choice." My contact (an alumnus) went on to say that the women's program was already competing alongside Division 1 schools when that had that meeting. And continues to be invited to DI invitationals. Even have to abide by the same compliance rules to have the opportunity. Got lots of other tidbits too. Turns out that their head coach is the real deal and recognized nationally. Left coaching for a while while he was working for a Fortune 500. Started a family and found the coaching schedule more conducive. I asked if they would be open to becoming a varsity sport. Response: "Absolutely. Same as before. We want Crew to be a solution, not a problem."
×
×
  • Create New...