Sorry if this has been explained on here before but does anyone know which womens sports we donât have that other schools do have to comply with title 9? In other words do the schools with big football programs have that many more women student athletes than charlotte does?
Even most D1-A programs in the northeast barely meet NCAA requirements in attendance! The northeast is a suck ass college football fan base. All they give a damn about is the Yankees and Bo Sox!
Donât bring slanted statistics about a âstateâ school from a state that doesnât even deserve 1 senator in congress, much less 2. Does more than a million people live in Rhode Island? It would be like Mecklenburg, Gaston, Lincoln and Cleveland countiesâŚwithout the people.
Screw Title IX and any half ass âolympicâ mens sports that get in the way of football at Charlotte. If we have too many mens sports at Charlotte then it was past administrators and ADâs fault for over extending our resourses on NON REVENUE GENERATING sports!
If it means we can have footballâŚCUT THEM NOW!
Some womenâs sports we donât have include:
Swimming (Belk Gym pool is olympic sized)
Lacrosse (soccer field)
Field Hockey (soccer field)
Gymnastics (Halton or Belk)
Fencing (they have it at Crappel Hole)
Golf
We can also make the Cheerleading and Dance teams competitive and give them scholarships too!
[i]Originally posted by 49RFootballNow[/i]@Apr 3 2005, 12:38 AM [b] Screw Title IX and any half ass "olympic" mens sports that get in the way of football at Charlotte. If we have too many mens sports at Charlotte then it was past administrators and AD's fault for over extending our resourses on NON REVENUE GENERATING sports!If it means we can have footballâŚCUT THEM NOW! [/b]
Obviously you want football and you think the cash is gonna drop from the sky and that it can jsut as easily occur by dropping sports. The NCAA (not be best organization in the world, but they make the rules) does have some requirements, and itâs not as simple as just having a basketball and football team and various womenâs teams. The teams must be fielded and must be funded. Drop one sport, youâre going to have to put that money into another one (and itâs not necessarily going to be football).
Some rules you might want to readâŚ
For general NCAA membership:
[b][b]3.2.1.4 Four-Sport/Three-Season Requirement.[/b] The institution shall sponsor and conduct a representative schedule in a minimum of four varsity intercollegiate sports that involve all-male teams or mixed teams of males and females and four varsity intercollegiate sports that involve all-female teams, subject to the requirements of the institutionâs conference(s), if any. At least one sport involving an all-male team or a mixed team of males and females and at least one sport involving an all-female team shall be conducted in every sport season. An institution may utilize a sport to meet the three-season requirement only if the institution has met the minimum contest and participants requirements for sports sponsorship in that sport as set forth in Bylaw 20.9.3.3. See Constitution 3.2.4.12 for details of the memberâs obligations in meeting this requirement. (Revised: 1/16/93)[/b]For NCAA Division I membership:
[b][b]20.9.3 Sports Sponsorship.[/b] A member institution shall sponsor in a minimum of: (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 9/1/94) ( a ) Seven varsity intercollegiate sports, including at least two team sports, based on the minimum requirements of Bylaw 20.9.3.3 and involving all-male teams or mixed teams of males and females, and seven varsity intercollegiate sports (of which a maximum of two emerging sports per Bylaw 20.02.5 may be utilized), including at least two team sports, based on the minimum requirements of Bylaw 20.9.3.3 and involving all-female teams; or (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 9/1/94, 1/11/94 effective 9/1/94) ( b ) Six varsity intercollegiate sports, including at least two team sports, based on the minimum requirements of Bylaw 20.9.3.3 and involving all-male teams or mixed teams of males and females, and eight varsity intercollegiate sports (of which a maximum of two emerging sports per Bylaw 20.02.5 may be utilized), including at least two team sports, based on the minimum requirements of Bylaw 20.9.3.3 and involving all-female teams. (Adopted: 1/16/93 effective 9/1/94, Revised: 1/11/94 effective 9/1/94) (Note: See Bylaws 20.9.6.1 and 2.9.7.1 for additional sports sponsorship sponsorship requirements for member institutions participating in Division I-A and Division I-AA football.)[/b]
