# It's Club Soccer - Don't Complain About it



## uburoi (Nov 26, 2017)

Club soccer is about winning. Any complaint about your coach, your team, the players on your team, the philosophy of the team, the coaching style, are all traced back to the club charter, which is to win. 

If your DD or DS is a young Xavi or Iniesta, they will be subbed out for a bigger, faster, stronger, less skilled player who can hunt down hopeful balls and run over the other team in order to win. It doesn’t matter how much time you spend developing your player's skills. Better to find your skilled player an academy team or other type of setup where they are respected and there is something more important than the final score. If you find a coach who appreciates you, stay with him or her. Your coach and your club do not share the same desire as you if your goal is to have your child develop, doesn’t matter what the age. If you don’t win games, place high enough in club league standings, you didn’t succeed, doesn’t matter the motivational speech the coach gives at the end of the season. Players will leave to find a winning team and so will the coach. This is not a soccer problem, this is an American problem that comes from the philosophy of other sports where there is no other way but to win. You can’t develop in an American football game or baseball game. No one thinks like that. Soccer is a young sport in the United States and it will take a while for those who participate in the game at any level to understand that we need to look at the game differently from other sports.

If you don’t care about what happens in the game, how it is played, have unlimited gas and travel money to pay for hotels and lunches out, don’t mind sitting all day in traffic or at random fields in your chair with a cooler in all weather, during holidays, or whenever the game is scheduled, and if you need a place for your DD or DS (or for yourself) to keep busy so no one gets bored sitting at home watching TV or playing vids getting fat... by all means sign up for club soccer.


----------



## timbuck (Nov 26, 2017)

Rough weekend?


----------



## uburoi (Nov 26, 2017)

timbuck said:


> Rough weekend?


End of season ramblings.


----------



## INFAMEE (Nov 26, 2017)

Club soccer is recreational, and for the most part so is DA and ECNL.

I understand your frustration but the end product is clearly manifested in the USMNT which couldn't even qualify for the World Cup.  It's a lose lose situation because even if you were to develop your player independently he still wouldn't meet the American kick and chase criteria at the upper levels.

Serious parents with semi knowledge of the sport need to either look down south of the border or Europe the ideal destination. Good luck.


----------



## Nutmeg (Nov 26, 2017)

uburoi said:


> Club soccer is about winning. Any complaint about your coach, your team, the players on your team, the philosophy of the team, the coaching style, are all traced back to the club charter, which is to win.
> 
> If your DD or DS is a young Xavi or Iniesta, they will be subbed out for a bigger, faster, stronger, less skilled player who can hunt down hopeful balls and run over the other team in order to win. It doesn’t matter how much time you spend developing your player's skills. Better to find your skilled player an academy team or other type of setup where they are respected and there is something more important than the final score. If you find a coach who appreciates you, stay with him or her. Your coach and your club do not share the same desire as you if your goal is to have your child develop, doesn’t matter what the age. If you don’t win games, place high enough in club league standings, you didn’t succeed, doesn’t matter the motivational speech the coach gives at the end of the season. Players will leave to find a winning team and so will the coach. This is not a soccer problem, this is an American problem that comes from the philosophy of other sports where there is no other way but to win. You can’t develop in an American football game or baseball game. No one thinks like that. Soccer is a young sport in the United States and it will take a while for those who participate in the game at any level to understand that we need to look at the game differently from other sports.
> 
> If you don’t care about what happens in the game, how it is played, have unlimited gas and travel money to pay for hotels and lunches out, don’t mind sitting all day in traffic or at random fields in your chair with a cooler in all weather, during holidays, or whenever the game is scheduled, and if you need a place for your DD or DS (or for yourself) to keep busy so no one gets bored sitting at home watching TV or playing vids getting fat... by all means sign up for club soccer.


Been here before for sure. Used to try to talk and dialogue with clubs but that’s a waste of time. The myth that is perpetuated by US Soccer is that the sport is a young sport here and we need more time. That is simply not true. Soccer in the US is more than 100 years old. Brought over by immigrants through Ellis Island, and South America.  This narrative has been systematically destroyed by the power elite to constantly recycle through new youth in order to profit from generations of players, and to deny access to large portions of the country who are not middle class or above. The game that we know today has been hijacked by a largely greedy suburban soft recreational soccer mom culture that seeks to deny and suppress history, true Soccer culture and long term development for control, power and money.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Nov 26, 2017)

Nutmeg said:


> Been here before for sure. Used to try to talk and dialogue with clubs but that’s a waste of time. The myth that is perpetuated by US Soccer is that the sport is a young sport here and we need more time. That is simply not true. Soccer in the US is more than 100 years old. Brought over by immigrants through Ellis Island, and South America.  This narrative has been systematically destroyed by the power elite to constantly recycle through new youth in order to profit from generations of players, and to deny access to large portions of the country who are not middle class or above. The game that we know today has been hijacked by a largely greedy suburban soft recreational soccer mom culture that seeks to deny and suppress history, true Soccer culture and long term development for control, power and money.


I gotta admit this is one confusing theory, "The game that we know today has been hijacked by a largely greedy suburban soft recreational soccer mom culture that seeks to deny and suppress history..." Please elaborate further.


----------



## Nutmeg (Nov 26, 2017)

LASTMAN14 said:


> I gotta admit this is one confusing theory, "The game that we know today has been hijacked by a largely greedy suburban soft recreational soccer mom culture that seeks to deny and suppress history..." Please elaborate further.


This is a big topic with lots of points but I will try...Basically it means that Soccer as we know it in the US is not the same that is played throughout the world. The story being sold by US Soccer and Soccer United Marketing and their media outlets is only the narrative they want told. That narrative does not allow for American soccer history to be told or for any culture that does not abide by the pay to play, anti competition, anti promotion/relegation structure of Soccer in our country to exist.  The Soccer suburban mindset does not allow for parents who pay for a season of Soccer to be relegated to a lower league because their club and coach failed to develope them and provide results.  The paying customer wants and demands status regardless of results. This disincentives clubs and coaches to produce quality players because what’s the point if there are never any consequences. This further reinforces the soft recreational mentality.  This rec mindset is our country. It is club soccer, college soccer, MLS and the NWSL. There is no difference between DA and AYSO, except one costs more. The mentality and culture is by and large the same. Thus the game of soccer as the world knows it has been hijacked here, not by the “Soccer mom” herself but rather by US Soccer, packaged and sold to the demographic that it values.


----------



## coachrefparent (Nov 26, 2017)

LASTMAN14 said:


> I gotta admit this is one confusing theory, "The game that we know today has been hijacked by a largely greedy suburban soft recreational soccer mom culture that seeks to deny and suppress history..." Please elaborate further.


Sounds like a bunch of words you'd learn at Cal, or an occupy pre-protest meeting.


----------



## Nutmeg (Nov 26, 2017)

coachrefparent said:


> Sounds like a bunch of words you'd learn at Cal, or an occupy pre-protest meeting.


Cal? How dare you sir. It comes from playing the game my whole life, coaching it, living in South America and Europe, traveling, and my having kids play the game. It’s just my thoughts shared on a forum.


----------



## uburoi (Nov 26, 2017)

coachrefparent said:


> Sounds like a bunch of words you'd learn at Cal, or an occupy pre-protest meeting.


Nutmeg is exactly right. The sport has not been allowed to grow the way it has elsewhere in the world. I blamed it on the need to win but there are more reasons, and the soccer mom phenomenon is part of it.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Nov 26, 2017)

Nutmeg said:


> This is a big topic with lots of points but I will try...Basically it means that Soccer as we know it in the US is not the same that is played throughout the world. The story being sold by US Soccer and Soccer United Marketing and their media outlets is only the narrative they want told. That narrative does not allow for American soccer history to be told or for any culture that does not abide by the pay to play, anti competition, anti promotion/relegation structure of Soccer in our country to exist.  The Soccer suburban mindset does not allow for parents who pay for a season of Soccer to be relegated to a lower league because their club and coach failed to develope them and provide results.  The paying customer wants and demands status regardless of results. This disincentives clubs and coaches to produce quality players because what’s the point if there are never any consequences. This further reinforces the soft recreational mentality.  This rec mindset is our country. It is club soccer, college soccer, MLS and the NWSL. There is no difference between DA and AYSO, except one costs more. The mentality and culture is by and large the same. Thus the game of soccer as the world knows it has been hijacked here, not by the “Soccer mom” herself but rather by US Soccer, packaged and sold to the demographic that it values.


Got it. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## SoccerFan4Life (Nov 26, 2017)

Club Soccer wouldn't exist if parents would just face reality that 99% of the kids will not make it to the pro's and 90% will not obtain scholarships.    With no demand, there is no club soccer.           My kids will never be pro's  or obtain a college scholarship.     Basically don't blame the clubs, blame yourself for thinking that your kid will become a pro and the club team will help him/her. 


The real problem for most of us is that if we want our kids to play high school soccer, they more than likely need club soccer experience.  This is becoming for of a fact with not just soccer but other high school sports.    

 So now we need to decide, do I spend the money for my kids to play in a club team so they have a chance to make it to high school?    Then you also start thinking, rec soccer is horrible because everyone gets a trophy (not the real world) and you need to join a new team every year or every 6 months and meet new parents and new players.   

       The fact is club soccer needs to focus on selling parents on the fact that kids will need to become team players, competitive, committed, organized, and make some friends along the way.      Now that to me is worth the money  (up to $1,800 max) to sign up to club soccer, these are life skills that they cannot get by sitting at home or playing in recreational teams.


----------



## Nutmeg (Nov 26, 2017)

SoccerFan4Life said:


> Club Soccer wouldn't exist if parents would just face reality that 99% of the kids will not make it to the pro's and 90% will not obtain scholarships.    With no demand, there is no club soccer.           My kids will never be pro's  or obtain a college scholarship.     Basically don't blame the clubs, blame yourself for thinking that your kid will become a pro and the club team will help him/her.
> 
> 
> The real problem for most of us is that if we want our kids to play high school soccer, they more than likely need club soccer experience.  This is becoming for of a fact with not just soccer but other high school sports.
> ...


This is a recreational mentality


----------



## SoccerFan4Life (Nov 26, 2017)

Nutmeg said:


> This is a recreational mentality


Nutmeg! Show me the stats to prove me wrong!!!  What percentage of boys playing soccer in SoCal, go pro (MLS, Europe)???   What percentage get more than 50% scholarship in college?    The fact is it that our boys are now competing with players from Mexico, Asia, Europe, and other parts of the world to obtain scholarships in college.    


 Please keep in mind, I am not saying club soccer is bad, I am bashing on the expectations of parents and what some of the coaches sell to parents.    My kids have been bench players in club soccer for several years, and I would do it all over again.   They are now in high school and they are keeping up with the busy schedule of sports and academics.  One of them is playing high school soccer and doing great against flight 1 players on his team.    The other one went to another sport and he is crushing it thanks to the years of pushing himself hard to become a starter during his years of signature and club soccer.   All that running in soccer, paid off for cross country and track & field.


----------



## Nutmeg (Nov 26, 2017)

SoccerFan4Life said:


> Nutmeg! Show me the stats to prove me wrong!!!  What percentage of boys playing soccer in SoCal, go pro (MLS, Europe)???   What percentage get more than 50% scholarship in college?    The fact is it that our boys are now competing with players from Mexico, Asia, Europe, and other parts of the world to obtain scholarships in college.
> 
> 
> Please keep in mind, I am not saying club soccer is bad, I am bashing on the expectations of parents and what some of the coaches sell to parents.    My kids have been bench players in club soccer for several years, and I would do it all over again.   They are now in high school and they are keeping up with the busy schedule of sports and academics.  One of them is playing high school soccer and doing great against flight 1 players on his team.    The other one went to another sport and he is crushing it thanks to the years of pushing himself hard to become a starter during his years of signature and club soccer.   All that running in soccer, paid off for cross country and track & field.


First off that’s great for your family and your kids. Clearly you have done well by them and I hope for continued success on and off the field. 
My talking points are mostly related to international level caliber players. The rec mindset does not fit these players or families thus they are often marginalized. The rec mindset of club, college etc is the problem.  We agree on club Soccer parents expectations. But my assertion is that those expectations of MOST parents and the coaches, clubs and federation that sell them is recreational in nature.  It’s marketed toward the masses. The dream to be sold is college not pro. Yes even bench players can and do play in college. The reason so few are able to make it in Europe (other than passport and FIFA articles on player movement) is our players are mostly inferior at an international level ages 14-19. College soccer on the boys side is a wasteland of talent and a path to nowhere but maybe an mls open tryout and low tier contract with no hopes of playing internationally. If there exsisted enough college quality boys from club soccer than colleges would not seek out foreign players. However that is not the case. And more international players value an American education. And those college coaches recognize their abilities are often times superior to domestic players. On the girls side it is marginally better but provides a better short term financial benefit than playing for free in the NWSL. College is a 3 months season and if you are a male and intending to play in it than that’s fantastic for you. But college soccer is simply an extension of club Soccer on the boys side.  The limited scholarship money is more an NCAA issue than anything as coaches will chop up money in most sports. As far as stats I have some but it’s on a national level not SoCal level. There are players with Passports lucky enough to be training overseas some make it some don’t. It’s hard to provide the proper context for how different it is overseas.


----------



## Calisoccer11 (Nov 26, 2017)

uburoi said:


> Nutmeg is exactly right. The sport has not been allowed to grow the way it has elsewhere in the world. I blamed it on the need to win but there are more reasons, and the soccer mom phenomenon is part of it.


Soccer Moms Rule!


----------



## Chalklines (Nov 26, 2017)

I'm going to tell you a secret.

I could care less about the score or what the "team" does. It's really only about my kid developing and doing their thing on the field.

If the coach is a nuckel head and can't create a competitive environment at practice and at least share some knowledge about the game to my kids, I'm out.

Most intelligent parents here will agree a clubs record means nothing because top players are discovered regardless.


----------



## uburoi (Nov 26, 2017)

Calisoccer11 said:


> Soccer Moms Rule!


No disrespect intended. When the game reaches a higher level, Little Jane or Johnny need to be able to step it up beyond what is comfortable for us parents who want it close, convenient and safe.


