FOOTBALL If we average 7 wins a decade, would you rather...

[Noogaraider1]

Those wins be broken down by a couple of 11 win seasons combined with a couple of 3 win seasons, or remain constant (as we kind of are) at 6-8 wins a year.

No coaching talk, purely wins. Get 7 wins a year for a decade or fluctuate from 4-10 wins. Im curious the boards thoughts here.

 

[MidTennMtneer]

I've said it and will always say it.

A) Have a decade of a few losing seasons with a few double digit win seasons, 2-3 conference championships, with some top25 rankings sprinkled in. Still averaging 7 wins.

B) Have a decade of 6-6, 7-5 seasons with a few 8-4 sprinkled in. Maybe a 9 win here or there, still averaging 7 wins but zero championships or rankings.

I'll take A all day long every day.

 

[RaiderDoug]

Those wins be broken down by a couple of 11 win seasons combined with a couple of 3 win seasons, or remain constant (as we kind of are) at 6-8 wins a year.

No coaching talk, purely wins. Get 7 wins a year for a decade or fluctuate from 4-10 wins. Im curious the boards thoughts here.

I would like to get to the mountaintop at some point.

There's no other reason to even play the games. IMHO, there's no difference between 7-6 and 2-11.

 

[SpaceRaider]

Championships, all day long. It is possible, but not with this crew.

They've had chance after chance to prove they can get it done and all they have done is fail. No championship after nearly two decades is a miserable failure.

 

[blueraiderJT]

I know this sounds dumb to some but I just want to win. Winning games is not competing. It's winning. If we win 8 games and a bowl game, I'm taking that over a 4 win season. I just am. If we won 12 games and a championship and then went 3-5 seasons winning 3 games, I'm not gonna enjoy that at all. Ask Arkansas St. fans if they are liking their existence right now. They are gonna say nope. I want championship titles and such but winning back to back bowl games when we were only one of the 3 teams in the conference to do that is pretty good in my book too. UTSA won 2 titles back to back and lost both bowl games. To me, they failed. They failed to rep the conference vs. the rest of college football. They win all of those games only to lose on national TV? That's not a win to me and it makes the conference look weak.

I know we want more and that's fair but having the last word 2 seasons in a row is an improvement over the last decade of getting 6-8 wins and getting smoked in a bowl. I can't control any of it but I enjoy it when we get the W. Take the SDSU game. We were down by 14 and could have laid down. We battled back and won the dang thing when no one had us winning at all. Sorry, I know we want CRS gone but that made the season a W for me because we could have laid down and didn't. So for me, win as much as you can when you can. I'd love a WKU victory and a title but most importantly, I want the bowl win. A title without a bowl win is a hollow title to me. If you do all 3 and we then win 3 games a year for 3 seasons sucks too. What was it all for? One good year? Nah. We win 13 games, lose a bowl and people won't care here either. So you gotta be perfect and if UT wins 9 games, no one will care about us anyway So just win as much as you can every year.

 

[MidTennMtneer]

I know this sounds dumb to some but I just want to win. Winning games is not competing. It's winning. If we win 8 games and a bowl game, I'm taking that over a 4 win season. I just am. If we won 12 games and a championship and then went 3-5 seasons winning 3 games, I'm not gonna enjoy that at all. Ask Arkansas St. fans if they are liking their existence right now. They are gonna say nope. I want championship titles and such but winning back to back bowl games when we were only one of the 3 teams in the conference to do that is pretty good in my book too. UTSA won 2 titles back to back and lost both bowl games. To me, they failed. They failed to rep the conference vs. the rest of college football. They win all of those games only to lose on national TV? That's not a win to me and it makes the conference look weak.

I know we want more and that's fair but having the last word 2 seasons in a row is an improvement over the last decade of getting 6-8 wins and getting smoked in a bowl. I can't control any of it but I enjoy it when we get the W. Take the SDSU game. We were down by 14 and could have laid down. We battled back and won the dang thing when no one had us winning at all. Sorry, I know we want CRS gone but that made the season a W for me because we could have laid down and didn't. So for me, win as much as you can when you can. I'd love a WKU victory and a title but most importantly, I want the bowl win. A title without a bowl win is a hollow title to me. If you do all 3 and we then win 3 games a year for 3 seasons sucks too. What was it all for? One good year? Nah. We win 13 games, lose a bowl and people won't care here either. So you gotta be perfect and if UT wins 9 games, no one will care about us anyway So just win as much as you can every year.