[b][b]15.5.3.1.1 Menâs Sports.[/b] There shall be a limit on the value (equivalency) of financial aid awards (per Bylaw 15.02.4.1) that an institution may provide in any academic year to counters in the following menâs sports: (Revised: 1/10/91, 1/10/92, 1/16/93 effective 8/1/93) Baseball - 11.7 Cross Country/Track and Field - 12.6 Fencing - 4.5 Golf - 4.5 Gymnastics - 6.3 Lacrosse - 12.6 Rifle - 3.6 Skiing - 6.3 Soccer - 9.9 Swimming - 9.9 Tennis - 4.5 Volleyball - 4.5 Water Polo - 4.5 Wrestling - 9.9 [b]15.5.3.1.2 Womenâs Sports.[/b] There shall be a limit on the value (equivalency) of financial aid awards (per Bylaw 15.02.4.1) that an institution may provide in any academic year to counters in the following womenâs sports: (Revised: 1/10/91, 1/10/92 effective 8/1/94, 1/16/93, 1/11/94 effective 9/1/94) Archery - 5 Badminton (Revised: 1/9/96 effective 8/1/96) - 6 Bowling - 5 Cross Country/Track and Field (Revised: 1/9/96 effective 8/1/96) - 18 Equestrian (Revised: 11/01/01, effective 8/1/02) - 15 Fencing - 5 Field Hockey (Revised: 1/9/96 effective 8/1/96) - 12 Golf - 6 Lacrosse (Revised: 1/9/96 effective 8/1/96) - 12 Rowing - 20 Skiing - 7 Soccer (Revised: 1/9/96 effective 8/1/96) - 12 Softball (Revised: 1/9/96 effective 8/1/96) - 12 Squash Revised: 1/9/96 effective 8/1/96) - 12 Swimming (Revised: 1/9/96 effective 8/1/96) - 14 Synchronized Swimming - 5 Team Handball (Revised: 1/9/96 effective 8/1/96) - 10 Water Polo - 8[/b]
[b][b]20.9.1.2 Minimum Awards.[/b] A member of Division I shall provide institutional financial assistance that equals one of the following: (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 9/1/94) ( a ) A minimum of 50 percent of the maximum allowable grants in 14 sports, at least seven of which must be womenâs sports. If an institution uses indoor track and field, outdoor track and field and cross country to meet the financial aid criterion, it must award the equivalent of at least 80 percent of the full grants for men and 80 percent of the full grants for women in those sports. If the institution counts two of those three sports to meet the financial aid criterion, it must award the equivalent of at least 70 percent of the full grants for men and 70 percent of the full grants for women. If the institution counts indoor and outdoor track and field as one sport, it must award the equivalent of at least 50 percent of the full grants for men and 50 percent of the full grants for women; (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 9/1/94, 10/27/98 effective 8/1/99) ( b ) Financial aid representing a minimum aggregate expenditure of $825,000 (with at least $412,500 in womenâs sports) in 2003-04 and $877,000 in 2004-05 (with at least $438,000 in womenâs sports), exclusive of grants in football and menâs and womenâs basketball, provided the aggregate grant value is not less than the equivalent of 38 full grants, with at least 19 full grants for women. The Management Council shall adjust the minimum aggregate figure annually to reflect inflation, based on changes in average national tuition charges for regionally accredited institutions. The Management Council shall announce the revised figure in the fall each year for the subsequent academic year. If the institution does not sponsor menâs or womenâs basketball, the minimum aggregate expenditure must be $544,630 in 2003-04, and $579,000 in 2004-05. for the gender without the basketball program, but in no case fewer than the equivalent of 29 full grants for that gender; or (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 9/1/94, 1/10/95, 1/9/96, 1/14/97 effective 9/1/97, 4/15/97 effective 8/1/98, 10/27/98 effective 8/1/99, 4/13/99, 4/11/00, 4/10/01) ( c ) A minimum of the equivalent of 50 full grants (at least 25 full grants in womenâs sports), exclusive of grants awarded in football and menâs and womenâs basketball. If the member institution does not sponsor menâs or womenâs basketball, it shall sponsor a minimum of 35 full grants in the sports program for the gender without the basketball program. (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 9/1/94, 10/27/98 effective 8/1/99, 8/14/02) ( d ) A minimum of one-half of the required grants or aggregate expenditures cited in ( a ), ( b ) or ( c ) above, for institutions that depend on exceptional amounts of federal assistance to meet studentsâ financial needs. This provision shall be applicable to an institution in a given year if the average per-student allotment of Pell Grant dollars for undergraduates reported to the U.S. Department of Education the previous September is more than one standard deviation above the mean for all reporting Division I member institutions that year. If an institution does not qualify under this provision after having been able to do so the previous year, the institution may continue to utilize this alternative for one year and shall not be required to meet the provisions of ( a ), ( b ) or ( c ) above until the following year. This provision shall be applicable only to institutions that were members of Division I on September 1, 1990. (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 9/1/94)[/b]Source: [url=http://www.ncaa.org/library/membership/division_i_manual/2003-04/2003-04_d1_manual.pdf]NCAA Division I Manual[/url]
