What teams would you say are fully or adequately funded? - Lafayette Sports Fan Forum



Lafayette Sports Fan Forum Forum Index


Lafayette Sports Fan Forum > Whatever else > 
--- What teams would you say are fully or adequately funded?

Reply to topic

Must be logged in to watch topics

Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:23 am

LafalumView user's profile






Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 3916







Football between donations and scholarships they are there now.
Basketball men's and women's maybe short one or two scholarships
Lacrosse strong donor support on both teams women's full funded on scholarships
Field Hockey- good donor support fully funded on scholarships
Soccer- good donor support and fully funded on scholarships for both teams
Baseball- good donor support weak on scholarships
Tennis, Track and Field, Fencing- no school support some support on donor side
Volley ball- increasing scholarship support ( I am hearing ultimately four)

So there you have it...what else can be done and why aren't results better. Let's hear from the " study." One month to go!!

 Reply with quote
  
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 12:13 pm

KpardView user's profile






Joined: 07 Nov 2011
Posts: 1271


Location: Bethlehem





Is it a lack of coaching accountability and funding for quality assistant coaches?
_________________
GO PARDS!

Reply with quote
  
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:20 pm

BPardView user's profile






Joined: 23 Sep 2014
Posts: 208







I posted about individual teams before (like this thread about MLax. Here's a look at Lafayette's spending compared to the PL in 2015 according to Equity in Athletics:

    Recruiting: 97% of League Average (we are way under average on women's recruiting, and slightly over on men's)
    Athletic Aid (Men): 97% of League Average
    Athletic Aid (Women): 63% of League Average (3rd least in league)
    Athletic Aid (Combined): 80% of League Average (3rd least in League, $2m below avg)
    Operating Expenses: 68% of League Average (3rd least in League, $1m below avg)
    Grand Total Expenses: 78% of League Average (3rd least in League, $5m below avg)
    Athletic Spending per Student: 140% of League Average (3rd most in league)
    Athletic Spending per Student-Athlete: 82% of League Average (3rd least in league)


Looks to me like the women are unfunded across the board.

Athletic Aid isn't broken out by team. Looking at team operating expenses and total expenses, the following teams are close to fully funded, not accounting for aid (within 5% of league average of total team expenses in 2015): baseball (5%), football(-16%), women's basketball (2%), women's lacrosse (-5%), men's tennis (-6%), field hockey (-6%). Negative numbers mean we spend more than average. These are the only sports where that is true.

Remember, we spend 32% less than the league average on operating costs.

Growing the size of the College will only help if a portion of tuition is allocated towards athletics. Given our inability to get performance at bargain basement prices, allocating a portion of tuition revenue growth towards athletics must happen for us to be competitive in the League.

It will take a $3m increase (15% over 2015 budget) to close the gap in aid and operating expenses to bring us up to the league average.

Reply with quote
  
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:43 pm

AndyView user's profile






Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 6148







BPard wrote:
I posted about individual teams before (like this thread about MLax. Here's a look at Lafayette's spending compared to the PL in 2015 according to Equity in Athletics:

    Recruiting: 97% of League Average (we are way under average on women's recruiting, and slightly over on men's)
    Athletic Aid (Men): 97% of League Average
    Athletic Aid (Women): 63% of League Average (3rd least in league)
    Athletic Aid (Combined): 80% of League Average (3rd least in League, $2m below avg)
    Operating Expenses: 68% of League Average (3rd least in League, $1m below avg)
    Grand Total Expenses: 78% of League Average (3rd least in League, $5m below avg)
    Athletic Spending per Student: 140% of League Average (3rd most in league)
    Athletic Spending per Student-Athlete: 82% of League Average (3rd least in league)


Looks to me like the women are unfunded across the board.

