Title IX is very simple - "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance", followed by several paragraphs of exceptions.
Yes I would.
I view sports as a talent and entertainment business. Everyone has different opinions on entertainment and sports. Instead of arguing which sport is more valuable, I say let the market decide, and then throw resources at the sport that’s generating revenue.
If I were the AD in charge of a minnow school that was getting smashed by powerhouse DI football programs and we were consistently losing money on top of getting our asses kicked, I’d dump football in an instant and throw the school’s financial support behind whatever sport generated the most profits.
If that sport were women’s volleyball, those girls would get the Cadillac treatment and the money losing sports, men and women, would get the Pinto treatment. There’s 2 reasons for this. 1) I want as big a bonus as I can get, and 2) I want profits from revenue sports to go back to the sport itself and to other college sports that can’t make money.
I’m pretty sure U. Conn. women’s basketball generates revenue. I believe that revenue should first be used on that sport, pay the coach more, get better hotels for the girls, etc.
I just don’t want to see college sports being a men’s football and basketball team, and then a bunch of women’s teams, and nothing else. I think that would be horrible and we seem to be heading in that direction.
That’s the market rate for top DI football coaches. Those schools are comparable to Penn State, which generated $75.5 million in revenue in 2016 and $40 million in profits.
I think it would be crazy to try to save money on coaching with that much money at stake. Top coaches with the best reps recruit top players, top players win more games and bowl games, which generates huge amounts of profit and revenue.
So no, I would not cut the football coaching budget to fund any non-revenue sport.
If a football program loses money, under my proposal, 85 women’s scholarships have to be doled out. Which is basically what’s happening now, so what’s your issue?
I find it hard to believe non-revenue men’s sports lose more. But if that is true, then I think it would be fair to cut more expensive men’s sport and keep the cheaper women’s sport.
Soccerfan2
GOLD
I have no issue, I said it’s weak. It doesn’t change anything.
You find facts hard to believe because of your underlying bias.
You find facts hard to believe because of your underlying bias.
You do realize that the bulk of the coaches salaries are paid by the booster club/alumni associations of these big scale universities, right?
The schools actually pay very little percentage of the highly publicized fee.
I was told by UCLA alum that the they paid $12m left on Mora's contract to fire him.
I'm not against football coaches getting paid. Heck I think D1 collegiate football players deserve compensation and should probably be allowed endorsement opps. But JJP is arguing that it' because of women's sports that non-marquee men's sports are getting drained. If indeed it is the alums who are coming up with 12 MILLION to fire a coach, I'm guessing they could come up with a couple hundred thousand for men's wrestling, track, or gymnastics team, right?
JJP please keep in mind that football is an exclusively male sport! If schools and alumni felt "other" men's sports were a priority, they could perhaps negotiate a couple hundred thousands out of those multi-millions to give back to other men's sports. Instead you want to take it away from the women, who can't play football, and that's the same backward thinking that made Title IX necessary in the first place.
coachrefparent
GOLD
So you reminded me of an example where Cal was going to shut down their baseball program because of Title IX few years ago. Some of the MLB alums from Cal stepped up and donated money to keep the program open and going.
Several colleges have quit their mens football and soccer because of TIX situations. Also, big schools like USC, Oregon have no mens soccer because they cannot make it work with TIX.
I understand why TIX exists but lets not pretend that it doesn't impact mens programs. They do. Just look at the amount of scholarships available for D1 soccer. Women's = 14, Mens=9.9, as an example.
The last thing that you're not quite correct is where the revenue is spent from mens programs. Mens football revenues go towards both gender athletic programs. They go to prop up non-revenue generating sports for men and women. Without the revenue from football and basketball, many sports programs will shut down, even at some of the biggest universities.
If you are so concerned about the men's soccer team being short 5 scholarships then take them from the football team. The number of women athletes in college is pretty close in number to the total roster of a large football program.
outside!
DA
Title IX exists because it is only fair that women should have equal opportunities. Men's D1 soccer has fewer scholarships than Women's because football takes the money. Remember, most college football programs lose money. As it is, women's sports still do not get half of the pie, even though they are the majority of college students. The problem is, football gets most of the men's slice of pie. If football programs trimmed their expenses (hotel rooms for home games!), there would be plenty of money for other men's sports.
You've missed the whole point. SMH...
You too...
Like I said, I get why TXI exists (as noted in my post above).
It does affect mens programs. Its a fact.
I also get that you have daughters and want equal opportunity for them - no argument.
Lets stick to the facts and not emotions.
No, you have missed the point. Women's sports and most sports in general are not revenue generating. They are intended first and foremost to be a part of the student body experience. The sad thing is that Title IX has to exist in the first place but women's sports overall are always going to be more vulnerable than men's sports in regards to not being funded. And last I checked, whether football, soccer or basketball all the kids play for the school first. It is not "Footballs money", it is the Schools money.
It's really not about money, it's about body count for Title IX compliance. If you have 90 boys on a football team, you need 90 girls on other teams to match it. That's why you'll see some schools that roster 40 girls on their soccer team; it helps balance out the numbers. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, a school will likely have to nix some boys programs to balance out the roster numbers.
Scholarship numbers, in contrast, are regulated by the NCAA. Those limits have nothing to do with Title IX. They were originally geared toward football programs that were giving out so many scholarships that they were hoarding players (Pitt purportedly gave out 90 scholarships to freshman football players one year). It remains unclear why the NCAA puts on these limits with other sports today and the purpose of doing so. If a school wants to have a great men's soccer team, but no football team, it seems the school should be able to allocate those scholarships to the men's soccer team. But the NCAA is geared toward protecting revenue generating sports at revenue generating institutions, so we may never see it changed.
You didn't read the last paragraph of what I wrote originally did you?
I said that revenue generating sports pay for non-revenue generating sports programs for men and women... Clearly indicating that its schools money.
Not interested in arguing with you.
Scholarship limits are established by the Division Councils, which are made up of college Presidents or their representatives. If the Presidents wanted to spend* more on soccer scholarships, they would do so.
As for balancing the numbers between men and women, that is not necessary either. As long as there is a reasonable effort at providing equal opportunities, there should be no Title IX issue. A given college, for instance, may have an unbalanced student population, or there might no be much interest in intercollegiate athletics. As long as no one has a legitimate complaint, there is no problem.
*"spend" is an artificial construct since the actual cost of an added scholarship disappears into accounting-tricks mud.
Except for when it comes to boosters. There are lots of ways programs keep money in their program that can't be "taxed" so to speak by the school. The example earlier of boosters paying the coaches salaries for example. That is all budget money that is not reallocated across the board so large men's sports are not necessarily contributing across the board as much as they would have you think.
Multi Sport
DA
I asked an AD this year if they were planning on adding Mens Soccer and his reply was "only if you can find me another Womens sport to add first." That sounds like a numbers game to me..
Your right. Clearly booster funds are targeted to particular sports.
That said, for revenue generating sports (i.e., football and basketball), its the TV rights revenue that pales anything else. The universities do control that revenue once it comes to them. That's what we're talking about. Booster money is an order of magnitude smaller than TV monies.