Rhode Island to make cuts to hoops, golf

49ers Basketball Forum šŸ€
41
[i]Originally posted by ApexNiner[/i]@Apr 6 2005, 07:17 PM [b] I-AA is our only choice. Like said above by UMass13, there's no spots for them or us in I-A. Besides I-AA is the only level that has a true national championship. I'd 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 universityā€¦because thereā€™s 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 growā€¦ 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 gearā€¦ we start football then thereā€™s immediately a larger market for gear. [/b]


What he said.

Most of our alumni have complete apathy for the school. This could be just another way to draw fans to the university. Like Apex said, I too have noticed that graduates of Furman have more pride in their school than Charlotte alums do. But when you look at it on paper, thereā€™s no reason for them to be more proud of their university.

42
[b]1)Would you want I-AA football if we never had any intention of moving to D-I?[/b]

Yes and No.

No, I would be highly disappointed if it was only intended to be 1-AA. Other then UT San Antonio, I canā€™t think of another university with 30,000 students (2015) and only 1-AA football. I would support it, but would still be disappointed.

Yes, because the road to 1-A goes through 1-AA. With a 1-AA program (even no schorlarships)we can leverage the alumni and Charlotte buisnesses. They in turn will leverage the university to move to 1-A to increase the value of their donations.

So yes, I would accept a 1-AA program on the basis that it gets us closer to 1-A. Yet at 1-AA it will never reflect this university now or what this university is capable of achieving in the future. Only a 1-A program can do that.

[b]2) What is your honest opinion/dream of Charlotte football and how would you propose to achieve it and over what time period? [/b]

Whether the university started football today or actively opposed it, I would still suggest the following formula.

  1. Starting a pro football student organization. It would need to be started by the students to show the university that there will be a built in attendance base and because we represent long term alumni support in the future. Eventually this organization will need to include alumni, staff, faculty, and the general public; but it should start on campus.

  2. Assuming a small initial membership, the members should be motivated to talk to other students about football and encourage their joining. Pro football shirts and caps should be printed up (careful to avoid copyright infringement if without consent from the school), and the students should wear them consistantly so faculty and staff become aware of their presence. A Frat recently made football Tā€™s and they were very popular.

  3. Assuming the organization grows, it should reach out to the alumni first. The group should obtain nonprofit status and set up an annuity fund which can only be given to the university athletic fund (on the event that the university starts football or the organization collapses, this to be included in the terms of the fund). Members will then be encouraged to donate $50 a year to the fund (voluntarily, not a term of membership) and to sign promisary notes to purchase season tickets when we get football.

  4. Once the organization reaches a sufficent size and visability, it should begin lobbying the city government, local state legislators and current 49er sponsors. Then it should begin lobbying other Charlotte and regional buisnesses, especially those with Niner alums in promenant positions.

  5. While this is being done by the leadership of the organization, the members should increase their visability at Niner events. It should become the new spirt group on campus. The leadership should help organize the students to attend all Niner games in all Niner sports. The group should show up for every Niner basketball game with at least 100 members wearing their football now shirts and cheering the loudest for the Niners. Smaller groups should do the same for other sports and organize small travel groups to follow the Niners to regional events.

  6. In the Fall, 50 or so a week should be organized to attend regional college football games. This would show the administration that the members are determined to see football at Charlotte and would also increase the schools visability to regional fans and potential future adversaries. Plus it would be great to see a small patch of green in the middle of a red, purple, or baby blue sea of fans. The television fan might start asking questions?

This is how I would start it.

TIME SCALE:

now: University annouces intention to start football in the near future.
year 1: University works hard to line up donors and sponsors.
year 2: University starts 1-AA (Southern Conf?) without scholarships.
year 3: University lines up funding for 63 scholarships (72 for ladies).
year 4: Scholarship football plus new female sports and cheerleading scholarships.
years 5-7: Fund drive for 35,000 seat stadium and football center.
years 8-10: On campus stadium and football facility.
years 11-15: Preparations to move to 1-A.
year 16: Move to 1-A (independent?), begin lobbying with ECU for Big East.
Year 17-20: Big East 1-A football by 2025.

