No agenda here... I just saw some comments on the Football board and was curious what the catalyst for dropping a sport would be? A scandal? Bad track record? Financial crisis?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Football would have to crater again and the BTN would have to go bankrupt. As long as football pays the bills of the non-revenue sports and the BTN keeps chugging along, NU is happy to cash the checks and send its cross country team and baseball team out into the world.Originally posted by LookGoodInPurple:
At Northwestern.
Loyola Academy, New Trier, Lake Forest... In my hometown area elsewhere in the Midwest, the wealthiest school districts have ladies' golf, bowling, lax, field hockey, etc.Originally posted by shakes3858:
I've never heard of a high school field hockey team. Maybe I'm in the wrong area of the country.
Add North Shore Country Day to the list. Tiny school but is always in top 10 in the state in field hockey.Originally posted by Purplicious:
Loyola Academy, New Trier, Lake Forest... In my hometown area elsewhere in the Midwest, the wealthiest school districts have ladies' golf, bowling, lax, field hockey, etc.Originally posted by shakes3858:
I've never heard of a high school field hockey team. Maybe I'm in the wrong area of the country.
Obviously not or we would have done it. It's pointless to debate it because our "mediocre" sports have their backers. Some of the "mediocre" sports are there to balance out Title IX. Also, while I'm sure that plenty of people would prefer to have football and basketball at NU and that's it, if you want to be a Division I (not to mention a Big Ten) school, you have to field a number of teams.Originally posted by LookGoodInPurple:
Also would you sacrifice being mediocre in two sports for investing more in one of those sports to be potentially top tier?
Okey dokey. I still maintain that participation in field hockey is a very small percentage compared to basketball which is my point. If it gets to the point where recruiting players is hard because nobody plays the sport, then I would drop the sport. I'm not going to tell a bunch of kids at NU that are playing a sport that they can stay on scholarship until they graduate, but we're done with them participating in their sport.Originally posted by DocCatsFan:
Add North Shore Country Day to the list. Tiny school but is always in top 10 in the state in field hockey.Originally posted by Purplicious:
Loyola Academy, New Trier, Lake Forest... In my hometown area elsewhere in the Midwest, the wealthiest school districts have ladies' golf, bowling, lax, field hockey, etc.Originally posted by shakes3858:
I've never heard of a high school field hockey team. Maybe I'm in the wrong area of the country.
... I don't understand what you're hoping to accomplish. I pointed out that we have dropped sports in the past because of cost and Title IX. That's the precedent here at NU.Originally posted by LookGoodInPurple:
I'm not sure I get your point about "Obviously not or we would have done it."
I'm just asking your opinion about what should ultimately drive why or why not we support a non-revenue sport. Is it history? Cost? Competitive advantage? Popularity? Something else?
There are a handful of folks who would shed a tear of fencing was cut. There are a handful more (including apparently some high profile boosters) who would be upset at baseball if it were cut. I'm agnostic about whether its "right" or "wrong", I'm just curious. At the end of the day, I'm a fan of NU sports. There are sports thy I will go out of my way to watch live (basketball, football, lacrosse, soccer and hockey... but that isn't necessarily the reason why you would ultimately keep or cut a sport. I'm just curious what you would determine is the ultimate arbiter of keeping a sport.
At least somebody around here finally spoke the truth.Originally posted by LookGoodInPurple:
I'm not trying to accomish anything.
You can't count FB separately because the number of scholarships represents a significantly greater opportunity for men than for women. It might be heresy, but I think the number of FB scholarships should be dramatically reduced since the number of FB scholarships will always be part of the equation.Originally posted by hdhntr1:
Count me as someone that feels FB should be considered separately and all other scholarships should be balanced out. Especially since FB at many schools is where the funding for all other sports comes from. THat and the large number of scholarships requires about 5 women's sports before a single additional men's sport can be added. The second men's sport is men's BB which is the second revenue sport. THe result is that unless you play FB or mens's BB (where the vast majority of funds come from) male athletes get few opportunities for scholarships and are, in fact, discriminated against. That is why we cannot fund full teams of scholarship players for so many of our male sports
And if you're a female athlete who doesn't engage in lax, field hockey, tennis, softball, fencing, cross country, swimming/diving, volleyball, golf, basketball, or soccer, you're being discriminated against, too. In other words, every school should offer every possible sport or else somebody is getting discriminated against...?Originally posted by hdhntr1:
THe result is that unless you play FB or mens's BB (where the vast majority of funds come from) male athletes get few opportunities for scholarships and are, in fact, discriminated against.
