It's not just about the money
by fontoknow (2020-02-19 15:36:50)

In reply to: Title IX can be overcome -add Women's hockey or wrestling  posted by NDoggie78

Post Reply Return to Olympic

It's also spots in the first year class.

How many spots should athletics get? What do these students bring to the table that we don't already have in the class?

Wrestling is actually interesting in someways since wreslters are more likely to be from working class and lower middle class backgrounds and also tend to be first in the family going to college. That might be a plus. But who doesn't get in as a result? Maybe roll back legacy programs?

9.9 mens scholarships
by NDoggie78  (2020-02-19 16:57:44)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

That doesn't seem like it would move the needle much in spots in the class, especially when it would eventually be spread over 4 or 5 classes.

Granted, Title IX might require adding Field Hockey (12) or Ice Hockey (18) for women, but women athletes tend to be closer to the norm of other students as far as academics go.

Also, we have built new dorms and not increased the enrollment appreciably (yes, I know the overcrowded dorm argument) - instead of displacing students or legacies, why not just add 5 or 6 students a year for these athletic programs.

Wouldn't need to build facilities - Field Hockey could play on lacrosse or soccer fields, Ice Hockey is already there and has two rinks, wrestling could move into the Pit

Edit: I guess there could be some preferred walk-ons that get into ND more on their wrestling merits than their academics - but unlike money generating sports, I would suspect they would have to be close to the normal student.
Also, not sure but I believe the scholarships can be split so the 9.9 could go to 20+ athletes increasing the number of "extra" students in my proposal.

Bottom line (if you can't tell) I would like to see Wrestling back at Notre Dame

Iowa is carrying 36 on roster right now
by fontoknow  (2020-02-20 09:18:34)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Penn State is also carrying 36 on roster.

Average team size is 32.

It is very likely that those 9.9 scholarships get sliced into 3 or 4 different student athlete packages.

What you are asking for is definitely not 9.9 student athletes divided by 4 classes. You're likely seeking 15 new student athletes a year (wrestling plus Title IX sport).

That's fine, but who gets cut out of the freshmen class?
I edited my original post to include partial scholarships
by NDoggie78  (2020-02-20 11:26:33)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

The NCAA says the average scholarships per team is 24, but I still don't see a problem using your numbers. I don't know the actual numbers on students and beds available, but we have built 4 new dorms in the last 4 years and are currently using an "extra" dorm to rotate students as their older dorms are remodeled. I believe there has got to be room for 15-20 additional students. It would seem that current enrollment probably fluctuates by that amount each year anyway.
You would know better on the numbers, but I just don't think anyone needs to be "cut"

How does Stanford do it? They have 36 varsity sports compared to Notre Dame's 26.
Stanford has decided that a heavy 3rd of their class
by fontoknow  (2020-02-20 11:44:53)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

should be varsity athletes. That's their choice.

What problem does adding varsity wrestling solve? Does that net ND more than adding varsity wrestling costs? It might. I'm just pointing out the obstacles that have to be overcome, and a hard enrollment ceiling of 2050 per first year class that is based on dorm capacity is certainly something to consider.
You could use that query for every non-revenue sport at ND
by NDoggie78  (2020-02-20 16:08:19)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Most non-revenue sports don't solve any problems (other than balancing Title IX requirements). Most don't net ND more than their costs. Wrestling does have a prior history at Notre Dame so there is that. It may benefit some 2 sport athletes although most concentrate on only one sport these days.

I was a wrestler in high school, come from a family of wrestlers, my brother wrestled for ND, so I have a personal interest in the sport and so naturally I think it's worthwhile. I think the enrollment numbers can be overcome and I don't think the Stanford model is crazy (maybe not 36 varsity sports) - they get a lot of notoriety for always being at or near the top in the collegiate rankings, Director's Cup, while not losing any of their academic credibility.

Cost shouldn't be an obstacle for Notre Dame, but I don't see them adding varsity sports unless they get an earmarked donation
when you make changes, you need a business case
by fontoknow  (2020-02-20 22:29:37)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

You're requesting a change ... even a change back. When most of the non revenue women's sports were added, they were fixing a clear problem (as misguided as you might think Title IX is, compliance is an important issue facing most colleges and universities).

The enrollment issue can be overcome, but it is zero sum right now. Adding a new set of admits means subtracting it someplace else.

Why is that a question?
by stanford_07  (2020-02-20 10:09:17)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

So 10-15 kids each year in the freshman class will be wrestlers. They'll also be good students, live in the dorms and major in all kinds of things. Who has been cut out of ND since we added hockey? Women's lacrosse? What kids aren't getting into ND because we have a soccer program?

Enrollment has expanded, but unlikely to expand in the futur
by fontoknow  (2020-02-20 10:20:06)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Requiring juniors to live on campus without adequate housing capacity means we won't see growth in enrollment for the foreseeable future.