----------



## uburoi (Nov 26, 2017)

Chalklines said:


> I'm going to tell you a secret.
> 
> I could care less about the score or what the "team" does. It's really only about my kid developing and doing their thing on the field.
> 
> ...


So well said. Exactly the point of my post. Don’t expect the coach or club or team to care about making it competitive or worthwhile or anything close to what quality is.


----------



## INFAMEE (Nov 26, 2017)

Actually most coaches regress development and suck all the fun out the sport.

Except maybe for their high esteemed athletes that grow to be nothing more than that, athletes.


----------



## smellycleats (Nov 26, 2017)

uburoi said:


> Nutmeg is exactly right. The sport has not been allowed to grow the way it has elsewhere in the world. I blamed it on the need to win but there are more reasons, and the soccer mom phenomenon is part of it.


Hey why are soccer
Moms the scapegoat here? How bout those soccer dads...


----------



## Nutmeg (Nov 27, 2017)

smellycleats said:


> Hey why are soccer
> Moms the scapegoat here? How bout those soccer dads...


My apologies I use it as a overall reference point for both. I should use another phrase.


----------



## Multi Sport (Nov 27, 2017)

SoccerFan4Life said:


> Club Soccer wouldn't exist if parents would just face reality that 99% of the kids will not make it to the pro's and 90% will not obtain scholarships.


Where are you getting your numbers from? And if you feel your kid will never get a scholarship I hope that you are not paying over 2k a year for your kid to play.

If you are looking for only a D1 scholarship then you could have an argument but there are many scholarships availble, you just have to know where your kid fits in.


----------



## Chalklines (Nov 27, 2017)

smellycleats said:


> Hey why are soccer
> Moms the scapegoat here? How bout those soccer dads...


It's both. 

Some parents are delusional about talent especially when it comes to their own kids.

No Jimmy and Susie wont be going pro because they ride the pine on a bronze & silver level team. 

No Jimmy and Susie won't be getting full rides to pac 12 schools because they scored 1 goal against the 0-14 club of the league.

No Jimmy and Suzy won't be going pro because their dads 5'3" and their mothers 4'10, over weight and resembles a troll. 

Parents need a reality check. Life after club and recreational soccer (or any sport)  is rare....very rare but it's a possibility for the alpha dogs on the field. The rare special kids who with out a doubt put on a show week in and week out on a constant bacis and clearly pass the eye ball test for everyone watching.

Don't be a sucker as a parent. You owe it to yourself and kids. If a clubs telling you your child has tallent and your kids constantly MIA game day and stinks it up at practice accept you've been bamboozled by your club for access to your bank account.

It's not the coaches fault, not DOCs fault or the teammates around your kids fault. It's yours for buying into the marketing aspect of youth sports.


----------



## Grace T. (Nov 27, 2017)

Chalklines said:


> It's both.
> 
> Some parents are delusional about talent especially when it comes to their own kids.
> 
> ...



Good point about the marketing aspect of youth sports, but I doubt many parents are in it to have their kids become pros.  Given where MLS salaries are, a parent would either have to send their kid to Europe to break in (which is difficult given the closed academy system) or accept their kid has no other options but pro soccer (given that the academic choices are more numerous).  Sure, I think there may be some parents of girls who fantasize about the USWNT, but soccer is an upper middle class sport in the US, and most of those parents are eyeing college.  They've heard the stories (only partially true), that little Billy and Sallie have to be "well-rounded" to get into schools and that they need a sport.  They see the other kids jump from AYSO and when the club kids come back to do camps, it's always the club kids that smoke the AYSO All star players.  So, they feel they have to keep up with the rat race.  Can't have the kids "fall behind".  Sure, there are many that buy the marketing aspect of youth sport...sure their are some that buy the scholarship sale (even if with the amount of money invested in training you'd be better off often investing in something else and paying the tuition...absolutely true about that)...but I think it's a mistake to assume all the parents playing for the D or E teams of the mega clubs think their kids have futures in the MLS or the free rides.


----------



## coachrefparent (Nov 27, 2017)

Grace T. said:


> Good point about the marketing aspect of youth sports, but I doubt many parents are in it to have their kids become pros.  Given where MLS salaries are, a parent would either have to send their kid to Europe to break in (which is difficult given the closed academy system) or accept their kid has no other options but pro soccer (given that the academic choices are more numerous).  Sure, I think there may be some parents of girls who fantasize about the USWNT, but soccer is an upper middle class sport in the US, and most of those parents are eyeing college.  They've heard the stories (only partially true), that little Billy and Sallie have to be "well-rounded" to get into schools and that they need a sport.  They see the other kids jump from AYSO and when the club kids come back to do camps, it's always the club kids that smoke the AYSO All star players.  So, they feel they have to keep up with the rat race.  Can't have the kids "fall behind".  Sure, there are many that buy the marketing aspect of youth sport...sure their are some that buy the scholarship sale (even if with the amount of money invested in training you'd be better off often investing in something else and paying the tuition...absolutely true about that)...but I think it's a mistake to assume all the parents playing for the D or E teams of the mega clubs think their kids have futures in the MLS or the free rides.


I wholeheartedly agree. The whole premise that is being made, that parents with kids of lower teams that don't start think their kids will go pro or get scholarships because they pay lots of $$ for club,  is simply faulty. Nothing to argue against, because no one thinks this way, its not the big scam its made out to be.


----------



## mirage (Nov 27, 2017)

Chalklines said:


> .....It's not the coaches fault, not DOCs fault or the teammates around your kids fault. It's yours for buying into the marketing aspect of youth sports.


Agree with what's said but with an exception to the quote above.

It is partly coaches and DOC's fault.  Yes we all know its a business and buyer be aware but we are talking about youth sports, and in particular, children of parents who are paying - regardless however delusional they may be.

Coaches and DOC need to tell the truth and not accept some kids or that they need to let them know that reality.  Its uncomfortable conversation but it needs to happen.  If enough coaches and DOCs do this from all clubs, parents will get the message by the time they are at the 3rd and 4th clubs.


----------



## Kicker4Life (Nov 27, 2017)

mirage said:


> Agree with what's said but with an exception to the quote above.
> 
> It is partly coaches and DOC's fault.  Yes we all know its a business and buyer be aware but we are talking about youth sports, and in particular, children of parents who are paying - regardless however delusional they may be.
> 
> Coaches and DOC need to tell the truth and not accept some kids or that they need to let them know that reality.  Its uncomfortable conversation but it needs to happen.  If enough coaches and DOCs do this from all clubs, parents will get the message by the time they are at the 3rd and 4th clubs.


That’s like telling Mc Donald’s they need to be honest about what’s in the “pink slime” used to make McNuggets -or- how bad their food really is for you and your family.


----------



## sandshark (Nov 27, 2017)

To much money to made in youth soccer in the US for the sport to ever put the players development first, it has become nothing more then a money machine, SELL! SELL! SELL! SELL! It is lost forever. The money has changed the path to building world caliber players. It will never change as long as the rat race to have the biggest club, biggest tournaments and the biggest league and so on..  Accept what is and get ready for more because the greed has only just begun!


----------



## Deadpoolscores! (Nov 27, 2017)

Kicker4Life said:


> That’s like telling Mc Donald’s they need to be honest about what’s in the “pink slime” used to make McNuggets -or- how bad their food really is for you and your family.


Don't forget that they should blowup that little sign that states that some of the food they serve can cause cancer...btw the list is online and unfortunately most of the food people buy is on that list.


----------



## Multi Sport (Nov 27, 2017)

Chalklines said:


> No Jimmy and Susie wont be going pro because they ride the pine on a bronze & silver level team.
> 
> No Jimmy and Suzy won't be going pro because their dads 5'3" and their mothers 4'10, over weight and resembles a troll.
> .


Those two have nothing to do with how good the kid will be. 

What about the 8 or 10 year old just starting out? 

Also, Messi is taller then both his parents so I guess you would have ruled him out?


----------



## mirage (Nov 27, 2017)

Kicker4Life said:


> That’s like telling Mc Donald’s they need to be honest about what’s in the “pink slime” used to make McNuggets -or- how bad their food really is for you and your family.


.... to think of all those Nuggets kids ate on the road trips when they were so young.  Fries too.

Next think you'll going say is that greasy cheesy pizza is bad too....


----------



## mirage (Nov 27, 2017)

Multi Sport said:


> Those two have nothing to do with how good the kid will be.
> 
> What about the 8 or 10 year old just starting out?
> 
> Also, Messi is taller then both his parents so I guess you would have ruled him out?


So you're that guy that points to exceptions.  Just how common is Messi? 

I've had more than one scout tell me that they look at the size of parents when the kids are prepuberty to get a sense of potential size.  Depending on where they come from they consider nutrition of US diet versus their emigrated country's.

As for 8 to 10 years old, you can't tell about their size but you can tell about coordination and body control relative to peers, in general.  I'm sure one can point to exceptions but not the norm.


----------



## Grace T. (Nov 27, 2017)

Messi had human growth hormone.  He both proves and disproves on the rule.  On the one hand, they had to intervene.  On the other hand, well it's becoming much more common to intervene.


----------



## Grace T. (Nov 27, 2017)

sandshark said:


> To much money to made in youth soccer in the US for the sport to ever put the players development first, it has become nothing more then a money machine, SELL! SELL! SELL! SELL! It is lost forever. The money has changed the path to building world caliber players. It will never change as long as the rat race to have the biggest club, biggest tournaments and the biggest league and so on..  Accept what is and get ready for more because the greed has only just begun!


I don't think it's lost forever.  The current system exists because of some trends out there.  One, college has become hypercompetitive and parents have become paranoid about what they need to do to get their kids to succeed (lots of stories about fake charities, kids at kumon from early ages, mandatory music classes for unmusical kids).   There has to be a limit, though, to the current rat race as we are seeing in survey after survey that both time and cost are at a break point.  Two, our education system is firmly rooted in a belief that no child should be left behind, that every kid has a right to college and that every child (if taught properly) can be Mozart.  But despite the many political reforms (from NCLB to Common Core), we are seeing the limits of that strategy as reality always prevails in the end, and the politics will eventually change (don't know if they change right or left, but change is always a certainty).  Three, the pendulum swung from the feel-good Millennial generation to the hypercompetitive iGeneration.  It will swing again.  Four, there's a teaching gap in rec soccer that isn't present in other countries since AYSO and other rec relies about volunteers.  But you don't get to choose your coach, everyone gets equal play time, and your coach may not know what they are doing so parents looking to improve their kids (and that don't have the knowledge themselves) need to seek out the so-called professionals.  As the crop of kids raised in the late 90s and early 00s begins to have kids, they'll be less of a need for this, particularly as some of the more outlandish aspects of all this become more and more generally known (such as the Eagles contracts, or clubs promising scholarships which in the end don't materialize).  I think you are right it might get worse in the immediate future, but I think you are wrong that this lasts forever.  The value of club soccer will deteriorate as the US gets more of a soccer culture, and the rules of economics, or supply and demand, are hard and fast.


----------



## Multi Sport (Nov 27, 2017)

mirage said:


> So you're that guy that points to exceptions.  Just how common is Messi?
> 
> I've had more than one scout tell me that they look at the size of parents when the kids are prepuberty to get a sense of potential size.  Depending on where they come from they consider nutrition of US diet versus their emigrated country's.
> 
> As for 8 to 10 years old, you can't tell about their size but you can tell about coordination and body control relative to peers, in general.  I'm sure one can point to exceptions but not the norm.


Seriously? Scouts are looking at prepubescent kids and their parents? So if a scout looked at my prepubescent kid and then looked at my 5-10 build I'm sure they would have said "yep, that kid of his is going to be 6-3". 

My DD was cut from her first club team at U12. Should she have been told to give up? Better yet, I'll ask her college coach. 

This is part of the problem. Because a kid is too small, or now their parents don't pass the eye test, the kid is overlooked?


----------



## Multi Sport (Nov 27, 2017)

mirage said:


> So you're that guy that points to exceptions.  Just how common is Messi?
> 
> I've had more than one scout tell me that they look at the size of parents when the kids are prepuberty to get a sense of potential size.  Depending on where they come from they consider nutrition of US diet versus their emigrated country's.
> 
> As for 8 to 10 years old, you can't tell about their size but you can tell about coordination and body control relative to peers, in general.  I'm sure one can point to exceptions but not the norm.


BTW... Messi is taller then Maradona. Again, part of the problem in the US Soccer world.


----------



## SoccerFrenzy (Nov 27, 2017)

Why does the US look for height is what I am curious about? I have seen far better shorter players that have amazing ball skills that taller players don't have. I had the privilege to watch Mexico U15 National team this weekend and they were all average height and amazingly great players.


----------



## Multi Sport (Nov 27, 2017)

mirage said:


> So you're that guy that points to exceptions.  Just how common is Messi?
> 
> I've had more than one scout tell me that they look at the size of parents when the kids are prepuberty to get a sense of potential
> 
> ...


----------



## Multi Sport (Nov 27, 2017)

Bleacher report has a great article on the 25 best 5-7 players and shorter in the world. That would make for one heck of a team...


----------



## mirage (Nov 27, 2017)

Multi Sport said:


> BTW... Messi is taller then Maradona. Again, part of the problem in the US Soccer world.


You seem to be hung up on height thing.  I simply responded to you citing exception rather than a rule by using Messi not being tall but great (implied).  Not trying to argue with you.  Just simply reacting to your post.

Is height girls soccer thing?  Because its not on the boys side.  Most good U16+ teams are not stacked by players over 6 feet.  Many players in my son's college team is under 6' tall, including mine 5-11. An average height.

Yes Goalies and CBs are usually taller and bigger/thicker but there are exceptions there too. My 2002 boy on flight 1 team is a starting CB and is 5-8 (still growing).

As for looking at prepuberty kids, I should have said boys because they are much later than girls.  Not uncommon to have boys finish growing height in college.

This forum has a gender bias and assumes everyone is talking about DD, unless explicitly stated multiple times.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Nov 27, 2017)

Multi Sport said:


> Bleacher report has a great article on the 25 best 5-7 players and shorter in the world. That would make for one heck of a team...


It would cool to see that article! And kidding partially aside to know who is on your short list from it.  The top 11.