I 100% see where you are coming from. I too see bowl loses as a black eye. I harped on what a big deal B2B wins meant heading in to SDSU last year. If we are going to do my option B above, which is what we are and what Stock is, then those bowl wins matter. They will possibly matter less once the new CFP starts which is why a 3rd in a row now is extremely important.

If we are going to go 7-5 every year, we MUST win in the post season for the season to matter.

That said, I still would sacrifice a few losing seasons for a championship. But I agree, just as UTSA showed, that champ means squat nationally without a bowl win. It will matter to the program, but from a causal fan build perception, it won't without multiple in a row with bowl wins after.

 

[RaiderDoug]

I know this sounds dumb to some but I just want to win. Winning games is not competing. It's winning. If we win 8 games and a bowl game, I'm taking that over a 4 win season. I just am. If we won 12 games and a championship and then went 3-5 seasons winning 3 games, I'm not gonna enjoy that at all. Ask Arkansas St. fans if they are liking their existence right now. They are gonna say nope. I want championship titles and such but winning back to back bowl games when we were only one of the 3 teams in the conference to do that is pretty good in my book too. UTSA won 2 titles back to back and lost both bowl games. To me, they failed. They failed to rep the conference vs. the rest of college football. They win all of those games only to lose on national TV? That's not a win to me and it makes the conference look weak.

I know we want more and that's fair but having the last word 2 seasons in a row is an improvement over the last decade of getting 6-8 wins and getting smoked in a bowl. I can't control any of it but I enjoy it when we get the W. Take the SDSU game. We were down by 14 and could have laid down. We battled back and won the dang thing when no one had us winning at all. Sorry, I know we want CRS gone but that made the season a W for me because we could have laid down and didn't. So for me, win as much as you can when you can. I'd love a WKU victory and a title but most importantly, I want the bowl win. A title without a bowl win is a hollow title to me. If you do all 3 and we then win 3 games a year for 3 seasons sucks too. What was it all for? One good year? Nah. We win 13 games, lose a bowl and people won't care here either. So you gotta be perfect and if UT wins 9 games, no one will care about us anyway So just win as much as you can every year.

I've always said that, in a vacuum, last season wasn't bad. There's nothing wrong with 8-4 and bowl winning seasons.

But, to be honest, just winning seasons and a bowl win - that's too low a bar for program success. Lots of teams finish above .500 and win their bowl game. That's not something that we can achieve that can set us apart. Heck, 3 or 4 teams in our own conference can do the same thing every year. If its easily achievable by 30-40% of your own conference every year, what have you really done?

But there's only one conference champion.

Winning the conference means you were excellent for the entire year. Winning a bowl game means you were good for about 3 hours.

Obviously, this is perspective and yours is clearly different than mine.

 

[MTLynn]

...just as UTSA showed, that champ means squat nationally without a bowl win. It will matter to the program, but from a causal fan build perception, it won't without multiple in a row with bowl wins after.

In principle, a conference champion plays a better bowl game opponent. I'd take UTSA's coach over little ricky stuckstill any day of the week.

 

[Noogaraider1]

I know this sounds dumb to some but I just want to win. Winning games is not competing. It's winning. If we win 8 games and a bowl game, I'm taking that over a 4 win season. I just am. If we won 12 games and a championship and then went 3-5 seasons winning 3 games, I'm not gonna enjoy that at all. Ask Arkansas St. fans if they are liking their existence right now. They are gonna say nope. I want championship titles and such but winning back to back bowl games when we were only one of the 3 teams in the conference to do that is pretty good in my book too. UTSA won 2 titles back to back and lost both bowl games. To me, they failed. They failed to rep the conference vs. the rest of college football. They win all of those games only to lose on national TV? That's not a win to me and it makes the conference look weak.

I know we want more and that's fair but having the last word 2 seasons in a row is an improvement over the last decade of getting 6-8 wins and getting smoked in a bowl. I can't control any of it but I enjoy it when we get the W. Take the SDSU game. We were down by 14 and could have laid down. We battled back and won the dang thing when no one had us winning at all. Sorry, I know we want CRS gone but that made the season a W for me because we could have laid down and didn't. So for me, win as much as you can when you can. I'd love a WKU victory and a title but most importantly, I want the bowl win. A title without a bowl win is a hollow title to me. If you do all 3 and we then win 3 games a year for 3 seasons sucks too. What was it all for? One good year? Nah. We win 13 games, lose a bowl and people won't care here either. So you gotta be perfect and if UT wins 9 games, no one will care about us anyway So just win as much as you can every year.

