Expanding Football Roster Has Title IX, Logistical Issues

[Mavric]

At some point doesn't having 150+ players become a coaching hindrance?  There has to be a tipping point somewhere.

That will be the interesting part.  Frost has definitely talked about having 3-4 stations going at once so that "everyone" is actually getting reps instead of watching.  Even four stations times 30 guys (11 offense, 11 defense plus some subs) is 120 so there would still be a challenge to get everyone working.  

And there there's who would be in charge of each of the groups.  I would think the coaches would mostly be with the first group and maybe a little with the second group.  I suppose that leaves GAs to work with the other groups.

 

[I am I]

$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. 

 

[Swiv3D]

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

 

[zoogs]

Offer more women's sports! 

Or maybe don't expand CFB rosters, which are already extremely large.

 

[huKSer]

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

 

[Mierin]

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.

 

[I am I]

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. 

 

[Mierin]

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.

 

[Landlord]

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.

 

[gobiggergoredder]

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.

 

[I am I]

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 

 

[gratefullred]

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?

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

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.

 

[Old Nebraska Guy]

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.

 

[Old Nebraska Guy]

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.