Athletic Aid isn't broken out by team. Looking at team operating expenses and total expenses, the following teams are close to fully funded, not accounting for aid (within 5% of league average of total team expenses in 2015): baseball (5%), football(-16%), women's basketball (2%), women's lacrosse (-5%), men's tennis (-6%), field hockey (-6%). Negative numbers mean we spend more than average. These are the only sports where that is true.

Remember, we spend 32% less than the league average on operating costs.

Growing the size of the College will only help if a portion of tuition is allocated towards athletics. Given our inability to get performance at bargain basement prices, allocating a portion of tuition revenue growth towards athletics must happen for us to be competitive in the League.

It will take a $3m increase (15% over 2015 budget) to close the gap in aid and operating expenses to bring us up to the league average.



Overall expenses for football is a hard one to figure. I don't think anyone believes we grant more scholarship equivalencies than Lehigh or Colgate, yet the expense figures are LC 5.6 mil vs LU 4.9mil. Gate 5.628 vs LC 5.622. Even when we were in the midst of budget cuts (42 equivs), our expense figure was in the top 3 or 4 in the PL. I suspect our number includes expensing the stadium renovation, but I'm not an insider. Recall Zeus's post re "resources" vs aid (presumably what he was getting at).

Reply with quote
  
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:18 pm

RichHView user's profile






Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1211







Different accounting methods. Very hard to accurately estimate actual funds spent.  Stadium expenses may indeed be an AD expense. Other schools put those expenses under Facilities upkeep.  My bet is Pards darn close to max now with this class. A damn good class.

Reply with quote
  
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:38 pm

AndyView user's profile






Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 6148







RichH wrote:
Different accounting methods. Very hard to accurately estimate actual funds spent. Stadium expenses may indeed be an AD expense. Other schools put those expenses under Facilities upkeep. My bet is Pards darn close to max now with this class. A damn good class.


Thanks, Rich. We're interested in seeing what this staff can do with a full cycle.  

NCAA could make it a lot easier on us by listing "athletically related aid" per sport.

Reply with quote
  
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:16 pm

RichHView user's profile






Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1211







Oh NCAA would never deprive its members with such a neat fudge factor. Transparency is not in their genetic makeup Smile

Reply with quote
  
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:25 am

SixtyEighterView user's profile






Joined: 28 Oct 2013
Posts: 504







I spoke to the father of a golf team member who struck me as very credible. Based on his comments I think it is safe to say that the golf team is grossly underfunded.

Reply with quote
  
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:00 am

BPardView user's profile






Joined: 23 Sep 2014
Posts: 208







SixtyEighter wrote:
I spoke to the father of a golf team member who struck me as very credible. Based on his comments I think it is safe to say that the golf team is grossly underfunded.
We spend 32% less than the league average golf operating expenses. 38% less than average golf total expenses. For 2015.

On the broader trend, since 2003, we have given less aid than the PL average for men in every year EXCEPT 2008 and 2009, when combined we gave $1M more than league average for men's aid. In 2010, we gave $80k less than the league average.

So ESPECIALLY during the austerity measures, the men's teams were MUCH better positioned for student aid funding compared to league average.

The women have been chronically underfunded. To give you an idea of the size of the difference, for men since 2003, we spent an aggregate $3.3M less than league average but for women, we spent an aggregate $16M less than the league average for women.

Compared to the rest of the Patriot League, our support of women's athletics is pathetic.

Reply with quote
  
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2017 12:50 pm

pards123View user's profile






Joined: 29 Dec 2010
Posts: 453







BPard wrote:
I posted about individual teams before (like this thread about MLax. Here's a look at Lafayette's spending compared to the PL in 2015 according to Equity in Athletics:

    Recruiting: 97% of League Average (we are way under average on women's recruiting, and slightly over on men's)
    Athletic Aid (Men): 97% of League Average
    Athletic Aid (Women): 63% of League Average (3rd least in league)
    Athletic Aid (Combined): 80% of League Average (3rd least in League, $2m below avg)
    Operating Expenses: 68% of League Average (3rd least in League, $1m below avg)
    Grand Total Expenses: 78% of League Average (3rd least in League, $5m below avg)
    Athletic Spending per Student: 140% of League Average (3rd most in league)
    Athletic Spending per Student-Athlete: 82% of League Average (3rd least in league)


Looks to me like the women are unfunded across the board.