I wish it were as easy as you think it is. If youâll fund the 20 scholarships for a womenâs rowing team on Lake Norman, I believe the others on the message board can raise the money for 20 football scholarships. Just give them to 20 young women on campus, they show up for a few meets and get a free education and you get to spend fall Saturday afternoons in an empty stadium watching non-competitive D-I football.
[i]Originally posted by 49RFootballNow[/i]@Apr 3 2005, 12:38 AM [b] Even most D1-A programs in the northeast barely meet NCAA requirements in attendance! The northeast is a suck ass college football fan base.[/b]
Wrong again!
The Division I-A requirement for attendance is 15,000. (You obviously didnât know that) And you say the D1-A programs in the northeast barely meet that. Here are their average attendance figures according to the NCAA:
Boston College (42,604)
Syracuse (41.177)
UConn (37.059)
Army (36,515)
Rutgers (27,339)
Temple (24,137)
You have shown you have no idea about this whole topic. There have been several great post on this thread from fans that obviously know their subject matter. (and from mature people that donât use the term âsuck assâ) And I bet they feel just like I do and would love to have D-I-A footballâŚif we could do it right. That means being able to afford it.
You are like the person that gets their first credit card, charges everything without thinking about the fact that the bill for the charges is coming soon. GROW UP!!!
D1-A requires average attendance of 16,000 now. In addition there must be at least 5 home games.
First, while I canât argue with your numbers (having some trouble believing Temple âREALLYâ draws that), you started this tread comparing Charlotte to Rhode Island. I believe that if Temple can draw 30,000 a game, we can too.
Second, the words âsuckâ and âassâ are in the Websterâs Dictionary, and I feel that they help me convey an appropriate emotional response to your lack of enthusiaism for our university and its future!
Third, you do not know me, so I will over look your personal comments about me. I have never found that I needed to make a directed attack against an individual to support any arguement Iâve ever made.
Fourth, Everyone on this board knows from the UTimes article on this topic last year that for Charlotte to field a D1-A program, plus the additional female programs, without cutting any mens programs will require $7-$12 million a year.
Fifth, Do you like moving to the A-10 instead of the Big East? Iâm not saying football would have got us in, but it sure didnât help that we didnât have it.
Sixth, anyone who likes where Charlotte is right now and doesnât want to change it is a sad and pathetic excuse for a fan and its a good DARN thing that most of my fellow students who Iâve spoke with donât share this defeatist attitude.
Seventh, fact is the expansion was created by football, we are in the A-10 now because of football, the NCAA was created because of football, since 1964 only one team has won the NCAA mens tourneyment without a football program (that being Marquette, Georgetown and Villanova are the only 2 without D1-A programs)
If you think we can do what only Marquette has done, well the Big East disagrees with you.
Not having Football hurts all our sports, including mens basketball. Why should we get mad when people in and around Charlotte donât care about us, when obviously the administration and SOME of us here donât care enough to get off our collective asses (whoops! sorry) and help get football done.
[i]Originally posted by 49RFootballNow[/i]@Apr 3 2005, 11:23 PM [b] .....Everyone on this board knows from the UTimes article on this topic last year that for Charlotte to field a D1-A program, plus the additional female programs, without cutting any mens programs will require $7-$12 million a year.[/b]
First of all, let me compliment you for 1) your improved vernacular, which allows others to take your more serious 2) a post that appears to be informative and filled with relative facts to support your desire.
