Roster sizes

[CCSpider]

One element of the recent "athletics reconfiguration" that received less attention was the fact that in terminating 3 men's teams, over 60 roster spots were made available. Lacrosse is expected to use approximately 40 of those. That leaves over 20 spots. Recent reporting has highlighted the increase in the football team's roster. The linked Collegian article has me perplexed. Mr. Gill says that none of the spots went to football. So, is the football team getting bigger or not? Also, why not share with the community which teams benefitted from the sacrifice of the terminated teams? The stated intent was to improve other teams; the sacrifice of a few to benefit the greater good. Why not acknowledge and celebrate that good?

A few thoughts. If the specific changes are known, they can then be assessed. The community will be able to determine if the enhanced teams show improved results that are greater than the crippling of the nationally competitive cross country team and the track team that recently produced multiple All-Americans. Observe, analyze, conclude. What is wrong with that? Another possibility - the additional roster spots are not actually being reassigned but are being eliminated in order to cure a Title IX compliance problem.

Others may have their own theories as to why the Administration refuses to communicate in a straightforward manner. Regardless of individuals' particular sports views ( e.g., football > track, lacrosse is great, bring back men's swimming), can't we all agree that lack of accountability for the 20+ roster spots is unacceptable?

The Collegian investigates

 

[SFspidur]

I suspect the answer simply isn't known yet, and won't be until we get closer to next season. Our men's teams have been hampered by roster caps, while some of the women's teams have been operating under roster minimums and bringing in more athletes than they really need. Dropping 20 men's slots may loosen up some of those men's caps and/or allow some of the women's teams to take on fewer athletes, but it may not all shake out until next year.

 

[urfan1]

SF, I believe you are correct, especially in light of the change of athletic administration. But don't you also think there were some discsussions about possible results? And if so, do you have any ideas as to what they might be?

 

[CCSpider]

The Collegian continues to search for the truth. The administration still won't speak openly. It will be interesting to see when the faculty has had enough. I noted quite the uproar on the boards against Ayers and crew last week when there appeared to be confirmation we had been left out of the new Big East. Interesting that lacrosse supporters were part of that. Eventually there will be a critical mass that sees that we need a change in leadership. It happened just a few years ago with the last president. I just hope the broader community pays more attention and asks more questions so that we don't have to go through more debacles that hurt more and more people.

More from The Collegian

 

[WebSpinner]

feel the criticism of the prez and AD on the c7 deal was way out of line since none of us have any idea what was going on in this matter. they may have been very proactive, willing to do anything yet we got left out or seemingly so, it remains a work in progress. just because you don't win something does not indicate you were not trying and to lambast them, particularly when you do not know or understand the situation, is just bush. once all the details come out, if they ever do, then if we can determine they did not work hard at this, then let them have it with both barrels.

 

[URPike]

no kidding Spinner, huge overreaction. I believe our man CC has an agenda as well. The horse is dead.....move on.

 

[RCSGA]

CC = Cross Country??

 

[urfan1]

From all of the discussions I have had the decision on Lacrosse and C7 have nothing to do with one another.