Historically, I think that maybe was true, but not anymore. Over the last 25 years, lacrosse has grown rapidly across the country. According to US Lacrosse, the primary source for youth lacrosse, participation amongst youth females grown by 61% over the last 5 years. For boys it was 62%.Originally posted by KramerCat91:
I think field hockey is bigger than lacrosse historically for females.
True dat. It's offseason messageboard mental masterbation in full effect.Originally posted by Purplicious:
At least somebody around here finally spoke the truth.Originally posted by LookGoodInPurple:
I'm not trying to accomish anything.
Originally posted by Purplicious:
In fact, I could be wrong, but I think the number of FB scholarships used to be 100 or more until Title IX broke, at which time the number was dramatically reduced. It's time for it to happen again. For one thing, we would have greater parity in CFB (that's what happened when the last reduction took place).
I could be wrong but I think FB scholarships have been reduced several times and it's always resulted in better competition. Do you remember when UM and OSU could offer 100+ kids? It meant that a guy would turn down NU to be the 6th string tailback at UM.Originally posted by LookGoodInPurple:
Originally posted by Purplicious:
In fact, I could be wrong, but I think the number of FB scholarships used to be 100 or more until Title IX broke, at which time the number was dramatically reduced. It's time for it to happen again. For one thing, we would have greater parity in CFB (that's what happened when the last reduction took place).
I think this is another interesting topic. Parity, I think, is a very good thing (but not necessarily the most important thing). Will reducing scholarships accomplish more parity?
I feel like a talk show host. But I think Purplicious brings up a pretty good discussion point.
What is the basis for this? It's one of the cheapest sports and every school where I grew up has it. It's never been dropped anywhere in my hometown region.Originally posted by shakes3858:
Losing popularity:
Wrestling: MW
Men's lax has TWO pro/semi-pro leagues already!Originally posted by shakes3858:
I do think that we're going to get men's Lacrosse in the next 15 years as the popularity is going to get too huge. Not sure if that means something will get dropped, but Lacrosse may even break into the money making sports with a MAJOR professional league.
I don't think lax is as dangerous as football, but it's hardly safe, especially as the game has become more and more physical.Originally posted by shakes3858:
I think as more parents are scared off of football, those kids will go to Lacrosse and that will lead to even more growth of the sport. I still think hockey turns a profit too.
You wouldn't be "taking away scholarship opportunities away from 18 year old kids." You would be redistributing them to other sports.Originally posted by shakes3858:
As for a scholarship reduction to leave more parity, I would not be happy with taking away scholarship opportunities away from 18 year old kids. You'd also be looking at few redshirts like at the FCS level.