You and I have a chicken and egg situation. You want the chicken, for the university to get the donations first to start football talk. I want the egg, I believe that for the university to get the donations, it must publically commit itself to having football in the first place. To paraphrase from PI, money doesnā€™t dropout of the sky, but if it does, it has to have somewhere to land. :smiley:

43

Good post. I want the chicken first or ā€œshow me the moneyā€.

Iā€™m afraid that weā€™d have to join the SoCon, Colonial or Sun Belt so that our football team would have a league. Iā€™d hate to do that because it would hurt basketball. I-AA football is just bad!!! Letā€™s just focus on hoops and try to ā€œbuildā€ a new league that is best for us.

44

We could join the SoCon or Big South in Football only.
The SoCon has B-Ball only for Davidson (Pioneer League if Football) & G-boro. Why canā€™t we join the SoCon in Football only?

45
[b]Good post. I want the chicken first or "show me the money".[/b]

Thatā€™s just it Zone, whoā€™s going to donate money to a football team that doesnā€™t exist?

You have to start football to get the donations.

No one would purchase a ticket or make a donation to Ninersā€™ basketball if it didnā€™t exist.

As for the league thatā€™s best for us, the ACC isnā€™t accepting new members at this time and the Big East wonā€™t accept us without football. No the A-10 is not the best league for Charlotte.

No football, no future.

[b]I'm afraid that we'd have to join the SoCon, Colonial or Sun Belt so that our football team would have a league. I'd hate to do that because it would hurt basketball. I-AA football is just bad!!! Let's just focus on hoops and try to "build" a new league that is best for us.[/b]

Moving to the A-10 could hurt basketball.

We are under no NCAA obligation to play all our sports in the same conference, so football could go SoCon, Big South, or A-10; while basketball toils in A-10 purgatory.

To build a better league out of the A-10 will require most if not all members to agree about how to do it. As the present 12 teams seem happy where their at (except for UMass which continues to talk about moving to 1-A), our voice will be singular in demanding better. I hope weā€™re only stopping here for a 5 year visit.

46

I see your point on ā€œchicken vs eggā€ but still wouldnā€™t want to take a chance. I think we have a great future even without football. Marquette, DePaul and St. Johnā€™s have done a good job without football and I think we can too.

I strongly agree with you about concerns over the A-10. However, Iā€™m not sure what other options we have. It seems like our best option at this point. Everyone seems to agree that the Big East will probably split with the football schools forming their own league. Of the remaining non-football schools, they are all Catholic schools and will mostlikely add other Catholic schools (Dayton, Xavier, St. Joeā€™s, Fordham, Duquesne, LaSalle, St Bonaventure) from the A-10 before theyā€™d ask us. We could once again be odd man out.
Iā€™d hope weā€™d be included somehow, but just donā€™t see it. I really like the idea thatā€™s been suggested by some on this board that we need to begin discussions about forming a new non-football conference. The schools most often mentioned are Virginia Commonwealth, Old Dominion, GW, UNCW, Charleston and a few others (canā€™t remember other names) which would give us reduced travel, closer rivals and a conference with a RPI around #7.
In the meantime, if some large donor comes along and wants to start football Iā€™ll be all for it.

47
[b]I see your point on "chicken vs egg" but still wouldn't want to take a chance.[/b]

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. No successful buisness was ever started by people who were afraid to take risks. Most billionaires in this country started their buisnesses with little collateral and finances. Football would never cut into academic money at Charlotte, the state doesnā€™t allow the two to mix (except for paying for the RBC Center and the Dean Dome, but we all know the story behind those).

[b]I really like the idea that's been suggested by some on this board that we need to begin discussions about forming a new non-football conference. The schools most often mentioned are Virginia Commonwealth, Old Dominion, GW, UNCW, Charleston and a few others (can't remember other names) which would give us reduced travel, closer rivals and a conference with a RPI around #7. [/b]
:blink: :(

This is going to give me nightmares for weeks. WTH Zone, Iā€™m not happy about the A-10, but this conference would make the 10 in A-10 look like CC, as in ACC. Iā€™m not up on these schoolā€™s RPI, but #7? :blink: We would be a giant in a field of hobbits. :stuck_out_tongue:

48

When we get rid of Title IX Iā€™ll be more willing to take a risk on football. Until then I just canā€™t see spending the millions it would take when the up side may not be all that attractive.

