Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 4      Prev   1   2   3   4
Dusty

Registered:
Posts: 94
Reply with quote  #91 
I recently heard about one of Duke's decommits which got me thinking about how much more difficult it must be for them to grow their program than another startup program like Clemson.  The player didn't have any issues with academics, admissions or the coaching staff other than the fact that they reduced her final financial aid offer to accommodate another player they recruited later on.

Duke's tuition is $50k+ and it doesn't matter where a potential recruit lives.  Most P5 publics are going to be about $35-40k out of state tuition and $15-20k in-state.  Duke gets the same 12 athletic scholarships everyone else gets but the non-athletic money doesn't go as far due to the overall higher expenses (even room & board is about $5k higher than average there).  Add to that they have something close to all their money tied up with players who have four years of athletic eligibility so they probably don't have a lot of money to offer next years recruiting class or the next two subsequent classes unless they let some current players go or some players decide to transfer.  

To use an NFL analogy it seems like they are having to operate as though they have a functionally lower salary cap than other schools and have to franchise tag all of their players for four years.  I don't know enough about the financial side of running a college softball program but was wondering if any budding college softball capologists would have any idea of how one would manage a program in a situation like this?  Who was the last P5 private academic school to start up a softball program?  Stanford?  If so, that was probably too long ago to provide a useful template for Duke.    
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,255
Reply with quote  #92 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty
I recently heard about one of Duke's decommits which got me thinking about how much more difficult it must be for them to grow their program than another startup program like Clemson.  The player didn't have any issues with academics, admissions or the coaching staff other than the fact that they reduced her final financial aid offer to accommodate another player they recruited later on.

Duke's tuition is $50k+ and it doesn't matter where a potential recruit lives.  Most P5 publics are going to be about $35-40k out of state tuition and $15-20k in-state.  Duke gets the same 12 athletic scholarships everyone else gets but the non-athletic money doesn't go as far due to the overall higher expenses (even room & board is about $5k higher than average there).  Add to that they have something close to all their money tied up with players who have four years of athletic eligibility so they probably don't have a lot of money to offer next years recruiting class or the next two subsequent classes unless they let some current players go or some players decide to transfer.  

To use an NFL analogy it seems like they are having to operate as though they have a functionally lower salary cap than other schools and have to franchise tag all of their players for four years.  I don't know enough about the financial side of running a college softball program but was wondering if any budding college softball capologists would have any idea of how one would manage a program in a situation like this?  Who was the last P5 private academic school to start up a softball program?  Stanford?  If so, that was probably too long ago to provide a useful template for Duke.    
In essence, my POV on how impressive the job is that Coach White has done to have reached the Sweet 16 at a minimum in each of his 8 years, with nearly zilch in-state talent. Every partial scholly is off the $50K a year OOS cost structure.

Duke is definitely in a rarefied boat of difficulty with that admissions office AND no in-state bailout area. At the antipodes in the ACC, FSU is fairly benign in its admissions and is a state school in a state with one of the top half-dozen talent bases. Still, Duke IS in the ACC, with most of the schools having austere admissions. So, that should help

Dusty

Registered:
Posts: 94
Reply with quote  #93 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns

In essence, my POV on how impressive the job is that Coach White has done to have reached the Sweet 16 at a minimum in each of his 8 years, with nearly zilch in-state talent. Every partial scholly is off the $50K a year OOS cost structure.



Yeah, even though Oregon is a public their roster is made up more like a private school.  The big difference though is that Oregon's total cost is about $50k but the OOS tuition is about $33k while Duke's total cost is about $70k and tuition alone is over $50k.  White probably never had to stack all his money with one recruiting class either. 
outofzone

Registered:
Posts: 877
Reply with quote  #94 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty
I recently heard about one of Duke's decommits which got me thinking about how much more difficult it must be for them to grow their program than another startup program like Clemson.  The player didn't have any issues with academics, admissions or the coaching staff other than the fact that they reduced her final financial aid offer to accommodate another player they recruited later on.

