Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PASSHE Institutions Merging

Collapse

Support The Site!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • iupgroundhog
    replied
    Originally posted by iupgroundhog View Post

    Again, it's speculative but I think just because "they" are looking to grow athletics does not mean the new reality will allow them to do that.
    The bailout of Mansfield is probably a last-ditch effort. What you are going to see, I think, in the future is less autonomy for the individual schools It's been slow in coming, Moving forward, the direction is with more of a system-level approach. The triads are the beginning of that and there is now going to be a triad-level approach plus a system-wide approach. Just because administrators at Edinboro or any of the others want to try to show revenue increases prompted by expanded athletics does not mean it's going to be implemented. Not to mention, the Title IX implications that face the schools' athletic programs. most notably at Clarion and Edinboro, which sets the tone for athletics expansion.

    Leave a comment:


  • iupgroundhog
    replied
    Originally posted by Fightingscot82 View Post

    I can tell you that they're looking to grow athletics. This integration forced them to do what D3 schools have done for years - consider the net tuition revenue against program expenses. Its almost always positive.

    But you're right - traditional aged students want a vibrant college experience: https://www.insidehighered.com/admis...ensive-college
    Again, it's speculative but I think just because "they" are looking to grow athletics does not mean the new reality will allow them to do that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fightingscot82
    replied
    Originally posted by iupgroundhog View Post

    Sure, that's an important factor - or, it has become an important factor. But what CALUPA69's argument seems to say to me is that it's the reason for these programs to exist at all the triad schools except for Bloom and Cal. I don't think that's true. The main reasons the programs exist are historical and necessary just to create a full college campus experience. In essence, even the "revenue" sports are extracurricular activities. There is a lot of significance placed on involvement in these activities while balancing academics and other college life things (see the D2 creed). It's a part of traditional college life in the U.S.

    Now, where I see his point and probably agree with him is when you look into the near future. These extracurriculars (not just sports) are going to be slashed and/or eliminated at triad schools. The constituents for each one will have to fight to keep it alive and most will lose.
    I can tell you that they're looking to grow athletics. This integration forced them to do what D3 schools have done for years - consider the net tuition revenue against program expenses. Its almost always positive.

    But you're right - traditional aged students want a vibrant college experience: https://www.insidehighered.com/admis...ensive-college

    Leave a comment:


  • iupgroundhog
    replied
    Originally posted by Fightingscot82 View Post

    Let's not kid ourselves. All programs are enrollment boosters.
    Sure, that's an important factor - or, it has become an important factor. But what CALUPA69's argument seems to say to me is that it's the reason for these programs to exist at all the triad schools except for Bloom and Cal. I don't think that's true. The main reasons the programs exist are historical and necessary just to create a full college campus experience. In essence, even the "revenue" sports are extracurricular activities. There is a lot of significance placed on involvement in these activities while balancing academics and other college life things (see the D2 creed). It's a part of traditional college life in the U.S.

    Now, where I see his point and probably agree with him is when you look into the near future. These extracurriculars (not just sports) are going to be slashed and/or eliminated at triad schools. The constituents for each one will have to fight to keep it alive and most will lose.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fightingscot82
    replied
    Originally posted by WarriorVoice View Post

    The idea that Penn State branch campuses would have D1 football teams is foolish at best. In fact, some Penn State branch campuses DO have basketball teams, that play in D II. Imagine that...
    Some play D3: Abiington, Altoona, Berks, Erie, and Harrisburg. Everyone else plays USCAA (community colleges).

    Leave a comment:


  • iupgroundhog
    replied
    Originally posted by Fightingscot82 View Post

    Interesting. Thanks for sharing - that conflicts with what folks at PSU told me when I worked there. Then again, those same folks believed Paterno walked on water.
    The extent that people continue to throw around this kind of wild, unsubstantiated (and unverifiable) innuendo and speculative rumor about what Joe Paterno did and didn't do does kind of keep his memory at sort of a messianic level. It's not the Joe Pa fans who perpetuate it. It's the people who remain fixated on his legacy (or deriding it).

    Leave a comment:


  • WarriorVoice
    replied
    Originally posted by boatcapt View Post

    So I guess this clears the way for any state school with multiple locations to start duplicate athletic programs. Heck, guess it would be OK for Penn State to start football programs at any of it's satelite campuses as a means of increasing enrollment...Let's see, I can play DII football at Edinboro OR D1 at Penn State Behrend. Hummmmm...Which one should I choose?? Maybe Penn State Beaver could use a shot in the enrolement arm? No problem, start a football team and watch enrollment jump!
    The idea that Penn State branch campuses would have D1 football teams is foolish at best. In fact, some Penn State branch campuses DO have basketball teams, that play in D II. Imagine that...