----------



## Lambchop (Nov 27, 2017)

Multi Sport said:


> BTW... Mess





INFAMEE said:


> Club soccer is recreational, and for the most part so is DA and ECNL.
> 
> I understand your frustration but the end product is clearly manifested in the USMNT which couldn't even qualify for the World Cup.  It's a lose lose situation because even if you were to develop your player independently he still wouldn't meet the American kick and chase criteria at the upper levels.
> 
> Serious parents with semi knowledge of the sport need to either look down south of the border or Europe the ideal destination. Good luck.


Hmm, of 193 countries 31 qualified for WC.  Does that mean 162 countries don't know or understand how to play soccer?


----------



## Lambchop (Nov 27, 2017)

Grace T. said:


> I don't think it's lost forever.  The current system exists because of some trends out there.  One, college has become hypercompetitive and parents have become paranoid about what they need to do to get their kids to succeed (lots of stories about fake charities, kids at kumon from early ages, mandatory music classes for unmusical kids).   There has to be a limit, though, to the current rat race as we are seeing in survey after survey that both time and cost are at a break point.  Two, our education system is firmly rooted in a belief that no child should be left behind, that every kid has a right to college and that every child (if taught properly) can be Mozart.  But despite the many political reforms (from NCLB to Common Core), we are seeing the limits of that strategy as reality always prevails in the end, and the politics will eventually change (don't know if they change right or left, but change is always a certainty).  Three, the pendulum swung from the feel-good Millennial generation to the hypercompetitive iGeneration.  It will swing again.  Four, there's a teaching gap in rec soccer that isn't present in other countries since AYSO and other rec relies about volunteers.  But you don't get to choose your coach, everyone gets equal play time, and your coach may not know what they are doing so parents looking to improve their kids (and that don't have the knowledge themselves) need to seek out the so-called professionals.  As the crop of kids raised in the late 90s and early 00s begins to have kids, they'll be less of a need for this, particularly as some of the more outlandish aspects of all this become more and more generally known (such as the Eagles contracts, or clubs promising scholarships which in the end don't materialize).  I think you are right it might get worse in the immediate future, but I think you are wrong that this lasts forever.  The value of club soccer will deteriorate as the US gets more of a soccer culture, and the rules of economics, or supply and demand, are hard and fast.


Don't forget kids with multiple birth certificates!


----------



## Chalklines (Nov 27, 2017)

Multi Sport said:


> Seriously? Scouts are looking at prepubescent kids and their parents?


It's all odds. Scouts do this for numerous sports. It gives you an insight on whats to come. Process of elimination, especially for girls. Look at the mother. Especially the hips, height and weight.  Its key factor that eliminates quite a few girls from sports around their sophomore year of high school. 

If your going to invest in an athlete and distribute a portion of your universitys scholarship funds you better be sure. 

If your married,  I'm also sure you have been told to take a good look at your mother-in-law because there's a very high percentage your wife's going to end up looking just like her.


----------



## Nutmeg (Nov 27, 2017)

Chalklines said:


> It's all odds. Scouts do this for numerous sports. It gives you an insight on whats to come. Process of elimination, especially for girls. Look at the mother. Especially the hips, height and weight.  Its key factor that eliminates quite a few girls from sports around their sophomore year of high school.
> 
> If your going to invest in an athlete and distribute a portion of your universitys scholarship funds you better be sure.
> 
> If your married,  I'm also sure you have been told to take a good look at your mother-in-law because there's a very high percentage your wife's going to end up looking just like her.


Dude seriously with this.


----------



## sandshark (Nov 27, 2017)

Grace T. said:


> I don't think it's lost forever.  The current system exists because of some trends out there.  One, college has become hypercompetitive and parents have become paranoid about what they need to do to get their kids to succeed (lots of stories about fake charities, kids at kumon from early ages, mandatory music classes for unmusical kids).   There has to be a limit, though, to the current rat race as we are seeing in survey after survey that both time and cost are at a break point.  Two, our education system is firmly rooted in a belief that no child should be left behind, that every kid has a right to college and that every child (if taught properly) can be Mozart.  But despite the many political reforms (from NCLB to Common Core), we are seeing the limits of that strategy as reality always prevails in the end, and the politics will eventually change (don't know if they change right or left, but change is always a certainty).  Three, the pendulum swung from the feel-good Millennial generation to the hypercompetitive iGeneration.  It will swing again.  Four, there's a teaching gap in rec soccer that isn't present in other countries since AYSO and other rec relies about volunteers.  But you don't get to choose your coach, everyone gets equal play time, and your coach may not know what they are doing so parents looking to improve their kids (and that don't have the knowledge themselves) need to seek out the so-called professionals.  As the crop of kids raised in the late 90s and early 00s begins to have kids, they'll be less of a need for this, particularly as some of the more outlandish aspects of all this become more and more generally known (such as the Eagles contracts, or clubs promising scholarships which in the end don't materialize).  I think you are right it might get worse in the immediate future, but I think you are wrong that this lasts forever.  The value of club soccer will deteriorate as the US gets more of a soccer culture, and the rules of economics, or supply and demand, are hard and fast.


WOW that is a long read you lost me at.. "I don't think" But then I went back and tried to comprehend your point and could not do it.


----------



## Grace T. (Nov 27, 2017)

sandshark said:


> WOW that is a long read you lost me at.. "I don't think" But then I went back and tried to comprehend your point and could not do it.


Cliffs notes version: nothing lasts forever.


----------



## Multi Sport (Nov 27, 2017)

LASTMAN14 said:


> It would cool to see that article! And kidding partially aside to know who is on your short list from it.  The top 11.


Maybe it's due to the new Platinum membership but I'm having a difficult time posting the link.


----------



## Multi Sport (Nov 27, 2017)

Speaking of short players.. just watched Modric burry a shot. 


mirage said:


> You seem to be hung up on height thing.  I simply responded to you citing exception rather than a rule by using Messi not being tall but great (implied).  Not trying to argue with you.  Just simply reacting to your post.
> 
> Is height girls soccer thing?  Because its not on the boys side.  Most good U16+ teams are not stacked by players over 6 feet.  Many players in my son's college team is under 6' tall, including mine 5-11. An average height.
> 
> ...


And I was replying to you saying Messi is the exception. Pro Soccer in Europe is full of small players, that was my point.   Anyone playing in La Liga is probably an exception, regardless of height. 

I will agree you on a point. It is more difficult for a kid to catch a coaches eye if they don't pass the eye test. Not impossible just harder. It's a sad statement but true.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Nov 27, 2017)

Multi Sport said:


> Maybe it's due to the new Platinum membership but I'm having a difficult time posting the link.


Ah, man...Platinum has a couple kinks to work out. Guess its not the gold standard yet.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Nov 27, 2017)

Multi Sport said:


> Maybe it's due to the new Platinum membership but I'm having a difficult time posting the link.


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/857543-lionel-messi-and-the-25-best-small-players-in-the-world-right-now


----------



## INFAMEE (Nov 27, 2017)

Lambchop said:


> Hmm, of 193 countries 31 qualified for WC.  Does that mean 162 countries don't know or understand how to play soccer?


If you lose to Trinidad and Tobago in order to make the super weak CONCACAF qualification the answer is yes.

If you're Chile in S.America vs elite countries made of World Class talent then the answer is no. Same in regards to Italy in Europe.

Btw you sure do post A lot for someone with little knowledge of the sport.

'Club soccer is recreational' yes.


----------



## Lambchop (Nov 27, 2017)

INFAMEE said:


> If you lose to Trinidad and Tobago in order to make the super weak CONCACAF qualification the answer is yes.
> 
> If you're Chile in S.America vs elite countries made of World Class talent then the answer is no. Same in regards to Italy in Europe.
> 
> ...


You don't know me, you don't know what I have done or where I have lived and you certainly don't know what I know.  But of course you are all knowing.


----------



## SoccerFan4Life (Nov 27, 2017)

Multi Sport said:


> Where are you getting your numbers from? And if you feel your kid will never get a scholarship I hope that you are not paying over 2k a year for your kid to play.
> 
> If you are looking for only a D1 scholarship then you could have an argument but there are many scholarships availble, you just have to know where your kid fits in.



 8% of high school soccer boys get to play college soccer (any college).  Of this the average  team gives away 9 to 10 scholarships per team.     Once you factor in that 10% of the college players are international students,  the probability of the 10 scholarships going to international students is much higher than the domestic players.   

So of the 450,000 high school boys playing soccer there's no more than 14,000 scholarships available (probably less).   That's basically 3% can get a scholarship but the reality it's much lower than this because not all of the schools offer a scholarship and a good amount of these go to international soccer players.        My math could be completely wrong but I think these numbers are close enough.  So it's not 99% and more like 98% of kids will not get a scholarship  LOL!!!!

Source:    http://www.scholarshipstats.com/soccer.html


----------



## ajaxahi (Nov 27, 2017)

LASTMAN14 said:


> It would cool to see that article! And kidding partially aside to know who is on your short list from it.  The top 11.


My all world short guy team. Pretty decent squad I would say although they wouldn’t enjoy rotating at keeper and corners would be an adventure. 

Ngolo Kante 5’6”
Dani Alves 5’7”
Jordi Alba 5’7”
Marco Verratti 5’6”
Andres Iniesta 5’7”
Eden Hazard 5’7”
David Silva 5’6”
Alexis Sanchez 5’6”
Philippe Coutinho 5’7”
Raheem Sterling 5’6”
Lionel Messi 5’7”

My guess is those American “scouts” so obsessed with size would have passed on almost every one of these guys.


----------



## ajaxahi (Nov 27, 2017)

That Bleacher Report article actually includes players 5’9” and shorter. That’s way too easy, as there are too many world class players that size to count! So I challenged myself to field a squad 5’7” or less. By the way looks like I forgot the great Dani Carvajal at 5’7”.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Nov 27, 2017)

ajaxahi said:


> My all world short guy team. Pretty decent squad I would say although they wouldn’t enjoy rotating at keeper and corners would be an adventure.
> 
> Ngolo Kante 5’6”
> Dani Alves 5’7”
> ...


I am surprised you have Sterling on that list. Maybe Pedro at 5'6.


----------



## JJP (Nov 27, 2017)

SoccerFan4Life said:


> 8% of high school soccer boys get to play college soccer (any college).  Of this the average  team gives away 9 to 10 scholarships per team.     Once you factor in that 10% of the college players are international students,  the probability of the 10 scholarships going to international students is much higher than the domestic players.
> 
> So of the 450,000 high school boys playing soccer there's no more than 14,000 scholarships available (probably less).   That's basically 3% can get a scholarship but the reality it's much lower than this because not all of the schools offer a scholarship and a good amount of these go to international soccer players.        My math could be completely wrong but I think these numbers are close enough.  So it's not 99% and more like 98% of kids will not get a scholarship  LOL!!!!
> 
> Source:    http://www.scholarshipstats.com/soccer.html


That’s not quite right.

To get the scholarship, you have to have grades plus the soccer ability.  Soccer is not a revenue sport.  Unlike men’s football or basketball, you can’t get in on ability alone.  SoCal is viewed as the top recruiting area, so SoCal kids with good grades and starting on an academy team should have an easy time getting scholarships.  Kids with shitty grades, they are going to have a tough time no matter how good they are.  There are a lot of kids on academy teams with poor grades so even good academy players will not necessarily wind up with a scholarship.

SoCal kids that are good players but not on an academy team and with good grades will have to do College ID camps and showcases to draw interest.

So the numbers you post don’t mean much without the context of grades factored in.

The scholarship money is so little, you will probably have spent more on club fees and driving than any savings you get from a scholarship.  The main benefit is, it helps get the kid into a school that fits him, and allows him or her to play in college.


----------



## JJP (Nov 27, 2017)

ajaxahi said:


> Ngolo Kante 5’6”
> Dani Alves 5’7”
> Jordi Alba 5’7”
> Marco Verratti 5’6”
> ...


I dunno.   You’d have to be the shittiest scout ever to miss on those guys.


----------



## Multi Sport (Nov 27, 2017)

JJP said:


> That’s not quite right.
> 
> To get the scholarship, you have to have grades plus the soccer ability.  Soccer is not a revenue sport.  Unlike men’s football or basketball, you can’t get in on ability alone.  SoCal is viewed as the top recruiting area, so SoCal kids with good grades and starting on an academy team should have an easy time getting scholarships.  Kids with shitty grades, they are going to have a tough time no matter how good they are.  There are a lot of kids on academy teams with poor grades so even good academy players will not necessarily wind up with a scholarship.
> 
> ...


Agree with most of what you posted except your final paragraph. We were pleasantly surprised in the amount of scholarship $ my DD received. Granted, they gave her both academic and athletic but soccer is what got her in and her grades made it easier for the coach to make her an offer.


----------



## JJP (Nov 27, 2017)

Multi Sport said:


> Agree with most of what you posted except your final paragraph. We were pleasantly surprised in the amount of scholarship $ my DD received. Granted, they gave her both academic and athletic but soccer is what got her in and her grades made it easier for the coach to make her an offer.


Congrats.  It might be different for girls, but for boys getting non-football, non-basketball scholarships the money is so little.  After the football, basketball and Title 9 money is dished out, there’s crumbs left for everyone else.  Boys will often get better scholarship from D3 rather than D1 schools, they just get a “need” scholarship in lieu of an athletic scholarship.


----------



## SoccerFan4Life (Nov 28, 2017)

JJP said:


> That’s not quite right.
> 
> To get the scholarship, you have to have grades plus the soccer ability.  Soccer is not a revenue sport.  Unlike men’s football or basketball, you can’t get in on ability alone.  SoCal is viewed as the top recruiting area, so SoCal kids with good grades and starting on an academy team should have an easy time getting scholarships.  Kids with shitty grades, they are going to have a tough time no matter how good they are.  There are a lot of kids on academy teams with poor grades so even good academy players will not necessarily wind up with a scholarship.
> 
> ...


----------



## coachrefparent (Nov 28, 2017)

JJP said:


> Congrats.  It might be different for girls, but for boys getting non-football, non-basketball scholarships the money is so little.  After the football, basketball and Title 9 money is dished out, there’s crumbs left for everyone else.  Boys will often get better scholarship from D3 rather than D1 schools, they just get a “need” scholarship in lieu of an athletic scholarship.


And just another reason why the best U.S. athletes  choose  football or basketball over soccer.


----------



## NumberTen (Nov 28, 2017)

mirage said:


> This forum has a gender bias and assumes everyone is talking about DD, unless explicitly stated multiple times.