Athletic Aid isn't broken out by team. Looking at team operating expenses and total expenses, the following teams are close to fully funded, not accounting for aid (within 5% of league average of total team expenses in 2015): baseball (5%), football(-16%), women's basketball (2%), women's lacrosse (-5%), men's tennis (-6%), field hockey (-6%). Negative numbers mean we spend more than average. These are the only sports where that is true.

Remember, we spend 32% less than the league average on operating costs.

Growing the size of the College will only help if a portion of tuition is allocated towards athletics. Given our inability to get performance at bargain basement prices, allocating a portion of tuition revenue growth towards athletics must happen for us to be competitive in the League.

It will take a $3m increase (15% over 2015 budget) to close the gap in aid and operating expenses to bring us up to the league average.


I don't care what the numbers say, there is absolutely no way we spend more than league average in tennis. Only possible explanation is the expense for indoor court cost as Lehigh, Army and Navy have their own indoor facilities

Reply with quote
  
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:53 pm

AndyView user's profile






Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 6148







BPard wrote:


On the broader trend, since 2003, we have given less aid than the PL average for men in every year EXCEPT 2008 and 2009, when combined we gave $1M more than league average for men's aid. In 2010, we gave $80k less than the league average.

So ESPECIALLY during the austerity measures, the men's teams were MUCH better positioned for student aid funding compared to league average.


As an outsider I thought Weiss's budget cuts were in reaction to the market crash of '08-'09. Austerity measures seem to be reflected in the very small football recruiting class (17) of spring 2009. The lower athletic aid figures would have accompanied that class (Tavani stated there were 2 recruiting classes affected).

Men's Athletically Related Student Aid

Lafayette.......................................Lehigh

'09 - $4.372mil $4.842mil
'10 - $4.073 $5.718
'11 - $4.057 $5.784
'12 - $3.948 $5.448
'13 - $4.061 $5.800

2015 Men's Athletically Related Student Aid

Colgate $6.405mil (hockey, no baseball)
BU $6.070 (hockey, no baseball)
HC $6.058 (hockey)
Leh $5.887 (wrestling)
Buck $5.592 (wrestling, water polo!)
LC $4.951
Loy $2,626 (no football)
AU $2,128 (no football)

Reply with quote
  
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:51 pm

BPardView user's profile






Joined: 23 Sep 2014
Posts: 208







pards123 wrote:
I don't care what the numbers say, there is absolutely no way we spend more than league average in tennis. Only possible explanation is the expense for indoor court cost as Lehigh, Army and Navy have their own indoor facilities

You're right in that for "tennis" meaning combined men's and women's, we spend $150k less than average. But again, it's the women's team that gets the short end of the stick compared to league average. The men are at least in the same ballpark in spending as the rest of the league. The women aren't.

This data doesn't include the military academies. For men's tennis:
Boston University $67,187
Bucknell University $196,991
Colgate University $139,922
College of the Holy Cross $42,728
Fordham University $73,060
Georgetown University $124,121
Lafayette College $111,878
Lehigh University $119,416
Loyola University Maryland $79,036

For women:
Boston University $680,144
Bucknell University $250,803
Colgate University $119,198
College of the Holy Cross $49,876
Fordham University $609,234
Georgetown University $162,092
Lafayette College $109,871
Lehigh University $214,672
Loyola University Maryland $201,437

Reply with quote
  
Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
 Previous Thread | Next Thread 

Posting Rules
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Jump to:  
All times are GMT - 5 Hours

The time now is Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:29 pm

phpvBB - Lafayette Sports Fan Forum - Top - MODs

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Visit Justinsanity.net for all your phpvBB needs.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group.
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum