FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[TheChucker]

I probably shouldn't give you yahoos this link, but the College Scorecard is put together by the Department of Education (so pretty legit) and has things like graduation rates, salaries (and even breaks it down by major), cost and average debt.  Here is the link for Minnesota schools: https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/search/?state=MN&page=0&sort=completion_rate:desc
Have at it!!

Thanks for the link! BTW, UM Morris is a screaming deal at $11K average cost.

[SagatagSam]

The long time season-ticket holders, 20 years plus, are prime time between the 40's. It's a real nice view 

Do you know any of those season-ticket holders? I hear it's rarefied air between the 40s at Clemens Stadium.

[Pat Coleman]

Weren't the final four in the running for the Gagliardi Trophy supposed to be announced yesterday? Did anyone see an announcement?

No. The announcement is Thursday.

[bennie]

I probably shouldn't give you yahoos this link, but the College Scorecard is put together by the Department of Education (so pretty legit) and has things like graduation rates, salaries (and even breaks it down by major), cost and average debt.  Here is the link for Minnesota schools: https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/search/?state=MN&page=0&sort=completion_rate:desc
Have at it!!

This is great...thx!

Great fodder for another academic bowl next week after St John's moves into the off-season.

I will say that Carleton's graduation rate is impressive. St. Ben's isn't bad either!

[SagatagSam]

Every seat with backs in section 101-108 I believe which is about 75% of the permanent seating.

So, it wouldn't be unreasonable to estimate that SJU has somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,500 to 2,000 season-ticket holders?

[AO]

Any comment on this?

"Donald Chance Mark Jr., the lawyer who represented 10 recent St. Cloud State women athletes who won that lawsuit, took issue with that assertion. He called the decision to eliminate football "deplorable" and said it would be "absolutely ridiculous'' to suggest that football is being cut because of the August court decision.
During the federal trial a year ago, Mark said an expert testified that SCSU could achieve Title IX compliance by adding one women's sport."

Does the lawsuit give a specific numeric goal SCSU had to meet?  The pretty easy response to Donald is that with an existing deficit, they couldn't add a single dollar to the budget, but I'm curious how many scholarships and female athletes they would have had to add if they had the money to do it.

I can tell you that Title IX is quite complicated in SCSU's situation.  Softball's facility (Selke field, which has no bathrooms or dressing areas and is maintained by the coaches) is putrid, compared to baseball, which uses minor-league quality MAC complete with modern amenities and luxury boxes-- but softball also uses the dome for a number of games too.  So how do you compare whether those are commensurate in line with what Title IX requires?  It isn't a simple calculation.

Football is not the cause of their issues there, but, as a revenue sport which is not bringing in revenue, is not providing the solution.  In 2011 the student body increased the student fee so that football would not be cut back then, but the school was unable to find a structural solution to make football self-sufficient, much less a revenue-gainer.  The numbers I was told was that football cutting will save around $1M per year for SCSU; considering the school is down $5M next year, this would make big progress into filling that hole, and together with an academic arrangement (already controversial), is around halfway to making that work.

The broader point here is the future of football.  If D-2 schools cannot sustain themselves in supposedly good economic times, what is to become of us in bad times?  How will that impact D-3 football?

If it's not a simple calculation, does the judge even attempt to make the complex calculation?  They bring in an expert for the trial but no one seems to have a clear answer about the "progress" SCSU had to make towards the Title IX goal.  So they eliminate 75-80 male athlete opportunities and hope that's enough for now?

I don't know how you fix the softball/baseball disparities.  I guess previous athletic directors just needed to resist the urge to move the baseball team to Faber and make sure their field looked as dumpy as the softball field.

[TheChucker]

I can tell you that Title IX is quite complicated in SCSU's situation.  Softball's facility (Selke field, which has no bathrooms or dressing areas and is maintained by the coaches) is putrid, compared to baseball, which uses minor-league quality MAC complete with modern amenities and luxury boxes-- but softball also uses the dome for a number of games too.  So how do you compare whether those are commensurate in line with what Title IX requires?  It isn't a simple calculation.

That softball field (Selke Field) is way below normal for a decent D2 team. Kind of scary actually. It has stone walls around it that look like the original contractor at the St. Cloud prison used the same blocks from the prison walls for Selke Field. On the flip side, the SCSU softball team gets to play in the dome when the season starts in February unlike most other NSIC teams.

[sjusection105]

The long time season-ticket holders, 20 years plus, are prime time between the 40's. It's a real nice view 

Do you know any of those season-ticket holders? I hear it's rarefied air between the 40s at Clemens Stadium.

I am one 

[D O.C.]

Seriously, the posing contest (yes) was better than St. Cloud something or other. Of course, real bickering and bantering about Saturday's game is what we crave.

[OzJohnnie]

Seriously, the posing contest (yes) was better than St. Cloud something or other. Of course, real bickering and bantering about Saturday's game is what we crave.

THANK YOU!

[jamtod]

Seriously, the posing contest (yes) was better than St. Cloud something or other. Of course, real bickering and bantering about Saturday's game is what we crave.

Don't you have your own board to go complain about Redlands on or something?

[johnnie_esq]

Any comment on this?

"Donald Chance Mark Jr., the lawyer who represented 10 recent St. Cloud State women athletes who won that lawsuit, took issue with that assertion. He called the decision to eliminate football "deplorable" and said it would be "absolutely ridiculous'' to suggest that football is being cut because of the August court decision.
During the federal trial a year ago, Mark said an expert testified that SCSU could achieve Title IX compliance by adding one women's sport."

Does the lawsuit give a specific numeric goal SCSU had to meet?  The pretty easy response to Donald is that with an existing deficit, they couldn't add a single dollar to the budget, but I'm curious how many scholarships and female athletes they would have had to add if they had the money to do it.

I can tell you that Title IX is quite complicated in SCSU's situation.  Softball's facility (Selke field, which has no bathrooms or dressing areas and is maintained by the coaches) is putrid, compared to baseball, which uses minor-league quality MAC complete with modern amenities and luxury boxes-- but softball also uses the dome for a number of games too.  So how do you compare whether those are commensurate in line with what Title IX requires?  It isn't a simple calculation.

Football is not the cause of their issues there, but, as a revenue sport which is not bringing in revenue, is not providing the solution.  In 2011 the student body increased the student fee so that football would not be cut back then, but the school was unable to find a structural solution to make football self-sufficient, much less a revenue-gainer.  The numbers I was told was that football cutting will save around $1M per year for SCSU; considering the school is down $5M next year, this would make big progress into filling that hole, and together with an academic arrangement (already controversial), is around halfway to making that work.

The broader point here is the future of football.  If D-2 schools cannot sustain themselves in supposedly good economic times, what is to become of us in bad times?  How will that impact D-3 football?

If it's not a simple calculation, does the judge even attempt to make the complex calculation?  They bring in an expert for the trial but no one seems to have a clear answer about the "progress" SCSU had to make towards the Title IX goal.  So they eliminate 75-80 male athlete opportunities and hope that's enough for now?

I don't know how you fix the softball/baseball disparities.  I guess previous athletic directors just needed to resist the urge to move the baseball team to Faber and make sure their field looked as dumpy as the softball field.

I can tell you that for a Title IX compliance check, each sport has an 11 page worksheet covering everything from facilities to resources to recruiting budgets to accommodations of athletes to access to trainers to how many administrative assistants are provided in the sport offices.  The Court does look at all of those.

SCSU had 19 sports at the time.  That is 200 pages minimum of the data being furnished.

Like I said, baseball and softball illustrate the difficult conundrum-- softball gets a dump for a home field they play on for maybe 4-5 games per year, but play 20-30 in the dome on the football field.  Baseball gets a gem of a field to play on for 7-10 games per year but otherwise plays on the road.  It is hard to compare whether or not athletes are given equitable opportunities accordingly.  If they built Husky Stadium right and demolished the football portion of Selke, why didn't they add a few hundred thousand more and do softball at Selke correct then?

Football's problem was revenue.  It is declining despite the administration investing in it-- building a new facility in 2004 and re instituting traditions around homecoming, investing in marketing efforts and asking the students to raise their fees just for football-- that is a lot of legislative and political neck being exposed in the name of trying to grow the revenue base.  And they were not unsuccessful over the past 10 years (unlike UM- Crookston, who has struggled seemingly forever).   All donors to athletic programs--- limited in the St. Cloud area--- were pushed instead toward D-1 hockey.  Yes, there are 97 roster spots, but it is the 20 scholarships, the cost of paying coaches, and the cost of team travel- even by bus-- that makes it so expensive.  As MIAC schools know, big rosters equals more enrollment. 

The broader problem is there is a shifting demographic and emphasis away from football nationwide.  College and pro attendance is down nationally, participation is down at high schools.  I view SCSU as a canary in the coal mine, per se-- a proud, moderately successful program which cannot continue the economics to make football sustainable in a modern athletics program.

[johnnie_esq]

Seriously, the posing contest (yes) was better than St. Cloud something or other. Of course, real bickering and bantering about Saturday's game is what we crave.

FYI, one of my students talked about transferring to a school in the Pacific Northwest.  Should I suggest Linfield is not interested in a potential D-2 transfer?

[jamtod]

Seriously, the posing contest (yes) was better than St. Cloud something or other. Of course, real bickering and bantering about Saturday's game is what we crave.

FYI, one of my students talked about transferring to a school in the Pacific Northwest.  Should I suggest Linfield is not interested in a potential D-2 transfer?

I hear Whitworth is lovely.

[OzJohnnie]

Massey rates this game 28-24, UWW.  Hansen says 29.1-24.9, SJU.  If they are at least correct that the game will be that close then I'm almost certain to have a heart attack this weekend.  bennie already had me drinking before 7:30am last weekend.