Right, which is why I'm not sure I buy dropping baseball, for example, in favor of lax with the idea that lax is so much safer.Originally posted by docrugby1:
I'll reply to some of Purp's comments:
Men's lacrosse is far more violent than the the lady's game that NU fans may be familiar with. It does not have the same injury rate as football but concussions,shoulder and knee injuries are fairly frequent. Deaths are usually related to commotio cordis from shots hitting players in the chest. Every lacrosse game at the youth,HS or college level should have an automated defibrillator on site
Do we redshirt because we don't want to play young men who are not physically ready and we're looking out for their interests, or do we redshirt because they're not physically ready and we want to maximize their eligibility to win on the field? Maybe it's different at NU, but I think most programs redshirt for strategic reasons. For example, Walker seemed to play a lot more true frosh because he had to (i.e., he didn't have great depth at some positions), while Fitz prefers to redshirt guys so they'll be monsters in their 5th year. There is also some lip service paid to giving a kid a chance to build a good first year academically, but I don't buy into that as the primary basis for redshirting in modern collegiate sports.Originally posted by docrugby1:
Many good HS football players are not physically ready for D1 , so I would hate to see redshirting disappear. Women reach physical maturity at an earlier age than males, who can continue to grow till age 21 in some cases
So I'm confused. Are you advocating the addition of men's lax at the expense of baseball? These facts don't support that decision. If it's not safer and if there are pro leagues but they're not wildly successful, how is lax better than baseball? From my vantage point, the only way it's better is that we at NU would have a chance to be more successful, but I'm not sure the same isn't true for baseball if we actually used all of the scholarships that we're allowed to use and if we had facilities on par with the rest of the conference, which we don't. It's no coincidence that we had some decent years before the park became completely antiquated.Originally posted by LookGoodInPurple:
I have to echo what docrugby1 posted (well done, doc!). He is exactly right on the injury risk of lacrosse although deaths in lacrosse are extremely rare. Knees, collarbones and concussions are the major ones I've seen at the highschool and college level. He also characterized the professional leagues perfectly. If you're playing after college, don't quit your day job.
What is the basis for this? It's one of the cheapest sports and everyOriginally posted by shakes3858:
Losing popularity:
Wrestling: MW
Men's lax has TWO pro/semi-pro leagues already!Originally posted by shakes3858:
I
do think that we're going to get men's Lacrosse in the next 15 years as
the popularity is going to get too huge. Not sure if that means
something will get dropped, but Lacrosse may even break into the money
making sports with a MAJOR professional league.
I don't think lax is as dangerous as football, but it's hardly safe, especially as the game has become more and more physical.Originally posted by shakes3858:
I
think as more parents are scared off of football, those kids will go to
Lacrosse and that will lead to even more growth of the sport. I still
think hockey turns a profit too.
You wouldn't be "taking away scholarship opportunities away from 18Originally posted by shakes3858:
As
for a scholarship reduction to leave more parity, I would not be happy
with taking away scholarship opportunities away from 18 year old kids.
You'd also be looking at few redshirts like at the FCS level.
Are you from Illinois? Men's volleyball. Ew.Originally posted by shakes3858:
What is the basis for this? It's one of the cheapest sports and everyOriginally posted by shakes3858:
Losing popularity:
Wrestling: MW
school where I grew up has it. It's never been dropped anywhere in my
hometown region.
A lot of schools where I grew up are dropping it. My high school did despite having a very solid wrestling coach. In my area, the public schools and a couple private schools still had it, but many were dropping it. These high schools were picking up men's volleyball and lacrosse.
My point was that we already have leagues and they have gone nowhere. You missed my point.Originally posted by shakes3858:Men's lax has TWO pro/semi-pro leagues already!I do think that we're going to get men's Lacrosse in the next 15 years as
the popularity is going to get too huge. Not sure if that means
something will get dropped, but Lacrosse may even break into the money
making sports with a MAJOR professional league.
Did you miss the word "MAJOR." I put it in caps for you. Does the Major League Lacrosse have a national TV contract? Do they appear on sportscenter besides a great/terrible play going on the top ten/not top ten. What's their average attendance/salary? For these reasons the major professional leagues/associations in the US are MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, NASCAR, PGA, ATP. type/super athletic freaks
How many former lacrosse players would have the popularity to get on TV in the first place?Originally posted by shakes3858:
I don't think lax is as dangerous as football, but it's hardly safe, especially as the game has become more and more physical.Originally posted by shakes3858:
I think as more parents are scared off of football, those kids will go to
Lacrosse and that will lead to even more growth of the sport. I still
think hockey turns a profit too.
Umm, ok? And how many former lacrosse players are on TV saying that they wouldn't let their kids play lacrosse? How many parents aren't letting their kids play football? How many of those would be ok with lacrosse?
I'm confused. How does 85-65=65? If you cut the number by 20, why would you add 65 to other sports?Originally posted by shakes3858:You wouldn't be "taking away scholarship opportunities away from 18 year old kids." You would be redistributing them to other sports.Originally posted by shakes3858:
As for a scholarship reduction to leave more parity, I would not be happy
with taking away scholarship opportunities away from 18 year old kids.