This is what I think as well. I am an eternal optimist, but last season was a ton of fun. I dont want to get complacent, but if winning 10 games last year somehow meant that we would win three this year, give me the 8-4 season back all day long. Southern Miss made a name for them selves by consistently winning and going to bowl games.

This is obvious, but if you can make a name for yourself as a consistent winner, then over time you can build a brand. My hope is we are in the "consistent winning" phase. With the new adds to CUSA, I think this trends upwards.

 

[MidTennMtneer]

Just looking at CUSA. From 2013-2018, 6 seasons, Stock was .500 or better every year. 44-34 during that period. Thing was we were 1-4 in bowls.
During that time he never had a two year span better than .577. That happened twice. '15-16 and '16-'17.

Past two years 2021-2022 we are 15-11. 2-0 in bowls. That's .577. The previous times, after year three he went down to .564 and .575. If we can finish at least 8-5 with a bowl win, that would be 23-16 .590 over the last three years. His best three year span even including the SBC days. He would then be .520 overall.
I will consider us then trending upward.

Finishing 7-6 would make him 22-17 .564 and not trending upward in my opinion. Just more of the same. A bowl win nothing to complain about but still. Either way there has gotta be another bowl win.

On a side note, did not know till I saw an article on Leach that a .600 or better overall record is required for the College Football Hall of Fame.

 

[RaiderDoug]

Something I also wanted to bring up about the 8-4/win bowl season.

Let me re-iterate - there's nothing at all wrong with that by itself.

But if that is the best you are ever capable of - that's not good enough.

 

[MT01]

If you can consistently win 6-7 games every year there is absolutely no reason you can’t win 8 to 10 consistently. There is definitely no reason for several three win type seasons. Maybe one because things happen but it’s not necessary to have championship caliber program.

Change those down years to six wins and I can be on board. There is no reason for losing seasons unless you simply make a bad hire after your coach moves up. But if you build a culture of winning instead of one of mediocrity then it can be done. You don’t have to be Ark St. Even basketball first western ky didn’t accept that. They made a bad hire and moved on after just two seasons. But the programs to emulate who have shown this include Cincy and UCF. I’m not even going to include Boise because I’m not sure that type of lighting capture and sustainment is realistic to demand.

And sure UCF had that one winless season due to exigent circumstances but look at their consistency over the past 15 to 20 years of constantly being in the conversation for conference championships and winning a few along the way. It is feasible. You just requires having the right leadership in place and culture to excel. We do not have that here.

 

[MidTennMtneer]

And UCF is predicted to be in the top quarter of the B12.

It comes down to this. Lee told me once in eseence that he wants people to know that championships are wanted and expected. I say I've yet to be proven that is the case.

 

[blueraiderJT]

I've always said that, in a vacuum, last season wasn't bad. There's nothing wrong with 8-4 and bowl winning seasons.

But, to be honest, just winning seasons and a bowl win - that's too low a bar for program success. Lots of teams finish above .500 and win their bowl game. That's not something that we can achieve that can set us apart. Heck, 3 or 4 teams in our own conference can do the same thing every year. If its easily achievable by 30-40% of your own conference every year, what have you really done?

But there's only one conference champion.

Winning the conference means you were excellent for the entire year. Winning a bowl game means you were good for about 3 hours.

Obviously, this is perspective and yours is clearly different than mine.

If back to back seasons of winning bowls is too low of a bar then none of the CUSA teams are cutting the mustard since only 3 teams have done it in the last 2 years and none of them are the CUSA CHAMP.

I AM NOT TAKING UP FOR STOCK. Let's make that clear. We are stuck with him until he dies. I'm merely saying if we go 7-8 wins every season and we win bowl games, I'm not gonna act depressed about it. Ark st. ODU, RICE, FIU, FAU, Colorado St., GA st., Tx st., Charlotte, etc. would all trade places with us right now.

Winning the conference and losing the bowl game is hollow cause it means you excelled in a conference you could excell in but you couldn't handle any other conference on national tv when it matters. That's just my view though.

