UCAFANS.COM | GO UCA BEARS!

Some football assistant coaches do make around 50K or a little more. Most other sports assistants less than 40K and some in the upper 20's. We got some head coaches not even making 50K. Know your facts before you make stupid comments.

I am sure there's a little profit but if you do the math it's obvious that there's not room for a lot.

I thought ASU was D2! Just kidding!

bb, I was correcting old bear on his generalization that "Our assistants are paid barely enough to house and feed their families" because I know some that are paid quite well. I'm sure we have some that aren't, like nearly every other school out there.
and as far as the stupid comments, uh you might... never mind.

More of our assistant coaches make less than 35,000 than make more than 50,000.

I know when we were D2 hardly any of our head coaches made $50k.

and how does that compare with other schools our size? about the same, I would imagine.

Heard that the proposal by the president of the BoT not to pay D2 schools anymore didn't even make it off the table to a vote. Thanks to the board members who didn't make the motion to vote on this preposterous motion.

Contracts were renewed for Conque, Daniel, and Williamson. I'm not quite sure what the Williams renewal means. He already has a three year contract and it's already renewed without his having even coached a game? Maybe I'm missing something here.

Coach Williamson's contract was just approved by the Board and the D2 proposal was by the Chair of the Board not the president.

President, chairman - whatever. Point is, not one member made a motion to bring the proposal to a vote. Good for them.

TO Old Bear,
If you get behind Meadors then your school will get deeper in debt, and academics (the reason for colleges) will crumble. Meadors ruined his old school (UNC Pembroke). Their bond rating went down, debt ended up being the highest in the system, and retention and graduation the lowest. Check it out if you don't believe me.

All he wants to do is the same cr*p he did there - do the fake brink sidewalks, fix up his house and spend your money on his 2000 per month cable and phone service. His wife runs things and he lets her to shut her up. THey make the Clinton's look like a newlywed set of love birds.

You will be spending a dollar per sf on the sidewalks to recoat them every year. That's an ONGOING expense. You lost the purple that was school tradition. Still want to "get beind our President?"

Wake up Bears and take your school back.

Its not the NCAA that has to be lobbied. There is a LITTLE problem, Its called Title IX, it states in laymens terms that for every male scholarship you have to have a female scholarship.

Not quite true.

Here's the actual 3 pronged test that the NCAA uses to determine number of schollys for each school and compliance thereof.
Compliance is established by satisfying any one of these three tests:

The first test is a "safe harbor."
If a college or university can show that the numbers of male and female participants in its intercollegiate sports program are substantially proportionate to its male and female undergraduate enrollments, the institution will be found in compliance without further inquiry. How closely participation and enrollment rates must be
aligned is unclear. The courts have found that differences of 10.5 and approximately 12 percentage points between participation and enrollment rates do not constitute substantial proportionality. Further development of the law will be necessary before the permissible percentage variation will be known. However, it appears that with current female participation and enrollment rates, few institutions can meet this first test.

Many institutions also will have difficulty in meeting the second test. Most colleges and universities have greatly increased the size of their women's programs, but many have not added women's teams for a number of years. Financial constraints are forcing institutions to cut, rather than add, programs. Thus, the third test often will determine whether or not an institution will be found to be providing enough participation opportunities to comply with Title IX.

The third test, by its literal terms, requires a college or university to show that its existing intercollegiate athletic program "fully and effectively" accommodates the interests and abilities of members of the underrepresented sex—normally women. Throughout the history of the development and application of this test by OCR, it has been interpreted as requiring a showing that the interests and abilities of women are equally effectively accommodated, i.e., are accommodated to the same degree as the interests and abilities of men. However, recent court decisions have interpreted this third test more stringently.

Litigation protection is what drives actions in this area. There used to be a few state universities who would actually do emprical studies of what high schools in their states offered to girls and actual participation rates. Then they could add that data to the particpation rate of thier student body and often show they are more than meeting demand. For example, just to meet scholarhsip numbers it makes no sense to add girls rowing in Kansas since no high schools offer. The state university woud then have to offer a program solely for out of state students. However, I would imagine legal counsel explained that no jury would ever make that connection. It is just much easier to cut men's swimming, golf, tennis, soccer, etc.