Duke's tuition is $50k+ and it doesn't matter where a potential recruit lives.  Most P5 publics are going to be about $35-40k out of state tuition and $15-20k in-state.  Duke gets the same 12 athletic scholarships everyone else gets but the non-athletic money doesn't go as far due to the overall higher expenses (even room & board is about $5k higher than average there).  Add to that they have something close to all their money tied up with players who have four years of athletic eligibility so they probably don't have a lot of money to offer next years recruiting class or the next two subsequent classes unless they let some current players go or some players decide to transfer.  

To use an NFL analogy it seems like they are having to operate as though they have a functionally lower salary cap than other schools and have to franchise tag all of their players for four years.  I don't know enough about the financial side of running a college softball program but was wondering if any budding college softball capologists would have any idea of how one would manage a program in a situation like this?  Who was the last P5 private academic school to start up a softball program?  Stanford?  If so, that was probably too long ago to provide a useful template for Duke.    


Be curious to know who the decomitt was & who Duke picked up? PM me if you like
TyCobb

Registered:
Posts: 586
Reply with quote  #95 
What has happened to Georgia Tech these last few years, they where once a top ACC team.  
Sealfinger

Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #96 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyCobb
What has happened to Georgia Tech these last few years, they where once a top ACC team.  


Ahh ... the good 'ole days. In a nutshell GT went from two excellent coaches in Earleywine and Perkins to a disaster in Hoerner. It'll take at least a couple of years to return to relevance, much less prominence. But there is reason for optimism in new HC Morales, who played for Earleywine and Perkins and coached under Perkins. Also one can't overlook the simple fact that GT in the glory years had some all-time great players in Yee, Weisman, Lever, Morales, Sallinger, Ashley Thomas, Rudnick, etc. Perkins left Hoerner with some pretty decent players who achieved all conference honors (and some who didn't) e.g., Lionberger, Ziese, P'nunzi but Hoerner never could build off it. Like I said, GT is hoping that happy days will return, sooner than later. But rebuilding ain't easy.
jayrot

Registered:
Posts: 17,071
Reply with quote  #97 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyCobb
What has happened to Georgia Tech these last few years, they where once a top ACC team.  


You gonna pull the dagger out or just leaving it hanging?
jayrot

Registered:
Posts: 17,071
Reply with quote  #98 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sealfinger


Ahh ... the good 'ole days. In a nutshell GT went from two excellent coaches in Earleywine and Perkins to a disaster in Hoerner. It'll take at least a couple of years to return to relevance, much less prominence. But there is reason for optimism in new HC Morales, who played for Earleywine and Perkins and coached under Perkins. Also one can't overlook the simple fact that GT in the glory years had some all-time great players in Yee, Weisman, Lever, Morales, Sallinger, Ashley Thomas, Rudnick, etc. Perkins left Hoerner with some pretty decent players who achieved all conference honors (and some who didn't) e.g., Lionberger, Ziese, P'nunzi but Hoerner never could build off it. Like I said, GT is hoping that happy days will return, sooner than later. But rebuilding ain't easy.


I just want Kate Madden back.  Maybe Aileen can help me fall in love with GT softball again.
Sec_fan91

Registered:
Posts: 2,152
Reply with quote  #99 
Who was that last GT pitcher that was decent? Hope something? I can’t remember
jayrot

Registered:
Posts: 17,071
Reply with quote  #100 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sec_fan91
Who was that last GT pitcher that was decent? Hope something? I can’t remember


Hope Rush
60ftAndHangALeft

Registered:
Posts: 117
Reply with quote  #101 
One must also consider not just the head coach, but the coaching staff(s) as a whole who helped elevate the GT program.  A head coach can't do it alone.  The successful head coaches listed surrounded themselves with great assistants as well.
Sealfinger

Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #102 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrot


Hope Rush


Hope was not only a terrific pitcher but she was a fearsome power hitter too.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.