Agreed


----------



## sandshark (Nov 28, 2017)

ajaxahi said:


> My all world short guy team. Pretty decent squad I would say although they wouldn’t enjoy rotating at keeper and corners would be an adventure.
> 
> Ngolo Kante 5’6”
> Dani Alves 5’7”
> ...



Short people - they got little hands
And little eyes
And they walk around
Tellin' great big lies
They got little noses
And tiny little teeth
They wear platform shoes
On their nasty little feet
Well, I don't want no short people
Don't want no short people
Don't want no short people
Round here
Short people are just the same
Short people got nobody
To love
They got little baby legs
And they stand so low
You got to pick 'em up


----------



## JJP (Nov 28, 2017)

coachrefparent said:


> And just another reason why the best U.S. athletes  choose  football or basketball over soccer.


Gotta disagree with u here.  Soccer bodies and skills are different.  3 sub limitations means minimum you need 7 players (not including goalie) to run for 90 minutes.  Soccer favors smaller, sleeker athletes than basketball or football (Why carry extra weight for 90 minutes? Who needs extra foot of height when the ball is at your feet?)

If you look at the world’s greatest soccer players and rising youngsters, guys like Messi, C. Ronaldo, Neymar, Suarez, Mbappe, O. Dembele, all of them are too short to be NBA players.  And of that group, only Ronaldo and Suarez could possibly play NFL, but I doubt it.


----------



## Deadpoolscores! (Nov 28, 2017)

JJP said:


> And of that group, only Ronaldo and Suarez could possibly play NFL, but I doubt it.


I would say Hulk from Brazil has the size to play for the NFL


----------



## Real Deal (Nov 28, 2017)

Chalklines said:


> It's all odds. Scouts do this for numerous sports. It gives you an insight on whats to come. Process of elimination, especially for girls. *Look at the mother.* Especially the hips, height and weight.  Its key factor that eliminates quite a few girls from sports around their sophomore year of high school.
> 
> If your going to invest in an athlete and distribute a portion of your universitys scholarship funds you better be sure.


Better yet, Scouts should look at the wives! (Height is clearly not a factor):


----------



## Sons of Pitches (Nov 28, 2017)

Chalklines said:


> It's all odds. Scouts do this for numerous sports. It gives you an insight on whats to come. Process of elimination, especially for girls. Look at the mother. Especially the hips, height and weight.  Its key factor that eliminates quite a few girls from sports around their sophomore year of high school.
> 
> If your going to invest in an athlete and distribute a portion of your universitys scholarship funds you better be sure.
> 
> If your married,  I'm also sure you have been told to take a good look at your mother-in-law because there's a very high percentage your wife's going to end up looking just like her.


My parents are 5'8" and 5'6",  I am 6'4" and played college basketball.  My wife was a college gymnast and is 5'1", our 14 year old daughter is 5'8" and growing taller everyday it seems.  This seems like yet another failure in our scouting system.  Scouting kids and offering scholarships before they are fully developed is just another example of why our system is failing in many aspects.


----------



## smellycleats (Nov 28, 2017)

coachrefparent said:


> And just another reason why the best U.S. athletes  choose  football or basketball over soccer.


For boys. Best female athletes choose soccer.


----------



## outside! (Nov 29, 2017)

JJP said:


> Congrats.  It might be different for girls, but for boys getting non-football, non-basketball scholarships the money is so little.  After the football, basketball and Title 9 money is dished out, there’s crumbs left for everyone else.  Boys will often get better scholarship from D3 rather than D1 schools, they just get a “need” scholarship in lieu of an athletic scholarship.


Title IX has nothing to do with how much scholarship money is available for male sports. Females make up more than half the population and more than half of the number of undergraduate college students. I am not able to quickly find what the proportion is of scholarship dollars, but I would be surprised if women get more than half of the scholarship dollars available due to the unequal opportunities for female athletes at younger ages in the US due to various factors (cultural, tradition, etc.). Football is the biggest reason non-football male athletes have fewer athletic scholarship opportunities.


----------



## mirage (Nov 29, 2017)

smellycleats said:


> For boys. Best female athletes choose soccer.


My observation is the the best female athletes choose individual sports and not soccer.


----------



## mirage (Nov 29, 2017)

Real Deal said:


> Better yet, Scouts should look at the wives! (Height is clearly not a factor):
> 
> View attachment 1722 View attachment 1728View attachment 1725


No money and fame are....


----------



## mirage (Nov 29, 2017)

Sons of Pitches said:


> My parents are 5'8" and 5'6",  I am 6'4" and played college basketball.  My wife was a college gymnast and is 5'1", our 14 year old daughter is 5'8" and growing taller everyday it seems.  This seems like yet another failure in our scouting system.  Scouting kids and offering scholarships before they are fully developed is just another example of why our system is failing in many aspects.


Again there are always exceptions but for the most part, offsprings tend to share genetic characteristics with their parents.  Not an opinion - its a fact.

While gene can get passed down not obvious from immediate parents, it is in the family some where or the source same from a different gene pool or some mutation/stimulation has occurred that is not the norm.

Clearly you daughter has inherited your height and even if she stopped growing at this level, she would be consider to be on the tall side for general female population.  So the scout would look at you and see her height at 14 yrs and probably think that there may be a bit left but being female, they would take into an account where else she is in her puberty phase and make the call.


----------



## JJP (Nov 29, 2017)

outside! said:


> Title IX has nothing to do with how much scholarship money is available for male sports.


False.  Men’s football and basketball earn the the money and are the golden goose.  Women’s sports and the remaining men’s sports spend the money.  Colleges will only allocate so much money to non-revenue sports.  To balance the REVENUE EARNING 97 men’s football and basketball scholarships doled out (85 football 12 b-ball), about 97 NON-REVENUE women’s sports scholarships have to be handed out to comply with Title 9.  Very little is left over for NON-REVENUE men’s sports scholarships.

Basically, the non-revenue sports are competing for the football and basketball money.  Title 9 guarantees that non-revenue women’s sports will get a lot more of the football/basketball dollars than non-revenue men’s sports.



> Females make up more than half the population and more than half of the number of undergraduate college students. I am not able to quickly find what the proportion is of scholarship dollars, but I would be surprised if women get more than half of the scholarship dollars available due to the unequal opportunities for female athletes at younger ages in the US due to various factors (cultural, tradition, etc.). Football is the biggest reason non-football male athletes have fewer athletic scholarship opportunities.


I can’t believe you are blaming football, which along with men’s basketball, produced the money that funds women’s scholarships, as the reason why male athletes have fewer scholarships.  Without football and men’s basketball, there’s no money to fund any scholarships.  You are creating a false equivalency between REVENUE EARNING scholarships and NON-REVENUE EARNING SCHOLARSHIPS.  Title 9 is obviously the only reason why men’s sports outside of football and basketball have so little funding.

I don’t have an issue with women’s sports receiving football money.  My opinion is, non-revenue sports should split the money equally between the boys and girls.  Because the way things are done now, a lot of men’s sports, like wrestling, men’s track and field, gymnastics, lacrosse, soccer, volleyball are getting wiped out at the college level.

It’s like college men’s sports have gone to divorce court and got stuck with all the bills and child and spousal support and then we don’t even get to play or watch our own games.  It sucks.


----------



## coachrefparent (Nov 29, 2017)

smellycleats said:


> For boys. Best female athletes choose soccer.


Maybe, but they should choose golf or tennis or another sport they can make some money.


JJP said:


> False.  Men’s football and basketball earn the the money and are the golden goose.  Women’s sports and the remaining men’s sports spend the money.  Colleges will only allocate so much money to non-revenue sports.  To balance the REVENUE EARNING 97 men’s football and basketball scholarships doled out (85 football 12 b-ball), about 97 NON-REVENUE women’s sports scholarships have to be handed out to comply with Title 9.  Very little is left over for NON-REVENUE men’s sports scholarships.
> 
> Basically, the non-revenue sports are competing for the football and basketball money.  Title 9 guarantees that non-revenue women’s sports will get a lot more of the football/basketball dollars than non-revenue men’s sports.
> 
> ...


He's not blaming football, he's blaming football scholarships, which is exactly what you are saying. As noted Title 9 requires that the total scholarship $$ for men/women be roughly equal. Your proposal for non-revenue sports equally splitting wouldn't fit the bill.

And yes,  Outside is correct when he states "Title IX has nothing to do with how much scholarship money is available for male sports." The reason there is little $$ left for soccer and other small sports for men, is because all (most of) the men's $ is given to the big sport players. 

Colleges choose to give a lot of scholarship $$ for revenue generating sports (as it keeps the $$ machine working), but they don't _have to_ under Title 9.


----------



## outside! (Nov 29, 2017)

Men's football does not produce more revenue than they spend at most schools.


----------



## JJP (Nov 29, 2017)

coachrefparent said:


> He's not blaming football, he's blaming football scholarships, which is exactly what you are saying.


Uhh OK you lost me.  Not sure what you’re getting at.  Outside is blaming football/football scholarships, I’m saying it’s obviously Title 9 as the reason why men’s college sports outside of football and basketball get so little funding.  I’m incredulous people are even disputing this.



> As noted Title 9 requires that the total scholarship $$ for men/women be roughly equal. Your proposal for non-revenue sports equally splitting wouldn't fit the bill.


Yes, I know that.  Title 9 essentially mandates that the finite amount of money available to non-revenue sports be given mainly to women’s sports, which is starving men’s sports outside of football and b-ball.  Hence the logical conclusion Title 9 has promoted women’s sports at the expense of mens non-revenue sports.



> And yes,  Outside is correct when he states "Title IX has nothing to do with how much scholarship money is available for male sports." The reason there is little $$ left for soccer and other small sports for men, is because all (most of) the men's $ is given to the big sport players.
> 
> Colleges choose to give a lot of scholarship $$ for revenue generating sports (as it keeps the $$ machine working), but they don't _have to_ under Title 9.


Huh?  Explain to me how it makes sense to starve the golden goose to feed any non-revenue sport, men of women.   It’s crazy how you guys are reaching to absolve Title 9 for its role in decimating men’s college sports outside of football and b-ball.

It’s not that hard.  It’s a zero-sum game with regard to the football and b-ball money provided to non-revenue sports.   The more dollars given to women’s sports, as mandated by Title 9, the less dollars for the smaller men’s sports.  I’m pretty sure without Title 9 that’s not how money would be allocated.  So it’s logical to say Title 9 is the reason smaller men’s sports are financially hurting at college level.

Your attempt to absolve Title 9 by suggesting colleges not fund men’s football and basketball to fund smaller men’s sports is not even a solution, it’s financially undoable.


----------



## Multi Sport (Nov 29, 2017)

outside! said:


> Men's football does not produce more revenue than they spend at most schools.


Have you ever visited a major D1 Football training facility? Insanely over the top. But they use them as a recruiting tool...


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Nov 29, 2017)

Multi Sport said:


> Have you ever visited a major D1 Football training facility? Insanely over the top. But they use them as a recruiting tool...


That explains why Alabama is partly successful. There facility is beyond most.


----------



## Chalklines (Nov 29, 2017)

outside! said:


> Men's football does not produce more revenue than they spend at most schools.


Your right. 

Just like any lucrative business you always want to spend more then you make "on paper".


----------



## outside! (Nov 29, 2017)

Once again, most college football programs do not earn more money than they spend especially if you factor in ALL of the costs associated with football like the value of the publicly owned land where the stadium sits, etc. What color goose is that? The facts are that women are still not treated equally in any category in this county, even though they make up more than half of our population.


----------



## outside! (Nov 29, 2017)

Chalklines said:


> Your right.
> 
> Just like any lucrative business you always want to spend more then you make "on paper".


Most college football programs are not "lucrative businesses". They are in fact funded by student fees, like every other college sport.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Nov 29, 2017)

Here is an interesting article by the NCAA itself. It is a couple of years old.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/08/ncaa_study_finds_all_but_20_fb.html


----------



## Sons of Pitches (Nov 29, 2017)

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015 Division I RE report.pdf

i am pretty sure someone on this forum probably has the time an inclination to read the above NCAA report, summarizing the revenues and expenses associated with college sports.  2004 - to 2014, breakdown by FBS Football, FCS football, no football, etc...


----------



## JJP (Nov 29, 2017)

outside! said:


> Most college football programs are not "lucrative businesses". They are in fact funded by student fees, like every other college sport.


I don’t know the situation at every school, but big time DI schools make HUGE amounts of cash.

http://www.pennlive.com/pennstatefootball/index.ssf/2017/03/from_penn_state_footballs_reve.html

Penn State football earned $75.5 million and had profit of $39.9 million.  I know for a fact that big time SoCal high school football programs earn about $400k per televised game.


----------



## Real Deal (Nov 29, 2017)

JJP said:


> *I can’t believe you are blaming football, which along with men’s basketball*, produced the money that funds women’s scholarships, as the reason why male athletes have fewer scholarships.  Without football and men’s basketball, there’s no money to fund any scholarships.  You are creating a false equivalency between REVENUE EARNING scholarships and NON-REVENUE EARNING SCHOLARSHIPS.  Title 9 is obviously the only reason why men’s sports outside of football and basketball have so little funding.
> 
> I don’t have an issue with women’s sports receiving football money.  My opinion is, non-revenue sports should split the money equally between the boys and girls.  Because the way things are done now, a lot of men’s sports, like wrestling, men’s track and field, gymnastics, lacrosse, soccer, volleyball are getting wiped out at the college level.
> 
> It’s like college men’s sports have gone to divorce court and got stuck with all the bills and child and spousal support and then we don’t even get to play or watch our own games.  It sucks.


Sure, blame the women.  Maybe the men had to go to "divorce court" since they cheated in the first place.
Great article from ESPN on _5 Myths about Title IX _also agrees with Outside.  Perhaps you should read it (link below):

"*So what causes (men's) non-revenue sports to be dropped? King football and prince basketball.* Football and hoops programs constitute 78 percent of men's sports budgets in Division I's Football Bowl Subdivision. In Division III, those sports take up just 41 percent of men's costs. Put another way, the need to spend money to stay in the big time crowds out other sports. But over the years, as Hogshead and others point out, administrators have found it more convenient to blame Title IX than football or men's basketball for cuts to non-revenue men's programs.

