They would become dominant in very short order. This assumes, of course, that they truly were committed to it and brought in a top-notch coach. ND clearly has the facilities and the academic appeal to attract the best high school players in the country.
The Olympics tried to get rid of it
Women's wrestling would likely be a great hit with the male students. But on an intercollegiate level, who could compete with the women of Nebraska?
effectively? This applies to the men as well. Wonder why we don't get more from there?
Except for goalies
There I said it
try skating after ingesting that load.
and in B Juniors.
3 of the 7 are from Alberta
1 more from Manitoba
The rest are Americans so THERE
And then it wasn’t
Maybe they’re waiting for someone to donate 10 million or something
20 scholarships at $70K per year each plus coaches and supporting salaries plus travel expenses plus recruiting budget. A generous estimate of incremental ticket revenue (excludes concessions) would be $300K/year, based on Wisconsin women's hockey, which is the attendance leader. 2,200 fans per game, 18 or so home dates per season, a general admission ticket is $7 (about half that, per game, for season tickets) and, of course, student tickets are less.
I'm not opining on "go/no go" just highlighting expenses. And if they added another men's non-revenue sport to match (such as wrestling), the annual expenses of course would be that much higher (not sure how many college wrestling scholarships are allowed).
I know the athletic department is charged the fully loaded cost of tuition, room, and board; but the university's marginal cost of having scholarship athletes is much lower. 18 additional students would not cause the university to add class sections, instructors, or infrastructure. Notre Dame would absorb the additional students into existing classes; so the marginal cost of the tuition part of the equation is near zero - books and other supplies.
electronic now in large part. I'm using my freshman daughter at Clemson for that data point, but I suspect ND is the same. She didn't have a single physical book freshman year. In most cases, she didn't pay to have an electronic copy either -- although she likely was supposed to. As an aside, you also can't sell or buy used books anymore either because of this -- which is a negative to some extent and of course if you prefer paper you have to print.
Food is the hard cost ND has per body they let go free. Even there, they cook more food per day than people eat -- allowing for some margin per meal. Thus, you could argue that short of adding 100's of extra students, even food is not really a true incremental cost.
The infrastructure, doorms, electriity, etc. is all a constant whether those extra 18 hypothetical people do or don't exist.
Now, to invent a sport and a roster that never existed before out of thin air there are other costs outside of the student cost -- coaches, travel, etc. Those are incremental costs. However, this thread seems to be debating the mythical cost of a scholarship to a college. The reality is the education, room and board part is essentially zero for scholarship athletes. That same money was being spent with or without them.
ND sets a number of undergraduate students it wants (and has room for). Any scholarship athlete taking the spot of a regular student is an opportunity cost. Namely, that another student would be paying $70,000 a year for that spot. If you add 18 more available spots, none of that changes.
(The fact that most students get financial aid is irrelevant entirely because those funds come from a completely different source and are discretionary...ND can give or not give need-based scholarships as it sees fit).
So scholarship "slots" actually DO cost the university $70k per year in tuition, room & board it would've had from someone else had that athletic scholarship not existed.
1. That Notre Dame is 100% full at all times, that there is not room for any more students in classes.
2. That Notre Dame can predict to the last student how many of the people Admissions accepts will enroll rather than working with a range of the number of accepted students who will enroll. Therefore there is not an empty bed or room on campus.
But there is room for a few more students in almost every class. The marginal cost of adding the 26th student to a 25 person class is the cost of the textbook.
The percentage of accepted students who choose ND over other schools that have accepted them varies every year... varies within a tight range, but varies nonetheless. 2,000 might accept one year and 2,400 might accept the next year (example numbers, not data from Admissions). The admissions model leaves some room for an unusually high acceptance rate, so there are empty beds almost every year. Unless every bed on campus is full, the marginal cost of room and board is the cost of filling an otherwise empty bed, not zero but not the fully loaded cost of room and board.