 

[RaiderDoug]

If back to back seasons of winning bowls is too low of a bar then none of the CUSA teams are cutting the mustard since only 3 teams have done it in the last 2 years and none of them are the CUSA CHAMP.

I AM NOT TAKING UP FOR STOCK. Let's make that clear. We are stuck with him until he dies. I'm merely saying if we go 7-8 wins every season and we win bowl games, I'm not gonna act depressed about it. Ark st. ODU, RICE, FIU, FAU, Colorado St., GA st., Tx st., Charlotte, etc. would all trade places with us right now.

Winning the conference and losing the bowl game is hollow cause it means you excelled in a conference you could excell in but you couldn't handle any other conference on national tv when it matters. That's just my view though.

Don't you think that puts too much emphasis on a 3-hour window at the end of a season where a bunch of players typically opt out, motivations are suspect, nobody is paying attention, and, in the grand scheme of things - is pretty easily achievable (41 bowl game winners)?

 

[MidTennMtneer]

Don't you think that puts too much emphasis on a 3-hour window at the end of a season where a bunch of players typically opt out, motivations are suspect, nobody is paying attention, and, in the grand scheme of things - is pretty easily achievable (41 bowl game winners)?

Yes and no. Overall with 62% I think it was of FBS teams making a bowl, it doesn't mean much.

But back to back bowl wins in '21 and '22. It was a very small number. 14. And only 6 G5 (including us and WKU) teams. So looking at it that way, not super achievable.

 

[ewglenn]

Yes and no. Overall with 62% I think it was of FBS teams making a bowl, it doesn't mean much.

But back to back bowl wins in '21 and '22. It was a very small number. 14. And only 6 G5 (including us and WKU) teams. So looking at it that way, not super achievable.

I agree that the back to back bowl wins is good and I’m surprised that it’s happened. I think the regular season is important and winning a championship is what we should strive for. I completely agree though that UTSA’s great run feels like a bit of a let down after not winning the bowl games. I also think raiderdoug is down playing how many people watch the bowl games. 1.12 million people watched us beat SDSU and 851k watched us beat Toledo. That’s almost 2 million people that saw those games start to finish. Meanwhile 1.15 million and 1.46 million watched UTSA lay eggs.

 

[MTFAN61]

With new playoff format looming, how many more years of available 41 bowl games will there be?
Better take advantage of our 6-7 regular season victories while we can. Those bowl games will start decreasing annually. Before you know it the needed 6 victories to get a bowl will become 8 or 9. How many of us think MT under Stock will start producing 9 wins on average to get the newly adjusted bowl qualification in a couple years.

 

[MidTennMtneer]

With new playoff format looming, how many more years of available 41 bowl games will there be?
Better take advantage of our 6-7 regular season victories while we can. Those bowl games will start decreasing annually. Before you know it the needed 6 victories to get a bowl will become 8 or 9. How many of us think MT under Stock will start producing 9 wins on average to get the newly adjusted bowl qualification in a couple years.

Supposedly they will stay close to the same. For '24 and '25 anyway. Rumors I've seen are that some bowls will contract for the non-selected conference champions, but that's it. The New Year's Six are essentially becoming the playoff. Rest won't change.

Now that being said, it wouldn't surprise me if when the new TV deal starts for 2026 that things drastically change. To what? Who knows. I guess we will see how the first two years of it go.

 

[crposton]

If you can consistently win 6-7 games every year there is absolutely no reason you can’t win 8 to 10 consistently. There is definitely no reason for several three win type seasons. Maybe one because things happen but it’s not necessary to have championship caliber program.

Change those down years to six wins and I can be on board. There is no reason for losing seasons unless you simply make a bad hire after your coach moves up. But if you build a culture of winning instead of one of mediocrity then it can be done. You don’t have to be Ark St. Even basketball first western ky didn’t accept that. They made a bad hire and moved on after just two seasons. But the programs to emulate who have shown this include Cincy and UCF. I’m not even going to include Boise because I’m not sure that type of lighting capture and sustainment is realistic to demand.

And sure UCF had that one winless season due to exigent circumstances but look at their consistency over the past 15 to 20 years of constantly being in the conversation for conference championships and winning a few along the way. It is feasible. You just requires having the right leadership in place and culture to excel. We do not have that here.

The only push back I would have on this is seasons where we play 3 P5 games. Haven’t done that in a little bit, but 7-5 those years could have been 9-3 if we only played one pay day game. I agree if you can accomplish 6-7 wins a year you should be able to have a 9-10 win season every few years at least.