Schools must decide where to spend their money. And often, when they decide to cut non-revenue men's sports -- such as wrestling, swimming and tennis -- it's not so they can fund women's sports, but rather so they can pump more money into football. In 2006, Rutgers University decided to cut men's tennis, which had a budget of approximately $175,000. That same year, as The National Women's Law Center points out, Rutgers spent approximately $175,000 on hotel rooms for its football team -- for home games."

The article continues with more examples.

http://www.espn.com/espnw/title-ix/article/7729603/five-myths-title-ix


----------



## Multi Sport (Nov 29, 2017)

LASTMAN14 said:


> That explains why Alabama is partly successful. There facility is beyond most.


It's insane the amount of $$ these schools put into their facilities. I was at one on 04 and thought it was crazy but then went back again this year... it had tripled in size. What was their weight room was now their game room. I was told that it is a recruiting tool and that it was like an arms race in the ACC to see who has the best facility.


----------



## JJP (Nov 29, 2017)

I feel like I’m living in bizzaro world.  Anyone blaming men’s football or basketball for the death of the smaller men’s sports needs to take Econ and Accounting 101 because they are engaging in sophistry to justify Title 9.  Men’s football and and basketball are PROFITABLE.  They make EXTRA money, a portion of that extra money is allocated to non-revenue sports.

When the AD decides, I am going to spend an extra $100k on our kickass football program so we can win more games and make more money, here is what ACTUALLY happens.

1. The football budget goes up by $100k.
2. The non-revenue sports budget goes down by $100k
3. The AD has to ax a non-revenue sport.
4. Guess what? He is going to ax a men’s non-revenue sport, not a woman’s sport.  Why? Because he can’t stay in compliance with Title 9 if he axes a woman’s sport.

How does ESPN Woman’s magazine interpret this?  They blame football for “stealing” money from the non-revenue men’s sport and killing it.

What are the ACTUAL FACTS?
1.  Football didn’t “steal” money from the non-revenue men’s sport because it’s football’s money.  Football can spend their money on football instead of non-revenue sports if they want to.
2.  With less money in the non-revenue sports budget, the AD has to make cuts while AT THE SAME TIME REMAINING IN COMPLIANCE with Title 9.
3. Again, Title 9 requires the bulk of money budgeted for non-revenue sports be given to the girls, and the boys get the shaft.  This is fact.

To say Title 9 is not responsible for killing smaller men’s sports requires a bunch of obviously false and illogical assumptions, such as non-revenue scholarships are equivalent to football scholarships, or that football “steals” from the non-revenue sports budget when in fact just about the entire non-revenue sports budget is actually football money.


----------



## Sons of Pitches (Nov 29, 2017)

It would be interesting to know how these schools account for their revenue from the Pac 12 Network, or the Big Ten Network, etc.... as they all run 24/7 with replays and live sports of every kind, mens, womens, football, volleyball, soccer, cross country, track and field etc...  I know the football programs claim the revenue from bowl games, and the revenue from the 3 and 4 letter networks.


----------



## coachrefparent (Nov 29, 2017)

JJP said:


> I feel like I’m living in bizzaro world.  Anyone blaming men’s football or basketball for the death of the smaller men’s sports needs to take Econ and Accounting 101 because they are engaging in sophistry to justify Title 9.  Men’s football and and basketball are PROFITABLE.  They make EXTRA money, a portion of that extra money is allocated to non-revenue sports.
> 
> When the AD decides, I am going to spend an extra $100k on our kickass football program so we can win more games and make more money, here is what ACTUALLY happens.
> 
> ...


Now I see the fallacy in your beliefs. The money is the school's, to do what they want, which they do. It doesn't belong to football. The school can do whatever they want within the confines of T9. 

Without T9 they could do whatever they want with the money, even giving it all to women's scholarships, if they wanted to. But of course they wouldn't.


----------



## Multi Sport (Nov 29, 2017)

coachrefparent said:


> Now I see the fallacy in your beliefs. The money is the school's, to do what they want, which they do. It doesn't belong to football. The school can do whatever they want within the confines of T9.
> 
> Without T9 they could do whatever they want with the money, even giving it all to women's scholarships, if they wanted to. But of course they wouldn't.


If your kids team raises money for their team does it belong to the club or team?


----------



## JJP (Nov 29, 2017)

coachrefparent said:


> Now I see the fallacy in your beliefs. The money is the school's, to do what they want, *which they do.* It doesn't belong to football. The school can do whatever they want within the confines of T9.


Stop.  The school can’t do what they want with the money.  Title 9 requires the schools to spend more on women’s sports than they otherwise would.  You know this.  You’re wrong on your point that schools are spending how they want to.

Not sure what your point is on school’s money vs. football money.  Football generates the money and the football program has huge say over how that money is spent.


----------



## outside! (Nov 29, 2017)

Once again, most college football programs lose money, even back in the dark ages when I was in college. Our football team lost money every year, and the budget shortfall meant that non-essential programs like the student computer center had their budget cut such that there was no paper for the printers. But at least the schools that played our football team set some NCAA records.


----------



## Multi Sport (Nov 29, 2017)

outside! said:


> Once again, most college football programs lose money, even back in the dark ages when I was in college. Our football team lost money every year, and the budget shortfall meant that non-essential programs like the student computer center had their budget cut such that there was no paper for the printers. But at least the schools that played our football team set some NCAA records.


Most lose money? OK, I'll bite. Whats your source


----------



## espola (Nov 29, 2017)

Multi Sport said:


> Most lose money? OK, I'll bite. Whats your source


NCAA.


----------



## Multi Sport (Nov 29, 2017)

espola said:


> NCAA.


You have a new screen name?


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Nov 29, 2017)

Multi Sport said:


> It's insane the amount of $$ these schools put into their facilities. I was at one on 04 and thought it was crazy but then went back again this year... it had tripled in size. What was their weight room was now their game room. I was told that it is a recruiting tool and that it was like an arms race in the ACC to see who has the best facility.


Wish I had that kind of facility in college. I remember our weight room. Pathetic.


----------



## Sons of Pitches (Nov 29, 2017)

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015 Division I RE report.pdf

Please look at page 37, this is a summary Revenue/Expenses for the Median Values for Division 1 FBS football schools for 2014.  These are the power 5 conferences and the other 50 or so directional schools that make up all the Division 1 FBS series programs.  The only two sports programs that generate a positive income are Football and Mens Basketball.  All the other programs - men's and women's are sucking at the teat of the University.  Men's Ice Hockey and Women's Basketball are the two biggest money losers, followed closely by Women's Ice Hockey and Women's Equestrian.


----------



## espola (Nov 29, 2017)

Sons of Pitches said:


> http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015 Division I RE report.pdf
> 
> Please look at page 37, this is a summary Revenue/Expenses for the Median Values for Division 1 FBS football schools for 2014.  These are the power 5 conferences and the other 50 or so directional schools that make up all the Division 1 FBS series programs.  The only two sports programs that generate a positive income are Football and Mens Basketball.  All the other programs - men's and women's are sucking at the teat of the University.  Men's Ice Hockey and Women's Basketball are the two biggest money losers, followed closely by Women's Ice Hockey and Women's Equestrian.


Men's Ice Hockey turns a profit at a few schools that sell out big arenas, like Minnesota, but they are isolated instances.


----------



## coachrefparent (Nov 29, 2017)

JJP said:


> Stop.  The school can’t do what they want with the money.  Title 9 requires the schools to spend more on women’s sports than they otherwise would.  You know this.  You’re wrong on your point that schools are spending how they want to.
> 
> Not sure what your point is on school’s money vs. football money.  Football generates the money and the football program has huge say over how that money is spent.


Why would I STOP? Did you read my whole post? Why did you only post only the part that sits your foolish belief? Title 9 only applies to scholarships between men/women. Title 9 doesn't require any money from football being paid in scholarships for anyone. Of course they could spend all the money from football on the cafeteria. Are you are troll?

What college/University did you graduate from?


----------



## Real Deal (Nov 29, 2017)

JJP said:


> I feel like I’m living in bizzaro world.  Anyone blaming men’s football or basketball for the death of the smaller men’s sports needs to take Econ and Accounting 101 because they are engaging in sophistry to justify Title 9.  Men’s football and and basketball are PROFITABLE.  They make EXTRA money, a portion of that extra money is allocated to non-revenue sports.
> 
> To say Title 9 is not responsible for killing smaller men’s sports requires a bunch of obviously false and illogical assumptions, such as non-revenue scholarships are equivalent to football scholarships, or that football “steals” from the non-revenue sports budget when in fact just about the entire non-revenue sports budget is actually football money.



Did you know that in the 1960's, women were told that if they ran long distances their uteruses would fall out? 

In 1972, Title IX was introduced to protect women against egregious _discrimination._  You seem to be suggesting we roll it back so that female athletes do not get any chance of scholarship money for sports participation in college.  The men in football and hoops do deserve the lion's share, no doubt, even keeping in mind that those players actually have a chance to make lucrative careers in their sports after college.  But you apparently object to any of the breadcrumbs going back to the women.  You want it to all go back to the boys.  But why?  I am most certain that the men's non-marquee sports also make no revenue for the schools.  The last women's college volleyball game I went to was packed, and so was the last women's college soccer game.  That's about as well as the women can do at this point (or any athlete who doesn't play football or men's basketball).  Yet you would like to take that away from the women because you wrongly believe they are disadvantaging boys' programs, and failing to see that men's football and men's basketball are, in fact, boys programs!

 So once again, for your edification, this is from the Title IX informational page:"

*Fact or Myth?* Title IX forces schools to cut men's sports.

*Myth.* Title IX in no way requires schools to cut men's sports. "Nothing in Title IX requires the cutting or reduction of teams in order to demonstrate compliance." (DOE) All federal courts to consider the question have agreed. Some schools have decided on their own to eliminate certain men's sports, but the law is flexible. There are many other ways to come into compliance. Some schools have cut sports, like gymnastics and wrestling, rather than controlling bloated football and basketball budgets, which consume a whopping 72% of the average Division I-A school's total men's athletic operating budget. For example, San Diego State University decided to address its $2 million budget deficit by cutting its men's volleyball team instead of cutting slightly into the $5 million football budget. But there are other options: A recent GAO study found that 72% of schools that added teams from 1992-1993 to 1999-2000 did so without discontinuing any teams.


----------



## Multi Sport (Nov 29, 2017)

espola said:


> Men's Ice Hockey turns a profit at a few schools that sell out big arenas, like Minnesota, but they are isolated instances.


You sure about that? Or is it the arena that turns a profit and the NCAA that also turns a profit from hosting the Frozen Four there. It was named by ESPN as one of the top ten venues, the only Ice Hockey arena to make the list so maybe you are correct. Still, it only seats around 10k so those ticket prices must be like going to a Lakers game.


----------



## espola (Nov 29, 2017)

Multi Sport said:


> You sure about that? Or is it the arena that turns a profit and the NCAA that also turns a profit from hosting the Frozen Four there. It was named by ESPN as one of the top ten venues, the only Ice Hockey arena to make the list so maybe you are correct. Still, it only seats around 10k so those ticket prices must be like going to a Lakers game.


Mariucci Arena is owned by the University.  The tickets are appropriately priced since they sell out almost every game.  They also get revenue from parking, concessions, team apparel sales, tv and radio broadcasts, and arena naming rights.

There is not much else to do there in the winter.


----------



## Multi Sport (Nov 29, 2017)

espola said:


> Mariucci Arena is owned by the University.  The tickets are appropriately priced since they sell out almost every game.  They also get revenue from parking, concessions, team apparel sales, tv and radio broadcasts, and arena naming rights.
> 
> There is not much else to do there in the winter.


From $65 to $143 per ticket. Definitely cheaper then any Lakers tickets. But how much did it cost to build the arena? I read the renovations were going to be privately funded so they must have an excellent boosters program.


----------



## MarkM (Nov 29, 2017)

Sons of Pitches said:


> http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015 Division I RE report.pdf
> 
> Please look at page 37, this is a summary Revenue/Expenses for the Median Values for Division 1 FBS football schools for 2014.  These are the power 5 conferences and the other 50 or so directional schools that make up all the Division 1 FBS series programs.  The only two sports programs that generate a positive income are Football and Mens Basketball.  All the other programs - men's and women's are sucking at the teat of the University.  Men's Ice Hockey and Women's Basketball are the two biggest money losers, followed closely by Women's Ice Hockey and Women's Equestrian.


Check out page 20.  Athletic departments that support big time football lose more money each year than schools that don't play football or play in the lower division.  It's about a $3 million difference in 2014.  

There is a lot of funny business that goes on with allocating expenses.  Schools with big time football programs will have over the top facilities, but will allocate a portion of the facility expense to other programs at the school (even though those sports don't need those facilities).  It makes it look like some football programs are generating profits when they really are not.  Page 20 shows pretty clearly that there is a negative correlation between big time football and generating positive income for a school's athletic department.


----------



## Multi Sport (Nov 29, 2017)

Real Deal said:


> *Fact or Myth?* Title IX forces schools to cut men's sports.
> 
> *Myth.* Title IX in no way requires schools to cut men's sports. "Nothing in Title IX requires the cutting or reduction of teams in order to demonstrate compliance." (DOE) All federal courts to consider the question have agreed. Some schools have decided on their own to eliminate certain men's sports, but the law is flexible. There are many other ways to come into compliance. Some schools have cut sports, like gymnastics and wrestling, rather than controlling bloated football and basketball budgets, which consume a whopping 72% of the average Division I-A school's total men's athletic operating budget. For example, San Diego State University decided to address its $2 million budget deficit by cutting its men's volleyball team instead of cutting slightly into the $5 million football budget. But there are other options: A recent GAO study found that 72% of schools that added teams from 1992-1993 to 1999-2000 did so without discontinuing any teams.


This past Spring I was at an awards ceremony at a D1 school back East. Sitting at my table was a former womens coach who is in the HoF and an ESPN commentator who covers womens sports. I became the proverbial Fly on the Wall as the discussion at the table turned to Title 9. Comments like," the better the Football program does the better it is for the Womens programs", "if it wasn't for Title 9 we wouldn't have a womens Soccer team" and similar comments were being made. This schools Womens Soccer program is top notch but the Football program has made it known that they desire the space that the Soccer pitch is on. I'm guessing they Soccer program will be looking for a new patch of grass to play on.