As for the idea others have posted about a new regional non-football conference, it sounded crazy to me at first also. But as you say, none of us are happy about the A-10. The conference RPI for C-USA was #10 this year. The A-10 was #17. While playing Richmond, GW and St Joeā€™s will be ok, it is going to be awful playing LaSalle, Fordham, St Bonaventure and Duquesne. Iā€™d rather play solid regional schools than weak non-regional schools. I remember the games with VCU & ODU when we were in the same conference and they were fun. If Iā€™m correct, they both won more against us than we did against them. But they were good rivals.
I canā€™t remember all of the teams suggested, but I know it was a small league with just eight or nine schools, which is very attractive. The teams I remember are:

(In the order of their RPI finish this year)

ODU (27), Charlotte (41), George Washington (58), VCU (77), UNCW (91), Charleston (134) and George Mason (145).

How do their RPIā€™s compare?:

  1. ACC (.5708)

  2. PAC-10 (.5657)

  3. Big 12 (.5598)

  4. Big East (.5563)

  5. SEC (.5509)

  6. Big Ten (.5470)
    7. New Regional Conference (.5430)

  7. West Coast (.5412)

  8. Missouri Valley (.5337)

  9. Mid-American (.5304)

  10. C-USA (.5247)

  11. Mountain West (.5146)

It is easy to calculate the RPI and as you can see, the idea has merit when comparing those schools RPI to other leagues. The other advantages are reduced travel, regional rivals, a tournament played within driving distance (maybe in Charlotte), a top 10 soccer & baseball league and those are all fast growing state universities except GW (very large non-religious private).
The more Iā€™ve thought about it the more attractive it is. People seem to forget that outside the ACC there are some up and coming universities. These schools werenā€™t even on the radar years ago but things have changed. It would be bold, but I believe wise to form a conference like that. It requires thinking outside the box. That sort of thinking is what started the Big East & A-10. But Iā€™m sure many would say it is a crazy idea.

49

Well, like I said earlier, we donā€™t have to play all our sports in one conference, so it wonā€™t change the prospects for football.

Are these consistent RPIā€™s ( over several years ), or are these just this year?

Iā€™m not opposed to this conference, but at best it would be preceived by most to be a sideways move if not downward ( public opinion of this university is vital to our continued success ). I want us to move up ( see below ). :wink:

50

Such a conference would be good for expenses and good for rivalries, but there is no way to insure success of a conference like that. Charlotte naturally has played the best teams traditionally, followed by GW, but their RPI over this time is down a wee bit from the other schools. The CAA schools seem to be up and down over the time. It is impossible to accurately judge these teams due to their opponents over this period.

Team and conference RPI/SOS info for the past six seasons from Ken Pomeroy RPIā€¦
6-YEAR AVERAGE RPI RANKINGS BY TEAM OF PROPOSED CONFERENCE
1 Charlotte, RPI 50, SOS 51
2 UNC Wilmington, RPI 94, SOS t147
3 College of Charleston, RPI 100, SOS 215
4 George Mason, RPI 104, SOS 150
5 Virginia Commonwealth, RPI 109, SOS t147
6 George Washington, RPI 113, SOS 93
7 Old Dominion, RPI 153, SOS 155

FINAL 2000 RPI RANKINGS BY TEAM
1 Charlotte, RPI 57, SOS 14
2 George Mason, RPI 95, SOS 142
3 College of Charleston, RPI 100, SOS 255
4 George Washington, RPI 120, SOS 84
5 UNC Wilmington, RPI 124, SOS 158
6 Virginia Commonwealth, RPI 173, SOS 178
7 Old Dominion, RPI 236, SOS 207

