Great read. I think 44% (or any %) is a useful datapoint, but as with so many situations it also comes down to leadership. I worked at an institution with some pretty visionary leaders. We likely approached 40% at one point, but that got the school over the hump and put it in a great position to thrive. Now they've been able to ease off the gas and better diversify their student body (and revenue streams).
I've also seen too many schools think they can just add without much consideration into the market or who they are hiring and have the new team evaporate into the mist.
Thank you for the comment, Greg. I am curious about your thoughts about some schools choosing swimming OR diving, rather than AND. The University of Virginia comes to mind as a school that eliminated diving recently.
First I should preface this and say this is not an opinion held by my previous employer. Personally, I don’t feel diving is viable at the Division II, III or NAIA levels. Exceedingly few schools (fewer than ten) can justify the hiring of a full time diving coach. This leaves them relying on PT coaches to the detriment of student-athletes in areas of coaching consistency investment and especially safety. Most schools see a greater ROI from an assistant swim coach than a diving coach. Many of these arguments also hold true at mid and low-majors.
At the Power-conference level I think there are several different things in play. The super-sizing of conferences mean a school can invest in and differentiate themselves in diving but it doesn’t move the needle when trying to win a title.
Wouldn’t IPEDS data include dual credit enrollments, whereas Hiram is focused on reporting degree seeking students?
Great read. I think 44% (or any %) is a useful datapoint, but as with so many situations it also comes down to leadership. I worked at an institution with some pretty visionary leaders. We likely approached 40% at one point, but that got the school over the hump and put it in a great position to thrive. Now they've been able to ease off the gas and better diversify their student body (and revenue streams).
I've also seen too many schools think they can just add without much consideration into the market or who they are hiring and have the new team evaporate into the mist.
Thank you for the comment, Greg. I am curious about your thoughts about some schools choosing swimming OR diving, rather than AND. The University of Virginia comes to mind as a school that eliminated diving recently.
First I should preface this and say this is not an opinion held by my previous employer. Personally, I don’t feel diving is viable at the Division II, III or NAIA levels. Exceedingly few schools (fewer than ten) can justify the hiring of a full time diving coach. This leaves them relying on PT coaches to the detriment of student-athletes in areas of coaching consistency investment and especially safety. Most schools see a greater ROI from an assistant swim coach than a diving coach. Many of these arguments also hold true at mid and low-majors.
At the Power-conference level I think there are several different things in play. The super-sizing of conferences mean a school can invest in and differentiate themselves in diving but it doesn’t move the needle when trying to win a title.