----------



## JJP (Nov 29, 2017)

coachrefparent said:


> Why would I STOP? Did you read my whole post? Why did you only post only the part that sits your foolish belief? Title 9 only applies to scholarships between men/women. Title 9 doesn't require any money from football being paid in scholarships for anyone. Of course they could spend all the money from football on the cafeteria. Are you are troll?
> 
> What college/University did you graduate from?


How am I trolling u when I point out your contention schools can spend their money however they want is wrong?  Without Title 9 schools would spend a lot less money on women’s sports, that’s why T9 exists, to force schools to spend on women’s sports.  Schools are involuntarily spending money on women’s sports.  How is my belief that schools don’t want to spend on women’s sports foolish?  I really have to hear this.

Generally speaking, except for men’s football and basketball, all other sports lose money.  Generally speaking, money losing sports are spending a portion of the profits from football and basketball.  Title 9 requires about equal scholarships, so about 97 women’s money losing scholarships have to be doled out before even one men’s money losing scholarship gets doled out.

Do the math. Women’s sports are starting out 97 scholarships ahead of smaller men’s sports because of T9 requirements. Scholarships are money.  Those scholarships are being funded by football and men’s basketball profits.  So T9 is directing football money into women’s scholarships.  It’s not direct, T9 doesn’t say, “Thou shalt spend football money on girls scholarships” but requiring about equal scholarships for men and women forces ADs to spend football money to get into T9 compliance.

You are ignoring the obvious links between T9 scholarship requirements and the football money funding T9 scholarships.


----------



## espola (Nov 29, 2017)

JJP said:


> How am I trolling u when I point out your contention schools can spend their money however they want is wrong?  Without Title 9 schools would spend a lot less money on women’s sports, that’s why T9 exists, to force schools to spend on women’s sports.  Schools are involuntarily spending money on women’s sports.  How is my belief that schools don’t want to spend on women’s sports foolish?  I really have to hear this.
> 
> Generally speaking, except for men’s football and basketball, all other sports lose money.  Generally speaking, money losing sports are spending a portion of the profits from football and basketball.  Title 9 requires about equal scholarships, so about 97 women’s money losing scholarships have to be doled out before even one men’s money losing scholarship gets doled out.
> 
> ...


Many myths.


----------



## JJP (Nov 29, 2017)

Real Deal said:


> Did you know that in the 1960's, women were told that if they ran long distances their uteruses would fall out?


I can honestly state I had never heard this before.  Because I was safely tucked away in my mother’s uterus.  Good thing she was not a long distance runner, or my first meal would have been road dirt instead of boob, which would have sucked.



> In 1972, Title IX was introduced to protect women against egregious _discrimination._  You seem to be suggesting we roll it back so that female athletes do not get any chance of scholarship money for sports participation in college.  The men in football and hoops do deserve the lion's share, no doubt, even keeping in mind that those players actually have a chance to make lucrative careers in their sports after college.  But you apparently object to any of the breadcrumbs going back to the women.  You want it to all go back to the boys.  But why?  I am most certain that the men's non-marquee sports also make no revenue for the schools.  The last women's college volleyball game I went to was packed, and so was the last women's college soccer game.  That's about as well as the women can do at this point (or any athlete who doesn't play football or men's basketball).  Yet you would like to take that away from the women because you wrongly believe they are disadvantaging boys' programs, and failing to see that men's football and men's basketball are, in fact, boys programs!


I never said that.  I said that scholarships for revenue sports should be treated separately than scholarships from non-revenue sports.  I said IMO non-revenue men and women’s sports should split the football and basketball money equally.  I said that in one of my first two posts on this tangent.

I don’t want to kill women’s sports.  I love watching women’s volleyball.  But the reality is funding 97 women’s scholarships to meet T9 requirements is slaughtering smaller men’s college sports.  That’s a fact.  And it’s wrong, and it’s unfair to the fantastic male athletes that don’t have the height for basketball, or fast twitch for football.



> So once again, for your edification, this is from the Title IX informational page:"
> 
> *Fact or Myth?* Title IX forces schools to cut men's sports.
> 
> *Myth.* Title IX in no way requires schools to cut men's sports. "Nothing in Title IX requires the cutting or reduction of teams in order to demonstrate compliance." (DOE) All federal courts to consider the question have agreed. Some schools have decided on their own to eliminate certain men's sports, but the law is flexible. There are many other ways to come into compliance. Some schools have cut sports, like gymnastics and wrestling, rather than controlling bloated football and basketball budgets, which consume a whopping 72% of the average Division I-A school's total men's athletic operating budget. For example, San Diego State University decided to address its $2 million budget deficit by cutting its men's volleyball team instead of cutting slightly into the $5 million football budget. But there are other options: A recent GAO study found that 72% of schools that added teams from 1992-1993 to 1999-2000 did so without discontinuing any teams.


T9 gives you 3 options.  1) cut football.  2) Cut the football and basketball budget/scholarships, so more money is left over to fund women’s sports or smaller men’s sports.  3) ax a non-revenue men’s sport.

Option 1 cutting football is a legit option for small schools with mediocre football programs that don’t make money.  If you cut football, T9 compliance is easy.  There are some schools that have done this, and I bet more will go down this path.  But schools really resist this, because football is a big part of the social life on campuses.  Plus there is huge money in college football, and even weak football programs are getting some of that money because the big time schools pay them to be on their schedule.  A lot of programs can also get on local tv or cable or radio stations.  Somebody keeps posting how back in the day their school made no money in football.   Well it’s a different day and even high school football programs like Mater Dei make $400k per televised game.

Option 2 cut football/basketball budget is not gonna happen in real life.  Nobody’s going to cut the budget of a profitable football or b-ball team, especially a big time DI team, to fund non-revenue sports.  Every good football team spends more on better weight room, stadium, etc. so they can outrecruit their rivals, get better players, win more games, get more money.  Plus the power a successful football coach has over the budget is enormous.  Colleges are either going to plow money into football, or they’re gonna drop it because they suck at it.   They’re not going to do football and then cut its budget.

Option 3, cutting smaller men’s sports, is realistically the go to option for T9 compliance.  The proof is how frequently it’s happened in real life. T9 did a good thing for women’s sports.  But it came at the price of screwing smaller men’s sports.  Saying that T9 is not responsible because colleges could have, but never did, make other hypothetical choices to save smaller men’s sports is pure sophistry.


----------



## Soccerfan2 (Nov 29, 2017)

JJP’s little financial analysis is absolutely right.

I am so grateful for title 9 and to the women and men that fought for it.  Those that think it’s unfair are always the same ones who’s first comment about women’s sports is “I enjoy watching women’s volleyball.”  They miss a lot of what matters.


----------



## Round (Nov 29, 2017)

Soccerfan2 said:


> JJP’s little financial analysis is absolutely right.
> 
> I am so grateful for title 9 and to the women and men that fought for it.  Those that think it’s unfair are always the same ones who’s first comment about women’s sports is “I enjoy watching women’s volleyball.”  They miss a lot of what matters.


I miss a lot, what matters?


----------



## SoccerFan4Life (Nov 29, 2017)

Most lose money?   I think that is actually true according to this sample from 2008.   Eventually once concussion lawsuits start growing you could see smaller schools dropping football. Maybe CSUF was on to something when they dropped football back in 1994.     Crazy.  
http://www.espn.com/ncaa/revenue


----------



## Toch (Nov 29, 2017)

Multi Sport said:


> Where are you getting your numbers from? And if you feel your kid will never get a scholarship I hope that you are not paying over 2k a year for your kid to play.
> 
> If you are looking for only a D1 scholarship then you could have an argument but there are many scholarships availble, you just have to know where your kid fits in.


Seems like a parent that was drinking the juice finally came to the realization that you were just a paycheck.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Nov 29, 2017)

JJP said:


> I can honestly state I had never heard this before.  Because I was safely tucked away in my mother’s uterus.  Good thing she was not a long distance runner, or my first meal would have been road dirt instead of boob, which would have sucked.
> 
> 
> I never said that.  I said that scholarships for revenue sports should be treated separately than scholarships from non-revenue sports.  I said IMO non-revenue men and women’s sports should split the football and basketball money equally.  I said that in one of my first two posts on this tangent.
> ...


As I read through this thread it was interesting to see each posters perspective. Each have supported their points well from one perspective to another. I made no judgement because there was much to ponder and puddle through. Especially when comprehensive studies from credible agencies were behind them. However, your statement, "But the reality is funding 97 women’s scholarships to meet T9 requirements is slaughtering smaller men’s college sports" well it is clearly visible to see your true thoughts and argument. Which are now obvious. It does not matter what anyone else posts you will argue that women's sports under any condition will hinder a men's program. With that, if it was not for Title 9 you could not watch women's college volleyball as you mentioned earlier without it.


----------



## JJP (Nov 29, 2017)

LASTMAN14 said:


> As I read through this thread it was interesting to see each posters perspective. Each have supported their points well from one perspective to another. I made no judgement because there was much to ponder and puddle through. Especially when comprehensive studies from credible agencies were behind them. However, your statement, "But the reality is funding 97 women’s scholarships to meet T9 requirements is slaughtering smaller men’s college sports" well it is clearly visible to see your true thoughts and argument. Which are now obvious. It does not matter what anyone else posts you will argue that women's sports under any condition will hinder a men's program. With that, if it was not for Title 9 you could not watch women's college volleyball as you mentioned earlier without it.


How is my proposal, equal scholarships for men and women on non-revenue sports, unfair?  I’m basically saying, exclude revenue sports from Title 9.

If the football program at a school loses money, then it’s a non-revenue sport, and 85 women’s scholarships have to be given before a non-revenue men’s sport scholarship is given out.  If the women’s basketball program at U. Conn. earn enough money to pay for its own scholarships and costs, it’s excluded from Title 9 and 12 more women’s scholarships can be given out.

The basic problem arises from how you treat football.  It’s the 900 pound gorilla.  It gives out so many scholarships and earns so much money, it has a huge distorting effect because creating enough women’s sports teams to account for 85 women’s scholarships sucks up so much scholarship funds that small men’s sports get screwed.

My suggestion, excluding revenue earning football teams from Title 9 calculations, allows a fair split of money between men and women sports that rely on football money for scholarships.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Nov 29, 2017)

JJP said:


> How is my proposal, equal scholarships for men and women on non-revenue sports, unfair?  I’m basically saying, exclude revenue sports from Title 9.
> 
> If the football program at a school loses money, then it’s a non-revenue sport, and 85 women’s scholarships have to be given before a non-revenue men’s sport scholarship is given out.  If the women’s basketball program at U. Conn. earn enough money to pay for its own scholarships and costs, it’s excluded from Title 9 and 12 more women’s scholarships can be given out.
> 
> ...


Would you be arguing this point of women's sports were generating this kind of money and football was not?


----------



## Soccerfan2 (Nov 29, 2017)

Weak proposal since the large majority of football programs actually lose money. 

Also, just FYI, non-revenue men’s sports lose MORE money than non-revenue women’s sports.


----------



## Real Deal (Nov 29, 2017)

JJP said:


> I can honestly state I had never heard this before.  Because I was safely tucked away in my mother’s uterus.  Good thing she was not a long distance runner, or my first meal would have been road dirt instead of boob, which would have sucked.
> 
> 
> I never said that.  I said that scholarships for revenue sports should be treated separately than scholarships from non-revenue sports.  I said IMO non-revenue men and women’s sports should split the football and basketball money equally.  I said that in one of my first two posts on this tangent.
> ...


Chip Kelly will be paid 28 million for 5 years to coach UCLA football.  Nick Saban makes 11.1 million per year_, _making him the highest paid college coach and also the highest paid public employee in Alabama.  Dabo Swinney (Clemson football) gets 8.5 million.  Harbaugh gets over 7 million at Michigan.   Is there really any question where the money is going?  Please stop blaming Title IX.


----------



## espola (Nov 29, 2017)

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.


----------



## JJP (Nov 30, 2017)

LASTMAN14 said:


> Would you be arguing this point of women's sports were generating this kind of money and football was not?


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.


----------



## JJP (Nov 30, 2017)

Real Deal said:


> Chip Kelly will be paid 28 million for 5 years to coach UCLA football.  Nick Saban makes 11.1 million per year_, _making him the highest paid college coach and also the highest paid public employee in Alabama.  Dabo Swinney (Clemson football) gets 8.5 million.  Harbaugh gets over 7 million at Michigan.   Is there really any question where the money is going?  Please stop blaming Title IX.


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.


----------



## JJP (Nov 30, 2017)

Soccerfan2 said:


> Weak proposal since the large majority of football programs actually lose money.
> 
> Also, just FYI, non-revenue men’s sports lose MORE money than non-revenue women’s sports.


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 (Nov 30, 2017)

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.


----------



## mirage (Nov 30, 2017)

Real Deal said:


> Chip Kelly will be paid 28 million for 5 years to coach UCLA football.  Nick Saban makes 11.1 million per year_, _making him the highest paid college coach and also the highest paid public employee in Alabama.  Dabo Swinney (Clemson football) gets 8.5 million.  Harbaugh gets over 7 million at Michigan.   Is there really any question where the money is going?  Please stop blaming Title IX.


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.


----------



## Real Deal (Nov 30, 2017)

mirage said:


> You do realize that the bulk of the coaches salaries are paid by the booster club/alumni associations of these big scale universities
> 
> 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 (Nov 30, 2017)

JJP said:


> How is my proposal, equal scholarships for men and women on non-revenue sports, unfair?  I’m basically saying, exclude revenue sports from Title 9.
> [...]
> My suggestion, excluding revenue earning football teams from Title 9 calculations, allows a fair split of money between men and women sports that rely on football money for scholarships.


Under your "plan" (nearly) all money would stay with the revenue generating sports, and there would be (nearly) no scholarships outside those sports. So women would get no scholarships.  You're advocating getting rid of Title 9, we get it.


----------



## mirage (Nov 30, 2017)

Real Deal said:


> .....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.


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.


----------



## Mullet (Nov 30, 2017)

mirage said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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! (Nov 30, 2017)

mirage said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## mirage (Nov 30, 2017)

Mullet said:


> 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.


You've missed the whole point. SMH...