    Leave a comment:


  • Fightingscot82
    replied
    Interesting. Thanks for sharing - that conflicts with what folks at PSU told me when I worked there. Then again, those same folks believed Paterno walked on water.

    Leave a comment:


  • Matt Burglund
    replied
    Originally posted by Fightingscot82 View Post

    Penn State Behrend is D3. The only Penn State outlet store that's explored football was Altoona when it was thriving in the 90s (no longer so) but that was aborted, oddly because Paterno balked at the proposal that included hiring Jerry Sandusky has head coach.
    https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/20...onsidered.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Fightingscot82
    replied
    Originally posted by boatcapt View Post

    So I guess this clears the way for any state school with multiple locations to start duplicate athletic programs. Heck, guess it would be OK for Penn State to start football programs at any of it's satelite campuses as a means of increasing enrollment...Let's see, I can play DII football at Edinboro OR D1 at Penn State Behrend. Hummmmm...Which one should I choose?? Maybe Penn State Beaver could use a shot in the enrolement arm? No problem, start a football team and watch enrollment jump!
    Penn State Behrend is D3. The only Penn State outlet store that's explored football was Altoona when it was thriving in the 90s (no longer so) but that was aborted, oddly because Paterno balked at the proposal that included hiring Jerry Sandusky has head coach.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fightingscot82
    replied
    Originally posted by CALUPA69 View Post

    Both SB and VB are played by all 18 PSAC schools while WR (8) and FH (11) not so much. Doesn't make them less important to the participants or their schools but I was pointing out that the 6 sports most widely played were not really viable in 4 of the 6 branches of the merged institutions. IMO, were it not for NCAA minimum requirements, there really isn't a reason other than schedule filling and enrollment/tuition boosting for these schools to participate in those six sports. Purely personal observation.
    Let's not kid ourselves. All programs are enrollment boosters.

    Leave a comment:


  • CALUPA69
    replied
    Originally posted by iupgroundhog View Post

    It's not. I disagree that all these sports at all these schools are "schedule fillers" and enrollment boosters. I think the long tradition of the student-athlete is alive and well at all of these schools. It's more about participation than what you are saying.
    Well since they clearly aren't playing to win championships, participation and enrollment boosting seem to go hand and hand because I'm fairly certain playing on the 2-27 SB team isn't really that fulfilling. Although the trips to NC, SC and a week in FLA is definitely sweet.

    Leave a comment:


  • iupgroundhog
    replied
    Originally posted by CALUPA69 View Post

    Both SB and VB are played by all 18 PSAC schools while WR (8) and FH (11) not so much. Doesn't make them less important to the participants or their schools but I was pointing out that the 6 sports most widely played were not really viable in 4 of the 6 branches of the merged institutions. IMO, were it not for NCAA minimum requirements, there really isn't a reason other than schedule filling and enrollment/tuition boosting for these schools to participate in those six sports. Purely personal observation.
    It's not. I disagree that all these sports at all these schools are "schedule fillers" and enrollment boosters. I think the long tradition of the student-athlete is alive and well at all of these schools. It's more about participation than what you are saying.

    Leave a comment:


  • CALUPA69
    replied
    Originally posted by jrshooter View Post

    You're doing some serious pick-and-choosing with those sports. Tell me why softball and women's volleyball are in a different category than wrestling and field hockey.
    Both SB and VB are played by all 18 PSAC schools while WR (8) and FH (11) not so much. Doesn't make them less important to the participants or their schools but I was pointing out that the 6 sports most widely played were not really viable in 4 of the 6 branches of the merged institutions. IMO, were it not for NCAA minimum requirements, there really isn't a reason other than schedule filling and enrollment/tuition boosting for these schools to participate in those six sports. Purely personal observation.

    Leave a comment:


  • jrshooter
    replied
    Originally posted by CALUPA69 View Post

    Truth be told other than CAL and BLOOM, the other four schools are largely schedule filler. In the last 50 years counting FB, BB, MBB, WBB, SB and VB CAL has won 37 and BLOOM 25 championships. The other four have a combined 47 championships in those sports in 50 years. Specialty sports (WR, FH, M&W SW, M&W TF) aside, the athletics departments at these locations are basically enrollment and tuition boosters.
    You're doing some serious pick-and-choosing with those sports. Tell me why softball and women's volleyball are in a different category than wrestling and field hockey.

    Leave a comment:

Ad3

Collapse
Working...
X