 

[MidTennMtneer]

The only push back I would have on this is seasons where we play 3 P5 games. Haven’t done that in a little bit, but 7-5 those years could have been 9-3 if we only played one pay day game. I agree if you can accomplish 6-7 wins a year you should be able to have a 9-10 win season every few years at least.

We've had seasons against power teams
4 P5 games - 2 seasons
3 P5 - 7
2 P5 - 3
1 P5 - 4
0 P5 - 1

In our 10-3 season we played 3, in our 8-4 we played 2, I'm our three 8-5 seasons we played 1, 2, and 1.
In four 7-6 seasons we played 4, 3, 3, and 1.

Overall he is 6-33 against power.

 

[ewglenn]

We've had seasons against power teams
4 P5 games - 2 seasons
3 P5 - 7
2 P5 - 3
1 P5 - 4
0 P5 - 1

In our 10-3 season we played 3, in our 8-4 we played 2, I'm our three 8-5 seasons we played 1, 2, and 1.
In four 7-6 seasons we played 4, 3, 3, and 1.

Overall he is 6-33 against power.

So realistically the 10-3 season could have easily been 11-2 or 12-1. We’ve also got these planned coming up:

2023- 2
2024- 2
2025- 2
2026- 1 (need two more games)

I understand why we’re doing the P5 games because we’re getting a good amount of money. However, the Kansas and Wisconsin payouts were lower than they should have been. Which would you prefer? Two P5 matchups vs lower to middle P5 teams paying 1-1.2 million per game or one P5 vs top teams for 1.5-2 million per game? Sign me up for the one game we should lose and gain the home game. Miami was 1.5 million and was a big moment for the program. Give us more opportunities for that while getting more home games just seems natural to me.

 

[MidTennMtneer]

So realistically the 10-3 season could have easily been 11-2 or 12-1. We’ve also got these planned coming up:

2023- 2
2024- 2
2025- 2
2026- 1 (need two more games)

I understand why we’re doing the P5 games because we’re getting a good amount of money. However, the Kansas and Wisconsin payouts were lower than they should have been. Which would you prefer? Two P5 matchups vs lower to middle P5 teams paying 1-1.2 million per game or one P5 vs top teams for 1.5-2 million per game? Sign me up for the one game we should lose and gain the home game. Miami was 1.5 million and was a big moment for the program. Give us more opportunities for that while getting more home games just seems natural to me.

I'm ok with 2 P5s. If...if...it is like this year and we still have 6 home games. If it means 5 home games, nope. 3 P5s or more is just ridiculous. Zero reason for that.

I also personally hate the schedule front loaded with OoC teams. I get the reasoning, but we always play better the back half. Granted it usually is against lower conference teams, but still. There is a bit of that gelling together by then and we'd have a better chance.

I've said it before even to CM.
1$ game
1 TN team (can swap with FCS)
1 FCS (regional or TN and can swap)
1 regional G5 or lower regional P5

 

[AustinLewis]

I'm ok with 2 P5s. If...if...it is like this year and we still have 6 home games. If it means 5 home games, nope. 3 P5s or more is just ridiculous. Zero reason for that.

I also personally hate the schedule front loaded with OoC teams. I get the reasoning, but we always play better the back half. Granted it usually is against lower conference teams, but still. There is a bit of that gelling together by then and we'd have a better chance.

I've said it before even to CM.
1$ game
1 TN team (can swap with FCS)
1 FCS (regional or TN and can swap)
1 regional G5 or lower regional P5

Agreed.

I understand WHY MT has to play 2-3 $$$ per year, but it kills the interest / support.

By the time MT recovers from the bodybag games, the fans have largely lost interest and they're on to MBB / WBB.

The schedule you propose gives MT the opportunity to win 9 games (lose 2 OOC, lose 1-2 in conference, win bowl game), plus it doesn't kill interest in the program.

 

[AustinLewis]

Agreed.

I understand WHY MT has to play 2-3 $$$ per year, but it kills the interest / support.

By the time MT recovers from the bodybag games, the fans have largely lost interest and they're on to MBB / WBB.

The schedule you propose gives MT the opportunity to win 9 games (lose 2 OOC, lose 1-2 in conference, win bowl game), plus it doesn't kill interest in the program.