----------



## mirage (Nov 30, 2017)

outside! said:


> 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 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.


----------



## Mullet (Nov 30, 2017)

mirage said:


> You've missed the whole point. SMH...


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.


----------



## Glen (Nov 30, 2017)

outside! said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## mirage (Nov 30, 2017)

Mullet said:


> .... 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.


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.


----------



## espola (Nov 30, 2017)

Glen said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## Mullet (Nov 30, 2017)

mirage said:


> 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.


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 (Nov 30, 2017)

espola said:


> 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.


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..


----------



## mirage (Nov 30, 2017)

Mullet said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## coachrefparent (Nov 30, 2017)

Glen said:


> 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.


Yes the number of opportunities have to be proportional to the population, but so does the scholarships. NCAA certainly abides by T9:
Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;         

Female and male student-athletes must receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; 

source: NCAA.org


----------



## Glen (Nov 30, 2017)

coachrefparent said:


> Yes the number of opportunities have to be proportional to the population, but so does the scholarships. NCAA certainly abides by T9:
> Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;
> 
> Female and male student-athletes must receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation;
> ...


I'm not sure what you mean that NCAA abides by Title IX.   Schools have to abide by Title IX, not the NCAA.  The NCAA limits on scholarships have nothing to do with Title IX.  A school can be in compliance with Title IX, but be completely out of compliance with the scholarship limits set by the NCAA.  The NCAA limits have no correlation with participation in any particular sport or for an institution as a whole.


----------



## Real Deal (Nov 30, 2017)

Multi Sport said:


> 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..


You guys are something else.  Men have all the opportunities in sports.  Hands down. A man who is good enough at baseball, will certainly forgo college to play since he can make zillions playing pro.  A man who is good enough at soccer will be on a fully-funded Academy or off to Europe.  Heck, US Soccer would prefer they not play in college anyway!  Good enough at tennis? He can go join the pro-circuit where the male athletes make double+ what their female counterparts make.  Etc etc etc.    Unless she is a tennis phenom or maybe an exotic dancer, a woman is pretty much maxed out if she can make the Ice Capades or the Dallas Cowgirls, where she will rake in a whopping $150 per game with no pay for rehearsals.

There are millions of dollars out there for talented male athletes.  Yet you also want to deny $10 grand to a female athlete to play a little field hockey in college?  C'mon guys.


----------



## Glen (Nov 30, 2017)

espola said:


> 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.


A legitimate complaint would be when the school does not have participation levels of women in sports proportionate to the number of women enrolled in the school.  If you don't have proportional participation, schools are preemptively out of compliance.  Both LSU and Brown University lost the the "reasonable efforts" and "opportunities" argument years ago - it's virtually impossible to overcome.  Even though you are right about the letter of the law, the argument has never been successful.  You are taking a position that an AD would have taken 30 years ago, but never today.

The Ivy League doesn't have scholarships.  But every school in the Ivy League has more women's sports teams (gymnastics, volleyball, field hockey) than men's sports to balance out the numbers for football participation.  It has nothing to do with money for the Ivy League schools.


----------



## espola (Nov 30, 2017)

Glen said:


> A legitimate complaint would be when the school does not have participation levels of women in sports proportionate to the number of women enrolled in the school.  If you don't have proportional participation, schools are preemptively out of compliance.  Both LSU and Brown University lost the the "reasonable efforts" and "opportunities" argument years ago - it's virtually impossible to overcome.  Even though you are right about the letter of the law, the argument has never been successful.  You are taking a position that an AD would have taken 30 years ago, but never today.
> 
> The Ivy League doesn't have scholarships.  But every school in the Ivy League has more women's sports teams (gymnastics, volleyball, field hockey) than men's sports to balance out the numbers for football participation.  It has nothing to do with money for the Ivy League schools.


If a school has predominately one gender, how do they make a balance?


----------



## coachrefparent (Nov 30, 2017)

Glen said:


> I'm not sure what you mean that NCAA abides by Title IX.   Schools have to abide by Title IX, not the NCAA.  The NCAA limits on scholarships have nothing to do with Title IX.  A school can be in compliance with Title IX, but be completely out of compliance with the scholarship limits set by the NCAA.  The NCAA limits have no correlation with participation in any particular sport or for an institution as a


My point was that T9 requires scholarships to be equal if gender is equal at a school. NCAA isn't going to place a requirement that would cause a school to violate T9. NCAA explains it all on their website:

One of the NCAA’s principles of conduct for intercollegiate athletics focuses on gender equity.  The office of inclusion is committed to supporting the membership as it strives to comply with federal and state laws regarding gender equity, to adopting legislation that augments gender equity and to establishing an environment that is free of gender bias.


----------



## coachrefparent (Nov 30, 2017)

Men's Varsity Sports 
Scholarship limit per School  *NCAA I* *NCAA II* *NCAA III* *NAIA *** *NJCAA ***
Baseball 11.7 9 - 12 24
Basketball - NCAA I is a head count sport 13 10 - - 15
Basketball - NAIA Division I - - - 11 -
Basketball - NAIA Division II - - - 6 -
Bowling - - - - 12
Cross Country - NCAA limits include Track & Field 12.6 12.6 - 5 10
Fencing 4.5 4.5 - - -
Football - NCAA I FBS - head count sport 85 - - - -
Football - NCAA I FCS 63 - - - -
Football - Other Divisions - 36 - 24 85
Golf 4.5 3.6 - 5 8
Gymnastics 6.3 5.4 - - -
Ice Hockey 18 13.5 - - 16
Lacrosse 12.6 10.8 - - 20
Rifle - Includes women on co-ed teams 3.6 3.6 - - -
Skiing 6.3 6.3 - - -
Soccer 9.9 9 - 12 24
Swimming & Diving 9.9 8.1 - 8 15
Tennis 4.5 4.5 - 5 9
Track & Field - NCAA limits include X-Country 12.6 12.6 - 12 20
Triathlon - - - - -
Volleyball 4.5 4.5 - - -
Water Polo 4.5 4.5 - - -
Wrestling 9.9 9 - 8 20

Average Athletic Scholarship per Athlete $ 14,270 $ 5,548    -  $  6,603 $ 2,069

Women's Varsity Sports          
Scholarship limit per School  NCAA I NCAA II NCAA III NAIA ** NJCAA **
Basketball - NCAA I is a head count sport 15 10 - - 15
Basketball - NAIA Div I - - - 11 -
Basketball - NAIA Div II - - - 6 -
Beach Volleyball * 6 5 - - -
Bowling 5 5 - - 12
Cross Country - NCAA limits include Track & Field 18 12.6 - 5 10
Equestrian 15 15 - - -
Fencing 5 4.5 - - -
Field Hockey 12 6.3 - - -
Golf 6 5.4 - 5 8
Gymnastics - NCAA I is a head count sport 12 6 - - -
Ice Hockey 18 18 - - -
Lacrosse 12 9.9 - - 20
Rifle - Includes men on co-ed teams 3.6 3.6 - - -
Rowing 20 20 - - -
Rugby 12 12 - - -
Skiing 7 6.3 - - -
Soccer 14 9.9 - 12 24
Softball 12 7.2 - 10 24
Swimming & Diving 14 8.1 - 8 15
Tennis  - NCAA I is a head count sport 8 6 - 5 9
Track & Field - NCAA limits include X-Country 18 12.6 - 12 20
Triathlon 6.5 5  - - -
Volleyball  - NCAA I is a head count sport 12 8 - 8 14
Water Polo 8 8 - - -
Average Athletic Scholarship per Athlete  $ 15,162 $ 6,814    -  $ 6,964 $ 2,810


----------



## Multi Sport (Nov 30, 2017)

Real Deal said:


> You guys are something else.  Men have all the opportunities in sports.  Hands down. A man who is good enough at baseball, will certainly forgo college to play since he can make zillions playing pro.  A man who is good enough at soccer will be on a fully-funded Academy or off to Europe.  Heck, US Soccer would prefer they not play in college anyway!  Good enough at tennis? He can go join the pro-circuit where the male athletes make double+ what their female counterparts make.  Etc etc etc.    Unless she is a tennis phenom or maybe an exotic dancer, a woman is pretty much maxed out if she can make the Ice Capades or the Dallas Cowgirls, where she will rake in a whopping $150 per game with no pay for rehearsals.
> 
> There are millions of dollars out there for talented male athletes.  Yet you also want to deny $10 grand to a female athlete to play a little field hockey in college?  C'mon guys.


I have no idea why you are addressing this to me. All I did was post a comment from an AD at a D1 school. My dd is in college now playing soccer but that doesn't mean that I'm naive and if you have a complaint take it up with the AD...


----------



## Multi Sport (Nov 30, 2017)

Real Deal said:


> You guys are something else.  Men have all the opportunities in sports.  Hands down. A man who is good enough at baseball, will certainly forgo college to play since he can make zillions playing pro.  A man who is good enough at soccer will be on a fully-funded Academy or off to Europe.  Heck, US Soccer would prefer they not play in college anyway!  Good enough at tennis? He can go join the pro-circuit where the male athletes make double+ what their female counterparts make.  Etc etc etc.    Unless she is a tennis phenom or maybe an exotic dancer, a woman is pretty much maxed out if she can make the Ice Capades or the Dallas Cowgirls, where she will rake in a whopping $150 per game with no pay for rehearsals.
> 
> There are millions of dollars out there for talented male athletes.  Yet you also want to deny $10 grand to a female athlete to play a little field hockey in college?  C'mon guys.


And BTW.. my dd received much more then 10k so I'm a very thankful parent.


----------



## Glen (Nov 30, 2017)

espola said:


> If a school has predominately one gender, how do they make a balance?


I didn't say anything about balance.  I did say the participation levels of women in sports must be "proportionate to the number of women enrolled in the school."   So if 25% of those that are enrolled in a school are women, 25% of the participants in school sports should be women.


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Dec 1, 2017)

coachrefparent said:


> Now I see the fallacy in your beliefs. The money is the school's, to do what they want, which they do. It doesn't belong to football. The school can do whatever they want within the confines of T9.
> 
> Without T9 they could do whatever they want with the money, even giving it all to women's scholarships, if they wanted to. But of course they wouldn't.


tell that to Nick Saben, or if Joe Paterno was alive. Everyone knew Joe told the school how much money they would spend on football. Hell, Joe ran the surrounding area down to Police. Whatever program/dept generates the revenue runs the school. How it is just about everywhere. Big programs have big boosters - boosters who sit on boards and hire/fire anyone not on board. The communities around are all on board due to the money. Besides seeing family members/friends get the benefit of such programs, you can watch enough 30 for 30s and understand how these schools work.


----------



## JJP (Dec 7, 2017)

Soccerfan2 said:


> 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.


List one non fact.

Football makes money - fact.
Men’s bball makes money - fact.
Women’s sports, no money - fact.
T9 requires abou 97 women’s scholarships after football and men’s bball - fact.

Here r the facts T9 supporters are trying to deny
1.  Less money for smaller men’s sports after T9 scoops out 97 scholarships - fact.  Budgets exist. Scholarships cost money.  When 97 women’s scholarships are given out, there’s less money for everything else.  Instead, T9 articles support the fallacy you can cut football and bball budgets to fund smaller men’s sports, which is not even a real option.  Sports that make the money control their own budget.  This is not even a real argument, just an ostrich sticking it’s head in the sand.

2. Smaller men’s sports have been axed due to T9 when there’s a budget cut.  Fact.  Axing women’s sports leads to T9 violation, so a non-revenue men’s sport gets axed.

These are all facts.  Blithe generalizations, attacking the messenger of facts, for “bias” are an attempt to not discuss the underlying reality that T9 has been great for women at the expense of smaller men’s sports.


----------



## espola (Dec 7, 2017)

JJP said:


> List one non fact.
> 
> Football makes money - fact.
> Men’s bball makes money - fact.
> ...


Basketball makes a profit in only a few schools, football even fewer.


----------



## JJP (Dec 7, 2017)

Real Deal said:


> 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.


Alumni and booster clubs pay into a football and men’s bball program.  But those books aren’t open and a lot of the payments are under the table so to speak, such as when a top recruit is given a great “job” by a booster but he never shows up to work.  There’s no way to really know how much booster money is involved in big time college football, it’s obviously a huge amount, but nobody publishes the books

Again, T9 supporters keep trying to spend other people’s money.  You can’t make boosters spend money on sports they don’t want to support. T9 doesn’t have that issue because it gets to spend football and basketball money.  If a school wants 97 football and men’s bball athletes, they now have to budget from football and bball funds 97 girls scholarships and appropriate teams.  Unless football and bball budget for those T9 teams they don’t get to play.

It’s a good thing that the girls get to play, but the way T9 works has had a huge distorting effect.  When a girls team has 40 soccer players and they’re realistically going to play about 16, how is that a good thing?  You’ve spent money on 20+ players who aren’t that great, who are never going to play.  I see colleges starting women’s teams in obscure sports where there’s no interest and putting in women athletes who have never even done that sport (think it was some obscure rowing variation sport).

 That money should have gone to a dedicated student athlete who has practiced and loves their sport.


----------



## JJP (Dec 7, 2017)

espola said:


> Basketball makes a profit in only a few schools, football even fewer.


You keep saying this but never post anything to back it up.

http://www.businessinsider.com/schools-most-revenue-college-sports-2016-10/#18-minnesota--1112-million-8

That’s a link to 25 richest sports programs.  As I suspected women’s college basketball is making some money.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Dec 7, 2017)

JJP said:


> List one non fact.
> 
> Football makes money - fact.
> Men’s bball makes money - fact.
> ...


And, football despite making a profit for some universities can be attributed to other men's programs being cut in order to continue to fund/bolster a football program. Universities make this choice not Title 9.


----------



## JJP (Dec 7, 2017)

Real Deal said:


> You guys are something else.  Men have all the opportunities in sports.  Hands down. A man who is good enough at baseball, will certainly forgo college to play since he can make zillions playing pro.  A man who is good enough at soccer will be on a fully-funded Academy or off to Europe.  Heck, US Soccer would prefer they not play in college anyway!  Good enough at tennis? He can go join the pro-circuit where the male athletes make double+ what their female counterparts make.  Etc etc etc.    Unless she is a tennis phenom or maybe an exotic dancer, a woman is pretty much maxed out if she can make the Ice Capades or the Dallas Cowgirls, where she will rake in a whopping $150 per game with no pay for rehearsals.
> 
> There are millions of dollars out there for talented male athletes.  Yet you also want to deny $10 grand to a female athlete to play a little field hockey in college?  C'mon guys.


