I am I Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 $465,000 is nothing when generating $45,000,000 from the B1G alone. If frost tuinks he can hanlde 160 players do whatever it takes. Adding a women’s sport would be great. 1 Quote Link to comment
Swiv3D Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Kiyoat Husker said: Field Hockey might not be revenue-generating, but..... If any of them looked like Ellen Hoog.... (google it yourself, I'm at work) Thank you good sir 1 Quote Link to comment
zoogs Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 Offer more women's sports! Or maybe don't expand CFB rosters, which are already extremely large. Quote Link to comment
huKSer Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 I think that since the profitability of the football team PAYS for the women's sports, maybe there should be some adjustment to the numbers. Say each football player counts as 0.8 male athlete IF football revenue is used to finance x number of female athletes 2 Quote Link to comment
Moiraine Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 32 minutes ago, huKSer said: I think that since the profitability of the football team PAYS for the women's sports, maybe there should be some adjustment to the numbers. Say each football player counts as 0.8 male athlete IF football revenue is used to finance x number of female athletes No. This isn't professional athletics. Revenue shouldn't be the focus. That said, football players cost more $ than volleyball players, and I find it unlikely the last 20 walk ons added to a 150 man football roster are worth more $ on average than a volleyball player. 3 Quote Link to comment
I am I Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 But revenue is the focus. If one of the twenty hometown kids skips a scholarship at a D2 school and makes playing his junior/senior year and contributes to a conference title, that’s what its all about. More buy in, more kids decide to go N, more excitement, more reps, more stations, more walk on’s....it leads to more revenue and that’s better for every program in the athletic dept. i guess I’m saying: if Frost thinks 160 players is what he needs to bring back the cornhuskers than I agree with him. Give him what he wants and ALL athletes will enjoy the fruits. He knows what it takes and he remembers 160 players, let him do it. Quote Link to comment
Moiraine Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 4 minutes ago, I am I said: But revenue is the focus. If one of the twenty hometown kids skips a scholarship at a D2 school and makes playing his junior/senior year and contributes to a conference title, that’s what its all about. More buy in, more kids decide to go N, more excitement, more reps, more stations, more walk on’s....it leads to more revenue and that’s better for every program in the athletic dept. i guess I’m saying: if Frost thinks 160 players is what he needs to bring back the cornhuskers than I agree with him. Give him what he wants and ALL athletes will enjoy the fruits. He knows what it takes and he remembers 160 players, let him do it. The revenue from having 20 extra walk ons isn't more important than protecting Title IX. 4 Quote Link to comment
Landlord Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 6 hours ago, I am I said: it leads to more revenue and that’s better for every program in the athletic dept. ... Give him what he wants and ALL athletes will enjoy the fruits. He knows what it takes and he remembers 160 players, let him do it. Except for the female athletes who you didn't give an opportunity to and never played for Nebraska because you didn't value them equally to the male athletes. 5 Quote Link to comment
gobiggergoredder Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 10 hours ago, Moiraine said: No. This isn't professional athletics. Revenue shouldn't be the focus. That said, football players cost more $ than volleyball players, and I find it unlikely the last 20 walk ons added to a 150 man football roster are worth more $ on average than a volleyball player. You’ll never be able to put a positive or negative $ value on it. The biggest impact of a quality walk on in my opinion is what it does for your practice. The more good bodies you have at practice, the more quality reps you will get. The more your able to replicate in the practice the more prepared you are to play. Obviously their are several other benefits, but none more powerful in my opinion. A healthy number of good walk ons sets up to win games which usually leads to an increase in $’s. Quote Link to comment
I am I Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 10 hours ago, Moiraine said: The revenue from having 20 extra walk ons isn't more important than protecting Title IX. I said we should start a new woman’s team 1 Quote Link to comment
gratefullred Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Dosent Title XI only apply to scholarship athletes? I dont see how this would apply to having additional walk-ons. If the womens soccer team wanted to add 5 more walk-ons would we need to create another men's sports program? 2 Quote Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 (edited) How is adding 20 walk-ons to the FOOTBALL team taking away opportunity from women? It would be more understandable if they were all going to be on scholarship, and if, you know, women competed in college football. Edited February 24, 2018 by B.B. Hemingway Quote Link to comment
Old Nebraska Guy Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 14 minutes ago, gratefullred said: Dosent Title XI only apply to scholarship athletes? No, the way it is written is "athletic opportunity" so it is essentially "roster spots" that count. A recruited walk-on counts. Roster spots must match up with the proportionally clause as mentioned in the original post. There was another earlier thread with more detail. Perhaps some can find it and bring it back. 1 Quote Link to comment
Old Nebraska Guy Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 13 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said: How is adding 20 walk-ons to the FOOTBALL team taking away opportunity from women? The hang up is the proportionally clause in Title IX. Athletic opportunity must match the male/female ratio of your school. Quote Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 14 minutes ago, Old Nebraska Guy said: The hang up is the proportionally clause in Title IX. Athletic opportunity must match the male/female ratio of your school. Yes. I argue that it shouldn't matter because the additional players are paying their own way.... For what it's worth, if they're adding a Women's team, I hope they choose Hockey. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.