I remember a couple of years in the 1970s that were so full that upperclassmen were forced off campus, but a lot of dorm capacity has been built since then.
look, I’m not being hostile or mean, but your arguments just are not accurate.
It is always possible to make room for one more student at ND. It is by definition never physically full. It is only logically full -- an artificial number where they decide to not allow others in, but not tied to physical space. They can by definition always make a senior move off campus, so it never is full. But, it virtually never comes to that because there is always attrition during a year, rooms opening up, and my freshman year they used every single study lounge in Grace Hall to hold 6 per floor, 11 floors -- for example.
There's a much higher percentage of students living off campus now than before too -- upwards of 10% now versus 1-3% circa 1989. The point being it is even easier now than before to shift people off campus if needed.
to play women's hockey.
Also, dorms are at capacity ... and with the mandatory 3 years of on campus living going on line this fall, dorms will have much less flexibility.
No one is arguing that adding sports won't cost money (hence the term "non-revenue" sports)
Our aspirational peer, Stanford (according to Jenkins) offers 36 varsity sports (16 for men, 20 for women). Notre Dame offers only 26 (13 for men, 13 for women).
Obviously, Notre Dame can afford it, so this shouldn't be about the money.
Women's hockey scholarships could allow more for baseball for example? Or all the men's sports fully funded to the max allowed for their sports? Could more scholarships go to Men's Hockey, for example?
I know at one time there were multiple half scholarships for some sports to sort of bridge the gap for folks. Might there be the possibility to make them full with WHockey coming online?
ND has the max allowable, coaches might slice and dice them differently to make things work.
This is one of the reasons Ivy League schools aren't that disadvantaged in many Olympic sports.
Baseball has an NCAA limit of 11.7 scholarships. A school can give 11 full scholarships and one 70% scholarship, 22 half scholarships and two 35% scholarships, or any other combination it chooses as long as it doesn't exceed the limit.
With such a small number available compared to the roster size, baseball programs don't give many full scholarships. A few of the top players who might get full ride offers, but not many.
NCAA Scholarship Limits
(linked source below that says 20 scholarships).
I think the "ND can afford it so it shouldn't be about the money" is not compelling at all. There are plenty of factors. Personally, I hope they don't add it (and a corresponding new men's sport). Why? Assuming they do not want to increase undergraduate admissions, they'd be taking valuable admissions spots from the thousands of very qualified kids who are turned away every year, including legacies.
That cost alone doesn't make it worth it to me. Growth, growth, growth in the number of scholarship sports shouldn't be an objective in and of itself.
Having the money isn't the reason for adding the sport, it is to point out that it shouldn't be a hindrance for adding. Also in your cost analysis, it is likely that those same women on the hockey team would be getting some portion of that money even if there wasn't a hockey team.
You could have used these same arguments when women's basketball was a club sport - when men's lacrosse was a club sport. Becoming a varsity sport was the catalyst for these teams. Whose to say that wouldn't happen for women's hockey? Money is not the obstacle, people who don't want to expand opportunities or think cost should dissuade having these teams or those that "don't like women's hockey" (the small sample on this board are in favor)
I'd venture to say that most athletes not playing football or basketball could get into ND on their own merits - playing a varsity sport may give them the nod where resumes are equal. I don't think they are taking many spots from other "qualified" students. Besides, I'd rather have more well-rounded student body then the way the direction the student body is headed.
But I definitely disagree on a couple of your points.
It would seem clear that internally sports are charged full value for their scholarships, because non-athlete need based money comes from different pools of money entirely, including donor based scholarship funds and presumably some small percentage of the endowment.
And I totally disagree that most scholarship athletes outside of football and basketball would’ve been admitted to ND anyway. The quality of students being turned away is amazing, and we are not just talking about bookworm dorks. I’m sure many of our athletes are smart and good or even great students. Did they all average 33-35 on ACT?
be very interested in supporting additional sports if the pool of students is likely to increase socio-economic diversity. The big help in my view is that the athletes go to ND (or another D-1 school) instead of a random third tier college they can afford (or no college at all).
