[crackpot]

Notre Dame is reported to be making major cuts across most sports. This has seemed inevitable and I expect other schools to follow. The $21 million in payouts mostly has to come from somewhere and the vast majority of schools don’t have an athletic surplus.

https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/report...p_catchall

I still predict over time we will only have football, basketball maybe baseball and the legally required offsetting women’s sports. Probably add men’s hockey which drives revenue for the schools that care. Then for women  say volleyball, softball, lacrosse, basketball, soccer and 1-2 others.

MBB has WBB as an offset (each has 15 roster spots); baseball (34) has a partial offset in softball (25).  For better or worse, there is no offset for the 105 roster spots that football has.  That means that you have to assemble it from a number of women’s sports.  I think that’s why there has been such a push to include acrobatics & tumbling (55) as well stunt (65!), which very cheaply offsets the 105 football roster spots.  Not to denigrate the discipline, which actually has one of the highest injury rates of any sport, but this very much does look like a “solution” for the Title IX implications of the roster size for football rather than an attempt to nurture a women’s sport.

BC

Football = -105 for women
Basketball offsets as you noted
Softball minus baseball = -9 for the women
Soccer = +28
Volleyball = +19
Lacrosse = +38
—————————
-29 for women.

Track and field gets 45 spots as another cheap option, but yes acrobatics/tumbling or stunt do seem like cheap ways to close the gap in one swoop. Honestly never even heard of stunt…..

Certainly 1-2 women’s sports gets schools to compliance unless you have men’s hockey, though I expect many of those schools will simply offset with women’s hockey.

And “we” should have been the NCAA - I didn’t specifically mean Stanford. I certainly don’t see us inventing a hockey team in the new world order.

A women's flag football team would offset a good number.

[crackpot]

Notre Dame is reported to be making major cuts across most sports. This has seemed inevitable and I expect other schools to follow. The $21 million in payouts mostly has to come from somewhere and the vast majority of schools don’t have an athletic surplus.

https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/report...p_catchall

I still predict over time we will only have football, basketball maybe baseball and the legally required offsetting women’s sports. Probably add men’s hockey which drives revenue for the schools that care. Then for women  say volleyball, softball, lacrosse, basketball, soccer and 1-2 others.

MBB has WBB as an offset (each has 15 roster spots); baseball (34) has a partial offset in softball (25).  For better or worse, there is no offset for the 105 roster spots that football has.  That means that you have to assemble it from a number of women’s sports.  I think that’s why there has been such a push to include acrobatics & tumbling (55) as well stunt (65!), which very cheaply offsets the 105 football roster spots.  Not to denigrate the discipline, which actually has one of the highest injury rates of any sport, but this very much does look like a “solution” for the Title IX implications of the roster size for football rather than an attempt to nurture a women’s sport.

BC

Football = -105 for women
Basketball offsets as you noted
Softball minus baseball = -9 for the women
Soccer = +28
Volleyball = +19
Lacrosse = +38
—————————
-29 for women.

Track and field gets 45 spots as another cheap option, but yes acrobatics/tumbling or stunt do seem like cheap ways to close the gap in one swoop. Honestly never even heard of stunt…..

Certainly 1-2 women’s sports gets schools to compliance unless you have men’s hockey, though I expect many of those schools will simply offset with women’s hockey.

And “we” should have been the NCAA - I didn’t specifically mean Stanford. I certainly don’t see us inventing a hockey team in the new world order.

A women's flag football team would offset a good number.