FINAL 2001 RPI RANKINGS BY TEAM
1 Charlotte, RPI 48, SOS 77
2 George Mason, RPI 86, SOS 110
3 UNC Wilmington, RPI 89, SOS 131
4 College of Charleston, RPI 92, SOS 209
5 George Washington, RPI 126, SOS 66
6 Virginia Commonwealth, RPI 137, SOS 128
7 Old Dominion, RPI 171, SOS 118

FINAL 2002 RPI RANKINGS BY TEAM
1 Charlotte, RPI 35, SOS 16
2 UNC Wilmington, RPI 60, SOS 120
3 Virginia Commonwealth, RPI 86, SOS 129
4 College of Charleston, RPI 87, SOS 198
5 George Mason, RPI 89, SOS 172
6 George Washington, RPI 139, SOS 76
7 Old Dominion, RPI 181, SOS 144

FINAL 2003 RPI RANKINGS BY TEAM
1 UNC Wilmington, RPI 51, SOS 152
2 College of Charleston, RPI 67, SOS 188
3 Charlotte, RPI 95, SOS 41
4 George Mason, RPI 116, SOS 129
5 Virginia Commonwealth, RPI 120, SOS 199
6 George Washington, RPI 164, SOS 96
7 Old Dominion, RPI 195, SOS 164

FINAL 2004 RPI RANKINGS BY TEAM
1 Charlotte, RPI 34, SOS 58
2 Virginia Commonwealth, RPI 54, SOS 143
3 George Washington, RPI 74, SOS 80
4 George Mason, RPI 81, SOS 147
5 Old Dominion, RPI 99 , SOS 110
6 College of Charleston, RPI 106, SOS 212
7 UNC Wilmington, RPI 135, SOS 128

FINAL 2005 RPI RANKINGS BY TEAM
1 Charlotte, RPI 30, SOS 99
2 Old Dominion, RPI 35, SOS 188
3 George Washington, RPI 53, SOS 156
4 Virginia Commonwealth, RPI 82, SOS 105
5 UNC Wilmington, RPI 105, SOS 193
6 College of Charleston, RPI 147, SOS 228
7 George Mason, RPI 154, SOS 198

RPI/SOS averages for the past 6 seasons
Conference USA - RPI 6, SOS 6
Atlantic 10 - RPI 7, SOS 1

FINAL 2000 RPI RATINGS BY CONFERENCE
1 Big Ten Conference, RPI .5727, SOS .5290 ( 2)
2 Southeastern Conference, RPI .5704, SOS .5038 (14)
3 Pac 10 Conference, RPI .5654, SOS .5260 ( 4)
4 Conference USA, RPI .5654, SOS .5264 ( 3)
5 Big XII Conference, RPI .5646, SOS .5144 ( 6)
6 Big East Conference, RPI .5600, SOS .5083 ( 9)
7 Atlantic Coast Conference, RPI .5597, SOS .5211 ( 5)
8 Atlantic 10 Conference, RPI .5393, SOS .5322 ( 1)
9 Mid-American Conference, RPI .5259, .5026 (16)
10 Mountain West Conference, RPI .5245, SOS .5055 (12)
11 Missouri Valley Conference, RPI .5237, SOS .4912 (21)
12 Western Athletic Conference, RPI .5224, SOS .4826 (23)
13 Big Sky Conference, RPI .4970, SOS .5112 ( 8)
14 Colonial Athletic Association, RPI .4916, SOS .4907 (22)
15 Midwestern Collegiate Conference, RPI .4883, SOS .4775 (27)

FINAL 2001 RPI RATINGS BY CONFERENCE
1 Big Ten Conference, RPI .5920, SOS .5339 ( 4)
2 Southeastern Conference, RPI .5843, .5122 ( 8)
3 Atlantic Coast Conference, RPI .5764, SOS .5142 ( 7)
4 Pac 10 Conference, RPI .5748, SOS .5290 ( 5)
5 Big East Conference, RPI .5658, SOS .4984 (18)
6 Big XII Conference, RPI .5578, SOS .4993 (16)
7 Atlantic 10 Conference, RPI .5474, SOS .5447 ( 1)
8 Conference USA, RPI .5405, SOS .5399 ( 2)
9 Mountain West Conference, RPI .5344, SOS .5063 (10)
10 Western Athletic Conference, RPI .5274, SOS .4726 (30)
11 Midwestern Collegiate Conference, RPI .5181, SOS .5059 (11)
12 Missouri Valley Conference, RPI .5150, SOS .5049 (12)
13 Colonial Athletic Association, RPI .4998, SOS .4736 (29)
14 Mid-American Conference, RPI .4972, SOS .5367 ( 3)
15 West Coast Conference, RPI .4827, SOS .5017 (14)