Unfortunately this may be a chicken / egg situation, because :

1) Fan interest (& attendance) is in the toilet (largely because they are tired of Stock - right or wrong).

2) You gotta pay the bills. If the fans aren't gonna show up, then you've gotta balance the budget somehow.

 

[ewglenn]

I’m sure this is going to be unpopular but I feel it should be brought up. We have 17 sponsored sports teams. The FBS requirement is 16 (6 men and 8 women required) Track and Field are indoor and outdoor so add one to men’s and women’s to the below graph. Which sports could we do away with and which sports could we replace with a cheaper alternative? Obviously Title 9 is in play but bowling/beach volleyball would be a lot cheaper than soccer/golf. If we’re balancing the budget then we should look at what is costing us a lot of money and make decisions from there. Personally I’d do away with one men’s program and replace at least two women’s sports with cheaper options.

Men's sports	Women's sports
Baseball	Basketball
Basketball	Cross country
Cross country	Golf
Football	Soccer
Golf	Softball
Tennis	Tennis
Track and field†	Track and field†
	Volleyball

 

[ewglenn]

Data might be aged but here are cost (they are saying revenue matched cost):

Total AD expenses $34,840,886

Cost per sport:
Football $10,195,755
MBB $3,151,735
WBB $2,362,364
Baseball $1,104,966
Women’s soccer $1,101,146
Volleyball $1,073,393
Women’s track/field combined $1,058,947
Softball $1,053,946
Men’s golf $739,042
Men’s track/field combined $692,509
Women’s tennis $523,276
Men’s tennis $508,838
Women’s golf $366,004

Middle Tennessee State University Athletics Programs

What sports are offered at Middle Tennessee State University? Learn how each athletic ranks, how much revenue it brings in, the average sports aid per student athlete at Middle Tennessee State University, and more.

www.collegefactual.com

 

[JohnDavidBlue]

Lol. Awesome thread for the offseason

 

[crposton]

If Title IX is equal access for women, why does the NCAA require two more women’s sports than men’s? Equal access means equal.

 

[FranklinRaider315]

Unfortunately this may be a chicken / egg situation, because :

1) Fan interest (& attendance) is in the toilet (largely because they are tired of Stock - right or wrong).

2) You gotta pay the bills. If the fans aren't gonna show up, then you've gotta balance the budget somehow.

I drove down Falkinberry yesterday to attend a dance recital at Tucker. Apparently Stock’s football camp is in session. From what I could see through the south end zone it didn’t look like a whole lot of kids were there.

 

[Blue Raider Lightning]

If Title IX is equal access for women, why does the NCAA require two more women’s sports than men’s? Equal access means equal.

I could be wrong but I believe it is to offset the number of scholarships for football since there is such a large discrepancy in numbers there versus all other sports.

 

[ewglenn]

If Title IX is equal access for women, why does the NCAA require two more women’s sports than men’s? Equal access means equal.

I think that’s just to make sure schools with football teams stay compliant with scholarship distribution.

 

[AustinLewis]

If Title IX is equal access for women, why does the NCAA require two more women’s sports than men’s? Equal access means equal.

There's a lot of legalese & scenarios, but the goal of Title IX was to ensure that women had access to the same funding that men do. IOW, the goal of Title IX is to ensure that schools don't spend all their $$$ on FB & MBB...

As I understand it (and I'm not a lawyer), MT could add a men's scholarship hockey team, spend more money on men's sports than women's AS LONG AS there wasn't interest in women's hockey team (or comparable sport).

This is one reason schools transitioning from FCS to FBS will either drop a men's sport or add a corresponding women's sport to ensure they remain Title IX compliant. Technically (if my understanding is correct), they don't have to, but USUALLY there is enough interest in a corresponding female sport they HAVE to add it.

So, let's just run with a scenario for a second. Let's say the Predators, City, County, and MT partner to turn the Livestock Center into another Ford Ice Center for MT, schools, and residents to use.

Scenario 1 : MT makes the decision to add varsity ice hockey (18 scholarships). MT makes the corresponding decision to add beach volleyball (6 scholarships) & gymnastics (12 scholarships) to remain Title IX compliant.
Scenario 2 : MT makes the decision to add varsity ice hockey (18 scholarships), but discovers there isn't interest in another varsity women's sport. MT would be okay NOT to add another women sports.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but this is my understanding based on conversations with folks with knowledge of Title IX