Those other amazing students will be just fine.
Silly kids with silly dreams, better off elsewhere.
deserving upper middle class white kids who will be fully capable of attending (Marquette, BC, Villanova, State U, etc.) and having successful careers thereafter. 25 out of the 12,000+ well-qualified applicants who don't get accepted.
My point is there will be thousands of well-qualified upper middle class white kids who don't get in regardless of whether ND adds a sport or two.
Not likely to happen but would be very cool.
Should be plenty of ice at Compton, no? Helps balance with men's sports and Title IX? It's a sport ND would be a power in relatively quickly.
Sometime in the next 4 years, please.
Of course, I'm entertained by any hockey game, but I think hockey is a sport where the women's game is just as fun to watch as men's.
Others: soccer, tennis
of fairly equal competitiveness is fun to watch but I'm not much of a fan of watching women's ice hockey. As the sport was gaining traction I thought I would grow to like it for a couple of reasons. No hitting and smaller bodies leaving a lot more room on the ice to play the game as (I believe) it was meant to be played. I've never been a fan of hitting for hitting's sake (which is what 90% of the contact in the sport is now) and the women's game has none of that. But for some reason I have just never grown to like it much.
I have watched a good amount of women's hockey at different levels and I can think of no reason why ND should have a team. I am a big hockey fan. Three things that most fans love about hockey are its speed, strength (power) and physicality. The women's game has none of those elements. Watching a game is like watching a JV high school boys game, of course without the checking. Some women have great skills but a blistering slap shot is not one of them.
I also note that ND already has 20 varsity sports and that about 10% of the student body are varsity athletes. I don't think we need more. We are doing fine with male-female balance for Title IX purposes so that is a non-issue. I don't know of a compelling case to add it as a sport.
Twelve drunk guys trying to figure skate.
1.) There may be women at ND who would like to play hockey - or come to ND to play hockey
2.) If you add women's scholarships, you could bring back Wrestling
3.) We have the facilities
4.) We have the money (it doesn't need to be a revenue generating sport)
5.) People had the same criticisms of Women's Basketball - now it is our best sport
6.) Hockey is a growing sport for men and women (Olympic hockey has helped the women - I know that is the highest level, but I thoroughly enjoyed women's hockey in the Olympics)
out some reasons in favor of adding women's hockey. I said there were no compelling reasons and the response listed some reasons, but the only one that I consider "compelling" is the first, that women at ND may want to play hockey. Those women have that opportunity to play for ND with the club team, and many do so. A vibrant club team satisfies the women who want to play and lets potential students know that there is that opportunity. Women students can satisfy their desire to play hockey on an organized team without the burdens of being a varsity athlete. It uses the facilities that we have without the needless expansion of varsity sports that is already too big for the size of the university undergraduate population.
That is your opinion - not a fact.
As I posted above, Stanford (Jenkin's aspirational peer) has 36 varsity sports to our 26. They have a smaller undergraduate population. They not only have an abundance of varsity sports, they play most of them very well.
As someone who played a club sport before it became varsity, they are not equal. I'm sure the women who play club hockey and those who would be recruited to play varsity hockey would agree
I certainly agree that a club sport is not equal to a varsity sport. Each has advantages over the other. I just don't see a reason why ND should recruit women and pay them (scholarships) to play hockey. There are plenty of women already at ND who play hockey for the school's club team.
I believe it was Monk who used the term aspirational peer to describe Stanford and other schools. I have not heard Fr. Jenkins use that term although he may have too.
They both have pissed me off (spoiled by Hesburgh & Joyce)
My opinion on ND sports is swayed by seeing many sports emerge from club status to varsity during my time at ND (most notably women's basketball, soccer and lacrosse). And formed by sports lost primarily by Title IX - wrestling (brother was on wrestling team). Not arguing against Title IX, just advocating for couple more sports. Some school's sports programs are constrained by budget - ours aren't.