FINAL 2002 RPI RATINGS BY CONFERENCE
1 Southeastern Conference, RPI .5870, SOS .5225 ( 5)
2 Atlantic Coast Conference, RPI .5737, SOS .5230 ( 4)
3 Pac 10 Conference, RPI .5727, SOS .5263 ( 3)
4 Big Ten Conference, RPI .5671, SOS .461 ( 2)
5 Big XII Conference, RPI .5587, SOS .5059 (13)
6 Big East Conference, RPI .5509, SOS .4893 (22)
7 Atlantic 10 Conference, RPI .5469, SOS .5543 ( 1)
8 Mountain West Conference, RPI .5463, SOS .5081 (12)
9 Conference USA, RPI .5404, SOS .5086 (10)
10 Western Athletic Conference, RPI .5152, SOS .4904 (21)
11 Missouri Valley Conference, RPI .5078, SOS .5217 ( 6)
12 Mid American Conference, RPI .5075, SOS .5174 ( 7)
13 Colonial Athletic Association, RPI .5003, SOS .4996 (15)
14 West Coast Conference, RPI .4948, SOS .5085 (11)
15 Ivy League, RPI .4867, SOS .4715 (29)

FINAL 2003 RPI RATINGS BY CONFERENCE
1 Southeastern Conference, RPI .5890, SOS .5299 ( 3)
2 Big XII Conference, RPI .5791, SOS .5099 ( 8)
3 Atlantic Coast Conference, RPI .5662, SOS .4984 (17)
4 Big Ten Conference, RPI .5635, SOS .5191 ( 6)
5 Pac 10 Conference, RPI .5628, SOS .5245 ( 5)
6 Big East Conference, RPI .5589, SOS .5095 ( 9)
7 Conference USA, RPI .5550, SOS .5291 ( 4)
8 Mountain West Conference, RPI .5479, SOS .4990 (15)
9 Atlantic 10 Conference, RPI .5363, SOS .5358 ( 1)
10 Missouri Valley Conference, RPI .5150, SOS .5326 ( 2)
11 West Coast Conference, RPI .5064, SOS .5032 (13)
12 Mid American Conference, RPI .5050, SOS .5073 (11)
13 Western Athletic Conference, RPI .5028, SOS .5050 (12)
14 Horizon League, RPI .4958, SOS .4848 (24)
15 Sun Belt Conference, RPI .4949, SOS .4896 (22)

FINAL 2004 RPI RATINGS BY CONFERENCE
1 Atlantic Coast Conference, RPI .6082, SOS .5292 ( 2)
2 Southeastern Conference, RPI .5863, SOS .5034 (13)
3 Big East Conference, RPI .5689, SOS .5050 ( 9)
4 Big XII Conference, RPI .5579, SOS .4976 (17)
5 Conference USA, RPI .5540, SOS .5146 ( 6)
6 Big Ten Conference, RPI .5515, SOS .5189 ( 4)
7 Atlantic 10 Conference, RPI .5506, SOS .5400 ( 1)
8 Pac 10 Conference, RPI .5452, SOS .5142 ( 7)
9 Mountain West Conference, RPI .5388, SOS .4999 (14)
10 Western Athletic Conference, RPI .5300, SOS .5050 (10)
11 Missouri Valley Conference, RPI .5151, SOS .4888 (22)
12 West Coast Conference, RPI .5133, SOS .5157 ( 5)
13 Colonial Athletic Association, RPI .4921, SOS .4836 (24)
14 Horizon League, RPI .4919, SOS .5052 ( 8)
15 Mid American Conference, RPI .4851, SOS .4829 (25)

