Facts from the Athletic Dept

I emailed Darin Spease, Associate Athletic Director of Business Affairs at the University and got the following response and explanation of the figures.

[QUOTE]
A full athlete scholarship at UNC Charlotte for 2007-2008 is worth approximately $11,500 for an instate student-athlete and $22,500 for an out of state student-athlete. Those numbers were the ones used for these projections.

85 scholarships with 2/3 being instate and 1/3 being out of state (based on 57 instate @ $11,500 and 28 out of state @ $22,500) = $1,285,000

Summer session is extra. College programs have anywhere between 70-90% of their football players on campus during the summer months, primarily to get ahead and “work out” in order to be ready for fall practice, which actually starts prior to the end of 2nd summer session. I selected an estimate of 75% of these players attending summer session (43 instate @ $5500 and 20 out of state @ $11,500) = $466,500

Total financial aid $1,751,500.

We don’t automatically get out of state waivers, and in fact, only received the use of 8 such waivers last year. There are a number of hurdles involved, so much so that several schools in the system weren’t able to utilize any of them last year.

As for the Title IX scholarships – I selected three “likely” programs. Women’s lacrosse, field hockey and swimming. Each can carrry 20-30 athletes, swimming likely more. The combined NCAA limit for scholarships in these 3 sports is 38 – thus that is why the number is less than a million combined.

While this doesn’t fit the letter of the law, it does show an active expansion of our women’s programs and that is a favorable factor when evaluating compliance. There are actually 3 different “tests” and you must satisfy at least one. We have always satisfied it based on proportionality – but “accomodating sport interest by female students” is another possibility.

Thanks for your interest. I will be happy to address any of the numbers if needed, but I will be out of town at the College Athletic Business Management Assoc meetings in Orlando, FL next week. I am 1st Vice President of the organization and this is my year to organize and “run” the convention.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think this was in there. Scholarship numbers are based on 85, which is the Division IA limit.

So this appears to be the costs related to playing D1-A. Would be interesting to see what it will costs in years 1 - 4, which will definitely be D1-AA.

[QUOTE=LeftyNiner;240887]I don’t think this was in there. Scholarship numbers are based on 85, which is the Division IA limit.

So this appears to be the costs related to playing D1-A. Would be interesting to see what it will costs in years 1 - 4, which will definitely be D1-AA.[/QUOTE]

every 1AA program I see has about a 2m budget for football

1A is 5-6m average

or you could be like Chapel Hill and drop 10m a year and go 1-10, talk about poor ROI :lmao: :headbang:

Personally, I’d like to see them add womens golf. I know there are not many scholarships associated with that. But I think of the potential of following them post graduation.

[QUOTE=LeftyNiner;240784]I emailed Darin Spease, Associate Athletic Director of Business Affairs at the University and got the following response and explanation of the figures.[/QUOTE]

Thanks Lefty. You helped answer my question in the other thread.

I’m still scratching my head, though. If we only hand out 38 combined women’s schollies…wouldn’t that limit us to handing out about 35 men’s schollies? It doesn’t add up - unless they are going to eliminate ~50 scholarships for the current men’s teams.

[QUOTE=survivor45;240953]Thanks Lefty. You helped answer my question in the other thread.

I’m still scratching my head, though. If we only hand out 38 combined women’s schollies…wouldn’t that limit us to handing out about 35 men’s schollies? It doesn’t add up - unless they are going to eliminate ~50 scholarships for the current men’s teams.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like there are other ways of being in compliance with Title IX other than matching scholarship for scholarship.

[QUOTE=survivor45;240953]Thanks Lefty. You helped answer my question in the other thread.

I’m still scratching my head, though. If we only hand out 38 combined women’s schollies…wouldn’t that limit us to handing out about 35 men’s schollies? It doesn’t add up - unless they are going to eliminate ~50 scholarships for the current men’s teams.[/QUOTE]

Most female sports offer only partial scholarships, were football (DI-A) requires 85 FULL scholarships plus an additional 30 partials (per NCAA rules). Thats why we only need the equivalent of 38 Full womens scholarships, each full will be devided into a half or a third. The ony female sport that I can think of that offers full scholarships as a requirement is basketball.

[QUOTE=Mr. Bojangles;240957]Sounds like there are other ways of being in compliance with Title IX other than matching scholarship for scholarship.[/QUOTE]

I posted this somewhere. You are correct.

Most female sports offer only partial scholarships, were football (DI-A) requires 85 FULL scholarships plus an additional 30 partials (per NCAA rules). Thats why we only need the equivalent of 38 Full womens scholarships, each full will be devided into a half or a third. The ony female sport that I can think of that offers full scholarships as a requirement is basketball.

I don’t know if it’s required, but our volleyball team offers only full scholarships.

Thanks, Lefty, for the info. The numbers make sense now. Your post did bring up an interesting topic. Specifically, what is the success rate in receiving waivers to charge in-state instead of out-of-state for athletes? What is the distribution of granted and denied petitions per schools?

It seems funny that the rule is put in place to allow in-state costs for out-of-state athletes but then deny colleges’ requests. These must be some high hurdles.

Whoever asked what the I-AA budget would be for the first few years… Who cares? Ya know? I mean, it’s going to be significantly cheaper, and everyone knows it. But if the goal ultimately is I-A football, then you just shoot for the top. Gotta lay it out there from the start so that people know what it is going to be for the long haul.