You'd also be looking at few redshirts like at the FCS level.
What's wrong with fewer redshirts? Redshirting is not common in women's sports because the women are 4 and done, moving on with their lives to careers and grad student opportunities. Why should it be different for
football? Why maintain the status quo of NCAA football as a pro minor league for NFL?
How exactly would you be redistributing them to other sports? You have 85 scholarships. If you drop it to 65, are you going to increase other sports by 65 scholarships? How are you going to deal with the fact that you'd be dropping scholarships to a primarily black sport in football to primarily white sports in swimming, tennis, lacrosse...
Yeah and boy it shows.Originally posted by shakes3858:
Do you also see a problem with a 20 hrs of week of practice and games + film study + time in the training room... + academics schedule making it difficult for many people to graduate. I'm not saying that kids should take the Matt Leinert ballroom dancing schedule, but a slightly easier schedule in season isn't a problem for me. I did it.
Redshirting has nothing to do with 5-year majors. Look up the very definition of redshirting. It was not designed with premeds in mind. A lot of McCormick students wind up doing an internship and graduating in 5 years instead of 4. Football players can't do that anyway due to the time crunch.Originally posted by shakes3858:
How many majors/programs are on the 5 year plan to start with? I remember learning in a sociology class that colleges gained attendance due to the baby boomer generation. They added dorms, classes, professors, staff... Then all of a sudden, the next generation was smaller. In order to keep their classrooms filled and the universities running, they switched a lot of programs to the 5 year plan. Should athletes be banned from 5 year majors or should they have the opportunity to redshirt for a year and then play for 4? Seems fair to me.
Do you also see a problem with a 20 hrs of week of practice and games + film study + time in the training room... + academics schedule making it difficult for many people to graduate. I'm not saying that kids should take the Matt Leinert ballroom dancing schedule, but a slightly easier schedule in season isn't a problem for me. I did it. Would you prefer to force those students to take easier majors on a 4 year pace rather than the major they'd like on a 5 year pace? Those that have the ability to focus on both their academics and athletics can go on to graduate school opportunities.
Additionally, it allows players to sit out a year due to nagging injuries which could effect their play and future lives, but are not serious enough to grant a medical redshirt. Additionally, lineman especially need to develop their bodies before they're ready to play.
How exactly does redshirt lead to minor league for the NFL? Most teams don't want a player that has been in college for 5 years. He's 23 at that point and may not play his first NFL game til 24. That's exactly what NFL teams don't want. He'll be over the hill (27) by the time he should be signing his second contract. NFL teams want guys in at 21 and peaking in about 4-5 years. NBA teams are even worse. By 21, you're old and maximized on your potential. They want them at 19. I'd maintain redshirting players leads to more smart 5th year high achieving players and less NFL type/super athletic freaks
This is what we call a straw man. Can you name a few NU football players who have been enrolled in 5-year programs (not players who chose to stretch their undergrad years into 5 years, either)? If we don't have them at NU, then they're certainly not common at Ohio State.Originally posted by shakes3858:
So football players shouldn't be allowed 5 year majors? Or should they have to pay the last year?
What a load of cockamamie bullshit! Name a few 5-year majors. I can think of some McCormick programs but that's because they're spending a year basically working/interning. Our football players don't do that shit--they don't have time!Originally posted by shakes3858:
Are many majors accross the country 5 year programs? Yes
Do football players get to play on the field for 5 years given perfect health? No
Do football players stay on scholarship after their eligibility is over? No
Is that a disconnect? Yes
Does redshirting alleviate that disconnect? Yes
Actually what you did was give anecdotal evidence about the emergence of 5-year majors and said it should be an important consideration. So you apparently broke your own policy. Do you know what an anecdote is?Originally posted by shakes3858:
I don't use anecdotal evidence in arguments anyway, even if asked for it.
Waa-waa! Are you taking your toys and running home now?Originally posted by shakes3858:
Congratulations, you're officially an ECat territory. You make stupid arguments that make absolutely no sense. Ecat does it out of stubbornness. I think you do it for the sole purpose of pissing people off.