FINAL 2005 RPI RATINGS BY CONFERENCE
1 Atlantic Coast Conference, RPI .5771, SOS .5103 ( 8)
2 Pac 10 Conference, RPI .5748, SOS .5196 ( 3)
3 Big XII Conference, RPI .5661, SOS .5048 (12)
4 Big East Conference, RPI .5616, SOS .5078 (11)
5 Big Ten Conference, RPI .5594, SOS .5327 ( 2)
6 Southeastern Conference, RPI .5505, SOS .5130 ( 6)
7 West Coast Conference, RPI .5360, SOS .4907 (18)
8 Missouri Valley Conference, RPI .5346, SOS .4854 (20)
9 Conference USA, RPI .5296, SOS .5023 (13)
10 Mid American Conference,RPI .5268, SOS .4925 (16)
11 Mountain West Conference, RPI .5141, SOS .4996 (14)
12 Western Athletic Conference, RPI .5104, SOS .5086 (10)
13 Sun Belt Conference, RPI .5067, SOS .5119 ( 7)
14 Atlantic 10 Conference, RPI .5059, SOS .5470 ( 1)
15 America East Conference, RPI .4890, SOS .4706 (28)

51

Thanks for the info HP, it makes sticking with the A-10 for a while look like an OK idea. The schools in the proposed conference would probably need to average better then 150 every year to make that conference attractive. Plus it would need at least an 8th team. Seeing how that school will probably be lower then George Mason (154, 2005), it will lower the RPI too.

52
[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? [/b]
I'll listen to him & give it verbal support, but nothing measurable ($$$$$) until I saw the perverbial "big donor" take action.
53
[b]I'll listen to him & give it verbal support, but nothing measurable ($$$$$) until I saw the perverbial "big donor" take action. [/b]

:pout: :pout: :pout: So basically you wonā€™t help him at all, right?

54

NCAA news

Title IX nazis on the march to make sure that menā€™s sports get screwed when the schools canā€™t find enough women who want to play sports.

My fiancee runs from a tennis ball!

Title IX is whack! :ph34r:

55
[i]Originally posted by 49RFootballNow[/i]@Apr 10 2005, 11:33 PM [b]
[b]I'll listen to him & give it verbal support, but nothing measurable ($$$$$) until I saw the perverbial "big donor" take action. [/b]

:pout: :pout: :pout: So basically you wonā€™t help him at all, right? [/b]


Wrong.

I more than willing to support the concept of football, provided it has a chance of happening.

Without a ā€œbig donorā€ or some form of significant investment being made, it is a pipe dream.

56
[i]Originally posted by 49RFootballNow[/i]@Apr 10 2005, 11:57 PM [b] Title IX nazis on the march to make sure that men's sports get screwed... [/b]
The real Title IX agenda isn't equality, it is indeed to screw men's sports!!! And it's working.

HP49er, youā€™re right about the suggested regional conference being good for expenses and rivalries. You also bring up a good point about concerns over future success. And who knows, the A-10 isnā€™t as successful as it once was either. When the A-10 was first formed it was more attractive and successful because it included schools like Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Villanova and West Virginia. Virginia Tech was also a member at one time.
What we do know is that some of the A-10 schools will probably get picked over us if/when the Big East splits because of the Catholic affiliation as well as location.

As for the current members, Temple is looking for somewhere to put its D-I football team and will leave the A-10. Dayton, St Louis (both were in the Great Midwest Conference together), Xavier and Detroit (all Catholic schools) are exploring some type of mid-west affiliation because of travel. UMass is discussing a potential move to D-I for football and Rhode Island is obviously cutting back. The future of the A-10 is uncertain at best.

There are simply no guaranteees for future success. A good example is that A-10 members St. Bonaventure, Fordham, Duquesne and LaSalle use to be very successful programs in the 1940ā€™s & 1950ā€™s. At that time, we werenā€™t even around. And for all practical purposes neither were VCU, ODU, Charleston, UNCW, and George Mason. Like us, these new schools have really grown.