For the record, let me again state that I think we both want the same thing. Iâd love nothing better than to be in the Big East. As Iâve previously stated, at one time I started a petition drive to add football but stopped it once I knew all of the facts. And the bottom line comes down to what you posted about it requiring $7 - $12 million a year to operate a DI-A program.
Where we differ is I donât want to build it in hope that they will come. Iâm not willing to support starting football when we donât have the dollars in hand. If someone stepped forward with a check, Iâd be all over it. Until then, NO! The risk is simply too great. After watching programs like Rhode Island make cuts to their program because of Title IX so they can keep football, and to watch Richmond struggle to keep their football, and after seeing East Tennessee State drop football - I say NO. As for I-AA football, it is a loser. The only reason Iâd ever see playing I-AA football is as a temporary bridge to the I-A level. Why support 63 (I-AA) scholarships when 85 (I-A) is not that much more.
Bottom line, all we need is a big check. Until that happens, I will continue to oppose football at Charlotte.
We start w/ D-2 or D-3, work our way up to D-1AA, & then work our way up to D-IA. Small, baby steps, but on a steady pace, instead of the nothing we have now.
In the meantime while weâre growing the football team on different levels, you write to your Reps. & Sen. in the US Congress to change Title 9 from the same # of scholarships, to the same # of teams. This would help w/ football as we wouldnât have to match scholarship for scholarship with women. Football really skews Title 9, & we need to lobby Congress to correct it.
Someone else can confirm this for me, but if we ever want to be Division I-A, we have to at least start Division I-AA, do we not?
You can start at D2 or D3, & work up to D1aa, & then D1a.
I think Troy St., now Troy, in Alabama, was D2, then D1aa, & is now D1a in the Sun-Belt.
Okay guys, letâs get this correct, once and for all. UNC Charlotte, Charlotte U or the U of Charlotte CAN NOT, I repeat, CAN NOT, begin a football program as a Division III or Division II team. Under NCAA rules, they must be at the minimum a Division I-AA program, meaning 63 football scholarships and an equal number for womenâs team.
There is no working up the ladder, itâs an all or nothing proposition; for I-A itâs 85 scholarships, 16,000 fans per game minimum average at home and 6 home games minimum.
[i]Originally posted by HP49er[/i]@Apr 4 2005, 07:11 PM [b] Okay guys, let's get this correct, once and for all. UNC Charlotte, Charlotte U or the U of Charlotte [b]CAN NOT[/b], I repeat, [b]CAN NOT[/b], begin a football program as a Division III or Division II team. Under NCAA rules, they must be at the minimum a Division I-AA program, meaning 63 football scholarships and an equal number for women's team.There is no working up the ladder, itâs an all or nothing proposition; for I-A itâs 85 scholarships, 16,000 fans per game minimum average at home and 6 home games minimum. [/b]
I know HP, I read the post by stonecoldken but was just to tired of repeating the same information over and over.
Itâs almost as bad as annual âwhy we are called the forty ninersâ thread.
[b] And I bet they feel just like I do and would love to have D-I-A football......if we could do it right. [/b]
Question Zone, If Dr. Dubois says on July 15th that we are going to add football and that he would find the financing to do it, would you support him? Would you put it in his and the administrations hands and vocally support the effort? :huh:
We would most likely have to play D1-AA for atleast 3 years. That is what USF did. :toast:
Add football at the D1-AA level and join the Southern Conference.
As far as the ladies go, I agree with Rooster Cogburn, âGod help us if they ever get to vote.â
[i]Originally posted by 49RFootballNow[/i]@Apr 5 2005, 03:35 AM [b]Question Zone, If Dr. Dubois says on July 15th that we are going to add football and that he would find the financing to do it, would you support him? Would you put it in his and the administrations hands and vocally support the effort?