You can meet the Title IX limits in three different ways, he addressed it in his e-mail. Scholarship-for-Scholarship is only one way.

Another would be to prove that you are serving the female student population in terms of their interests, which would require surveys, etc. etc. If the interest for more sports than you already offer isn’t there, then you can say you would offer it, but no one wants it so you don’t.

That’s the hardest of the three prongs to prove, the stickiest, because if at some point a group of five or six females did come forward and say they wanted women’s golf … Since you wouldn’t be even in dollars, then, I think at that point you’d have to start offering it. Or bowling, or any other NCAA sport they wanted.

That’s why most schools do scholarship-for-scholarship, because then they can offer what they want and only what they want, and say this is what we have an opportunities are even based on gender.

The other option would be to add those 38 women’s scholarships in those three new sports, plus then add scholarships in other sports where we’re currently not maxed out. I can’t imagine we’re maxed out to the limit for example in track & field. So let’s say you added 5 full equivalents there. Now you’re at 43 vs. 85 for football. You’d still be 42 short … which would leave you looking to possibly cut some men’s scholarships. I don’t know the situation in terms of being maxed out for other sports, but I assume track is the only one currently getting short-changed. I could be wrong.

I think that’s why he referenced the other ways to meet the requirement, becuase he realizes without cuts we can’t add 85 new women’s scholarships.

[B]IV. Summary of Final Policy Interpretation[/B]
The final Policy Interpretation clarifies the meaning of “equal opportunity” in intercollegiate athletics. It explains the factors and standards set out in the law and regulation which the Department will consider in determining whether an institution’s intercollegiate athletics program complies with the law and regulations. It also provides guidance to assist institutions in determining whether any disparities which may exist between men’s and women’s programs are justifiable and nondiscriminatory. The Policy Interpretation is divided into three sections:
[LIST]
[]Compliance in Financial Assistance (Scholarships) Based on Athletic Ability: Pursuant to the regulation, the governing principle in this area is that all such assistance should be available on a substantially proportional basis to the number of male and female participants in the institution’s athletic program.
[
]Compliance in Other Program Areas (Equipment and supplies; games and practice times; travel and per diem, coaching and academic tutoring; assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors; locker rooms, and practice and competitive facilities; medical and training facilities; housing and dining facilities; publicity; recruitment; and support services): Pursuant to the regulation, the governing principle is that male and female athletes should receive equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities.
[*][B][COLOR=red]Compliance in Meeting the Interests and Abilities of Male and Female Students: Pursuant to the regulation, the governing principle in this area is that the athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated.[/COLOR][/B][/LIST][B]----------------[/B]
[B]§ 106.41 Athletics.[/B]
(a) [I]General.[/I] No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be treated differently from another person or otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics offered by a recipient, and no recipient shall provide any such athletics separately on such basis.

(b) [I]Separate teams.[/I] Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, a recipient may operate or sponsor separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport. However, where a recipient operates or sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex but operates or sponsors no such team for members of the other sex, and athletic opportunities for members of that sex have previously been limited, members of the excluded sex must be allowed to try-out for the team offered unless the sport involved is a contact sport. For the purposes of this part, contact sports include boxing, wrestling, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball and other sports the purpose or major activity of which involves bodily contact.

© [I]Equal opportunity.[/I] A recipient which operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics shall provide equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes. In determining whether equal opportunities are available the Director will consider, among other factors:

(1) Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;
(2) The provision of equipment and supplies;
(3) Scheduling of games and practice time;
(4) Travel and per diem allowance;
(5) Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring;
(6) Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
(7) Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;
(8) Provision of medical and training facilities and services;
(9) Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;
(10) Publicity.

Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams [B]will not constitute noncompliance with this section[/B], but the Assistant Secretary may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.

^ Are you a lawyer?

I did a complaint, answer, and appellate brief on Title IX issues, so I am fairly familiar with it. I was going to post something similar to what you did.

I just know how to Google…

haha ok

[QUOTE=Brick Tamland, Weather;241085]Whoever asked what the I-AA budget would be for the first few years… Who cares? Ya know? I mean, it’s going to be significantly cheaper, and everyone knows it. But if the goal ultimately is I-A football, then you just shoot for the top. Gotta lay it out there from the start so that people know what it is going to be for the long haul. [/QUOTE]

Well, if it costs 3 million for D1-AA years…and we bring in 5 mil based on student fees alone, we’re talking about making a lot of money during that period.

[QUOTE=LeftyNiner;241113]Well, if it costs 3 million for D1-AA years…and we bring in 5 mil based on student fees alone, we’re talking about making a lot of money during that period.[/QUOTE]

That money sure would go a long way to helping build a stadium! I also assume that we will have a phase on the fees so that means another 3 or 4 years of student fees coming in before a team is even assembled, which means more change in the pockets.

Well, if it costs 3 million for D1-AA years...and we bring in 5 mil based on student fees alone, we're talking about making a lot of money during that period.

Yeah I see what you’re saying there, then again it’s not a guarantee they would jack the fee right away … I’m assuming the infrastructure costs of stadium building etc. is going to be planned-for in another way aside from the student fees up front … it would have to be. I see any four-year potential savings either as a bonus or a way to get the other programs started right away to get in compliance.