Letā€™s compare enrollments in 1965 & (2005).

Duquesne 6,630 (9,701)
LaSalle 5,255 (5,949)
Fordham 8,895 (14,731)
St Bonaventure 2,197 (2,806)
St. Joeā€™s 5,335 (7,565)
Richmond 3,771 (3,626)

Old Dominion 5,275 (20,802)
VCU 1,120 (26,770)
Charleston 469 (12,154)
UNCW 1,318 (12,028)
George Mason 523 (28,246)

BTW, does anyone know our enrollment in 1965 compared to today? Looked, but couldnā€™t find our numbers then. I think we were Charlotte College?

As far as the future goes, my money is on the schools like us that are public universities and are rapidly growing. Facilitiy wise, VCU & ODU just built very nice new arenas, Charleston starts construction on theirs soon, George Mason has a 10,000 seat arena and UNCW packs their 6,000 seat arena every single game.

One other small benefit from these schools are the non-revenue sports. These schools are much better than the A-10 schools in baseball (which we are improving) and soccer.

PS Pomeroy ratings do not use the new formula the NCAA does weighting the home/away games. His rating has the A-10 at #14 while the one that most closley aligns with the NCAA has the A-10 at #17. I used the new formula in my calculations. A good site with the new formula is RPIratings.com

57

Letā€™s go with no scholarship DI-AA Football so we donā€™t have to do any girlā€™s scholarships until we move to DI-A.

58
[b]BTW, does anyone know our enrollment in 1965 compared to today? Looked, but couldn't find our numbers then. I think we were Charlotte College? [/b]

Canā€™t tell you where I heard this but it was about 2000 around 1965. The school became part of the UNC system in 1964, so the name probably in 1965 was UNCC.

[b]The real Title IX agenda isn't equality, it is indeed to screw men's sports!!! And it's working.[/b]

Some info I found online about the number of scholarships a school must offer per sport. Collegesportsscholarships.com

Baseball(11.78)
Mens Basketball(13)
Womens Basketball(15)
M Cross Country(12.69)
W Cross Country(18)
M Fencing(4.5)
W Fencing(5)
Field Hockey(12)
Football D1-A(85)
Football D1-AA(63)
M Golf(4.5)
W Golf(6)
M Gymnastics(6.3)
W Gymnastics(12)
M Ice Hockey(18)
W Ice Hockey(18)
M Lacrosse(12.69)
W Lacrosse(12)
Rowing(20)
M Skiing(6.3)
W Skiing(7)
M Soccer(9.9)
W Soccer(12)
Softball(12)
M Swimming(9.9)
W Swimming(14)
M Tennis(4.5)
W Tennis(8)
M Track & Field(12.69)
W Track & Field(18)
M Volleyball(4.5)
W Volleyball(12)
M Water Polo(4.5)
W Water Polo(8)
Wrestling(9.9)

(Bold) indicates a sport that scholarships are full-ride or head count sports. This is as oppossed to so-called equivalent sports, which can split a single scholarship between multiple players. I couldnā€™t determine if Title IX was based on head count or scholarships offered.

Clearly Title IX is harmful to Football, either D1-A or -AA. Iā€™m not opposed to what Title IX is attempting to do, but it is killing football. It is the primary reason schools like RI struggle to keep a program afloat. Football should be exempted from Title IX as their is no female equivalent sport. This site even says that rowing became an NCAA sponsored sport because nothing for the ladies even comes close to football.

In addition, if the NFL can do with a 53 man roster, why canā€™t college football? 85 is rediculous! I think its the fault of big football schools like Texas, UT and Nebraska that the # is that high, but its better then when big money schools could give unlimited scholarships, I guess.

San Jose Mercury News

:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

59

On a extremely serious note, does the NCAA allow scholarships for cheerleading or dance? If not, why? If so, does any school actually do it and what is the limit?

Seems to be a great way to comply to Title IX.

60

If you go to NCAA.org there are no references to cheerleading. As best as I can tell its treated by schools that offer it as an academic scholarship.