We would most likely have to play D1-AA for atleast 3 years. That is what USF did. :toast: [/b]
If Dr. Dubois announced on July 15th that we are going to add football and he had found a large donor that had agreed to underwrite the cost to move us to the D-I level in a few years - I would gladly support him. As a matter of fact, Iâd lead a charge to double his salary. And Iâd have no problem playing I-AA for 3-6 years long as the plan was to move to I-A.
If the plan was just to play I-AA, Iâd be strongly against it. And if the plan was to just âfinance itâ through a loan Iâd also be opposed.
But what if all he said was heâd get it done, would you have enough trust to back him up, no big donor announcement being made?
I just want to gage how âbasketball onlyâ fans would react. Not to say youâre a basketball only fan, but you have voiced many of their shared opinions on this topic.
As to HP49ers comments from what I understand the NCAA is backing of the 16,000 minumun attendance rule. Many schools in the MAC, e.g. Buffalo, C.Michigan and others have been falling well short of that number. If these schools had to drop football it would reak havoc on scheduling for the rest of the league. Charlotte you go 1AA non-scholarship football, like Georgetown, Dayton, and Duquesne as a way of getting their program off the ground. It was cost a fraction of what 1AA scholarship football costs. Big time 1AA programs like UMass, Delaware, GA Southern spent between 2.5-3.5 million dollars a years for footballâŚwhere as Dayton, Duquesne all spent less than 500,000 annually on non-scholarship football. As far as going 1A though, you canât be all dress up with no place to go. The BCS is a giant Conspiracy. I guess if Ninners already had football they would have stayed in C-USA. UMass won the 1AA-National Championship in 1998 and had an oppourtunity to go 1AâŚinto the MAC, but we would have to bring our Basketball program tooâŚUMass declined. If the Big East came calling that would be a different story. Now that BC is going into the ACC the chance to actually getting in to the BE when it splits is more realistic. BTW, Georgetown, St. Johnâs, Providence, etc. all do fine w/o big-time football. I like football, but I believe you can have a successful basketball w/o 1A or any football at all, aslo I love college Hoops and donât care for baseball, one of the real drawback of living up here is having to hear about the Red Sox-Yankee rivalry ad NaseumâŚgo Umass go A10
[i]Originally posted by UMass13[/i]@Apr 6 2005, 11:03 AM [b] Charlotte you go 1AA non-scholarship football, like Georgetown, Dayton, and Duquesne as a way of getting their program off the ground. It was cost a fraction of what 1AA scholarship football costs.âŚwhere as Dayton, Duquesne all spent less than 500,000 annually on non-scholarship football. [/b]
Why have we never explored this possibility? Seems like little risk, great potential reward.
[i]Originally posted by 49RFootballNow[/i]@Apr 6 2005, 12:21 AM [b] But what if all he said was he'd get it done, would you have enough trust to back him up, no big donor announcement being made?I just want to gage how âbasketball onlyâ fans would react. Not to say youâre a basketball only fan, but you have voiced many of their shared opinions on this topic. [/b]
Good question. The answer would probably be No, unless he detailed a plan to convince me that basketball wouldnât be hurt.
As for starting I-AA non-scholarship, absolutely not!.. Unless it was part of a long term plan to move to I-AA scholarship in route to D-I. But Iâd rather have I-AA non-scholarship than I-AA scholarship because we wouldnât be wasting as much money. And I-AA is just that, a waste of money.
49erFootballNow, I have a few questions for you.
1)Would you want I-AA football if we never had any intention of moving to D-I?
- What is your honest opinion/dream of Charlotte football and how would you propose to achieve it and over what time period?
I-AA is our only choice. Like said above by UMass13, thereâs no spots for them or us in I-A. Besides I-AA is the only level that has a true national championship. Iâd much rather plan I-AA so we could play reasonably local teams then play in C-USA where you would hardly be able to take one or more road trips for away games.
Our university needs the traditional culture of football. Most of our alumni have no connection to our universityâŚbecause thereâs nothing to draw them in during much of the fall semester and nothing to draw them back once out of school. Its not going to make huge strides overnight with alumni relations but overtime it will grow⌠grow more than with just baskeball. Our alumni donations are ridic for a university of our size. App State, Western, Furman all seem to have some level of credibility that we lack.
Everyone gripes about Niner gear⌠we start football then thereâs immediately a larger market for gear.