C’mon.  T9 has been around for 25+ years.  Several generations of women have been supported, exposed to sports and played it.

Aren’t there enough women out there who can turn on the TV and watch women’s teams play?  Women can’t buy tickets to support women’s teams?

Do you know how hard it is to hit a major league pitch, how incredible the hand eye of a MLB player is?  And it’s not like a lot of men are heading off to Europe in soccer and making it big.  As far as I know it’s just Pulisic and Giuseppe Rossi.

The men are getting paid because people (both men and women) are buying tickets and watching games.  If the athletes are drawing eyeballs they’ve earned their money.


----------



## JJP (Dec 7, 2017)

LASTMAN14 said:


> And, football despite making a profit for some universities can be attributed to other men's programs being cut in order to continue to fund/bolster a football program. Universities make this choice not Title 9.


Yea . . . show me the math on how a sport, football, that makes money, causes the axing of non-revenue men’s sport.  But non-revenue women’s sports, which must be funded and lose money, bear no responsibility.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Dec 7, 2017)

JJP said:


> Yea . . . show me the math on how a sport, football, that makes money, causes the axing of non-revenue men’s sport.  But non-revenue women’s sports, which must be funded and lose money, bear no responsibility.


Because most of these are publicly funded programs and each university determines what happens. We can use the profit margins as much as we want, but in the end football consumes most scholarships and funding. Scholarship numbers need to be equitable, programs need to be equitable, so with profits aside there are rules.


----------



## outside! (Dec 7, 2017)

JJP said:


> Do you know how hard it is to hit a major league pitch, how incredible the hand eye of a MLB player is?


Due to the shorter distance to the plate, the time for a fastpitch softball to go from the pitcher to the catcher is shorter than in baseball. Somewhere on the internet is a video of MLB batters being embarrassed by a college softball pitcher.

Do you really think 25 years is enough time to erase centuries of discrimination?


----------



## mirage (Dec 7, 2017)

JJP said:


> Yea . . . show me the math on how a sport, football, that makes money, causes the axing of non-revenue men’s sport.  But non-revenue women’s sports, which must be funded and lose money, bear no responsibility.


Stop wasting your efforts.

T9 is effectively an entitlement program and its irrelevant if it makes sense or not.  It just is.


----------



## mirage (Dec 7, 2017)

outside! said:


> Due to the shorter distance to the plate, the time for a fastpitch softball to go from the pitcher to the catcher is shorter than in baseball. Somewhere on the internet is a video of MLB batters being embarrassed by a college softball pitcher....


You gotta do the math. 

Baseball pitched at 95mph=139 ft/s over 90 ft distance = 1.54 ft/s
Softball pitched at 60mph=88 ft/s over 60 ft distance = 1.47 ft/s

Baseball is moving faster.  On the top of that, the velocity difference between a fastball, breaking ball and change up can be over  0.25 ft/s over the 90 ft distance so the timing is changed significantly (~16%).

The thing with softball pitch that makes it difficult for baseball batters to hit is fact that the players are not used to the ball rising over the trajectory rather down coming down.  Not the relative speed over the distance.


----------



## espola (Dec 7, 2017)

mirage said:


> You gotta do the math.
> 
> Baseball pitched at 95mph=139 ft/s over 90 ft distance = 1.54 ft/s
> Softball pitched at 60mph=88 ft/s over 60 ft distance = 1.47 ft/s
> ...


That should be 1.54 seconds and 1.47 seconds.

You're welcome.


----------



## Mystery Train (Dec 7, 2017)

Regarding fast pitch softball vs. baseball:  It's been scientifically demonstrated that it is impossible for hitters (either softball or baseball) to see and react to the ball after it comes out of the hand.  Human reaction time and neuro-communication isn't fast enough. Their ability to hit the ball comes from anticipation.  That anticipation is grooved in from years of experience and visual observation.  The reason MLB players struggle at hitting fast-pitch softball pitches is because they can't anticipate the ball location because the visual cues are completely different than what they are trained on.  If you gave an MLB player a week of practice, they would adjust and be going yard soon enough.  It works the other way, too.  If you put a good fast-pitch softball hitter at the plate against a 90mph MLB flame-thrower, they'd strike out, too.  It has nothing to do with one being "harder" or "faster" than the other.


----------



## mirage (Dec 7, 2017)

espola said:


> That should be 1.54 seconds and 1.47 seconds.
> 
> You're welcome.


Thanks for catching my error but actually its inverse as I did it while in a meeting in a conference room and did it upside down.

90 ft covered at 139 ft/sec = 0.65 sec to go from the mound to home plates.

60 ft covered at 88 ft/sec = 0.68 sec to go from the pitching plate to home plate for softball.

Technically, smaller baseball results in shorter reaction time than bigger softball by 0.03 seconds.

The basic point is still the same and valid


----------



## Real Deal (Dec 7, 2017)

JJP said:


> It’s a good thing that the girls get to play, but the way T9 works has had a huge distorting effect.  When a girls team has 40 soccer players and they’re realistically going to play about 16, how is that a good thing?  You’ve spent money on 20+ players who aren’t that great, who are never going to play.  I see colleges starting women’s teams in obscure sports where there’s no interest and putting in women athletes who have never even done that sport (think it was some obscure rowing variation sport).
> 
> *That money should have gone to a dedicated student athlete who has practiced and loves their sport.*


Wow.  In that last statement you are basically stating that female collegiate athletes who have been awarded scholarships are not dedicated, do not practice, and do not love their sports.  

... And the money should go to boys instead... because they are more worthy... because????... the boys have practiced and loved their sports more... of course.

That is a *bold* statement.  

Your thinking is really the textbook definition of why Title 9 is necessary.


----------



## Real Deal (Dec 7, 2017)

JJP said:


> C’mon.  T9 has been around for 25+ years.  Several generations of women have been supported, exposed to sports and played it.
> 
> *Do you know how hard it is to hit a major league pitch, how incredible the hand eye of a MLB player is?*  And it’s not like a lot of men are heading off to Europe in soccer and making it big.  As far as I know it’s just Pulisic and Giuseppe Rossi.


Try landing a a backward-handspring-double-back-flip combination on a balance beam (Simone Biles).


----------



## espola (Dec 7, 2017)

mirage said:


> Thanks for catching my error but actually its inverse as I did it while in a meeting in a conference room and did it upside down.
> 
> 90 ft covered at 139 ft/sec = 0.65 sec to go from the mound to home plates.
> 
> ...


You should also correct for the actual release point which brings both closer to the batter.


----------



## mirage (Dec 7, 2017)

espola said:


> You should also correct for the actual release point which brings both closer to the batter.


If you're going to count that, include the batter's box dimension and where the hitter stands too...

And actually, my original post was correct.  I was talking about the rate the ball travels and not how long it takes to get to the plate.  Your post correcting me confused me so I recalculated for amount of time it takes to get to the plate based on established distances.

Btw, did you ever play baseball? I did.  Or are you just pontificating as usual....


----------



## timbuck (Dec 7, 2017)

Can we move the debate to something more important:  who would win in a fight - Mighty Mouse or Superman?


----------



## Multi Sport (Dec 7, 2017)

espola said:


> You should also correct for the actual release point which brings both closer to the batter.


And a Softball pitcher typically leaves the rubber before releasing the ball so the distance is even closer. 

The two toughest pitches to hit for a Baseball player in Softball? Rise and change-up.


----------



## SoccerFan4Life (Dec 7, 2017)

Real Deal said:


> You guys are something else.  Men have all the opportunities in sports.  Hands down. A man who is good enough at baseball, will certainly forgo college to play since he can make zillions playing pro.  A man who is good enough at soccer will be on a fully-funded Academy or off to Europe.  Heck, US Soccer would prefer they not play in college anyway!  Good enough at tennis? He can go join the pro-circuit where the male athletes make double+ what their female counterparts make.  Etc etc etc.    Unless she is a tennis phenom or maybe an exotic dancer, a woman is pretty much maxed out if she can make the Ice Capades or the Dallas Cowgirls, where she will rake in a whopping $150 per game with no pay for r
> 
> There are millions of dollars out there for talentedcollege?  C'mon guys.


Who cares about equality in sports.   The goal for women is equality in pay in the workforce.  Honestly you are selling women short. There's more famous women C-Level executives  in the IT industry now a days.     Don't focus on the athletic part of the equality because the market will continue to sell men's sports over women's sports. Consumers will continue to watch male sports over women's sports.  Our own daughters prefer to watch men's baseball over softball on TV.   Us women's soccer and gymnastics are the only exception.


----------



## coachrefparent (Dec 7, 2017)

SoccerFan4Life said:


> Who cares about equality in sports.   The goal for women is equality in pay in the workforce.  Honestly you are selling women short. There's more famous women C-Level executives  in the IT industry now a days.


"More" than what? Before?


----------



## SoccerFan4Life (Dec 7, 2017)

coachrefparent said:


> "More" than what? Before?


Yes but still not enough and the ceiling for women unfortunately stays at the level below CEO.   There needs to be a bigger balance and I would rather see scholarship money going into women interested in math, science, finance, instead of scholarships for sports.


----------



## Real Deal (Dec 7, 2017)

SoccerFan4Life said:


> Yes but still not enough and the ceiling for women unfortunately stays at the level below CEO.   There needs to be a bigger balance and I would rather see scholarship money going into women interested in math, science, finance, instead of scholarships for sports.


Are the two mutually exclusive?

Some women excel at math, science, finance-- and some excel at sports.

I know what you are saying, and I'm not trying to jump on you, but it is telling--- women deserve opportunities in all of these areas.


----------



## SoccerFan4Life (Dec 7, 2017)

Real Deal said:


> Are the two mutually exclusive?
> 
> Some women excel at math, science, finance-- and some excel at sports.
> 
> I know what you are saying, and I'm not trying to jump on you, but it is telling--- women deserve opportunities in all of these areas.


They do but Ultimately  a career in softball, gymnastics, basketball  ends in college and  even women's soccer or men's soccer doesn't lead to a profitable career.  MLS pays $60k or so.    Honestly most sports for both men and women don't lead to much money.   The big 3 do lead to a very rewarding professional career with lots of money but it's still a very small percentage of the overall athletic  population.    

Bottom line colleges are giving away too much money on sports both men and women.  In my industry starting salaries begin at $80k and robotics and other science begin at $100k.     I would never want my daughter to do college sports.   I want her to be a scientist or engineering.  for now youth soccer is awesome for my little one and I will enjoy it until it ends.


----------



## outside! (Dec 8, 2017)

SoccerFan4Life said:


> They do but Ultimately  a career in softball, gymnastics, basketball  ends in college and  even women's soccer or men's soccer doesn't lead to a profitable career.  MLS pays $60k or so.    Honestly most sports for both men and women don't lead to much money.   The big 3 do lead to a very rewarding professional career with lots of money but it's still a very small percentage of the overall athletic  population.
> 
> Bottom line colleges are giving away too much money on sports both men and women.  In my industry starting salaries begin at $80k and robotics and other science begin at $100k.     I would never want my daughter to do college sports.   I want her to be a scientist or engineering.  for now youth soccer is awesome for my little one and I will enjoy it until it ends.


But what does she want? I am an engineer and firmly believe only people that really want to be engineers should be engineers. The others don't make very good engineers. There are many ways to be successful and I stress to my children to look at the big picture and try to fit their interests towards a career that is both financially and personally rewarding.


----------



## mirage (Dec 8, 2017)

SoccerFan4Life said:


> ..........In my industry starting salaries begin at $80k and robotics and other science begin at $100k.     I would never want my daughter to do college sports.   I want her to be a scientist or engineering.  for now youth soccer is awesome for my little one and I will enjoy it until it ends.


I just want to say that playing collegiate sports and technical/STEM BS are not mutually exclusive.

There are plenty of STEM majors playing all sort of sports and getting good grades.


----------



## mirage (Dec 8, 2017)

outside! said:


> But what does she want? I am an engineer and firmly believe only people that really want to be engineers should be engineers. The others don't make very good engineers. There are many ways to be successful and I stress to my children to look at the big picture and try to fit their interests towards a career that is both financially and personally rewarding.


This statement is true just about every professional career, not just engineers....


----------



## JJP (Dec 18, 2017)

mirage said:


> You gotta do the math.
> 
> Baseball pitched at 95mph=139 ft/s over 90 ft distance = 1.54 ft/s
> Softball pitched at 60mph=88 ft/s over 60 ft distance = 1.47 ft/s
> ...


No, my math comment was directed towards calculating how the flow of money to women’s sports from football and bball revenues was draining the budget for smaller men’s sports.  I have no comment on the math between baseball and girls softball.

As to the money they get, it’s not dependent on who has the better skill set.  I watched Jenny Finch strike out Bonds and Pujols and thought she was amazing.  The point is people pay to watch the top baseball players, not the top soft ballers, so the top baseball players deserve the money they earn.

I’m all for the football money going into funding other sports at each university.  The football student athletes are generating the revenue and receiving only a scholarship, which vastly underplays their labor.  I’d rather see that revenue go to the students than administrators.  I just think too much of that football money is being spent on women’s sports where there’s no real interest or demand and it’s lead to men’s sports getting cut.

I’m not going to post on this topic anymore, it’s been said, and there’s tons of material on the internet.  But it’s obvious that college men’s sports have been shafted by T9 and political correctness, and it probably makes T9 advocates uncomfortable that their gains have come at the cost of the smaller men’s sports.  Blaming football and basketball for spending their own money is just crazy talk, not a solution.  I could solve 90% of the world’s problems if I could spend everyone else’s money, gee I wonder why people won’t let me do that?

I’m gonna be honest and say that the excuses for women’s sports not having money and trying to spend the football budget and boosters money should end.  There are plenty of women making a lot of money.  Those women can buy tickets, watch games, and be boosters for their favorite women’s sport.


----------



## Mullet (Dec 19, 2017)

JJP said:


> No, my math comment was directed towards calculating how the flow of money to women’s sports from football and bball revenues was draining the budget for smaller men’s sports.  I have no comment on the math between baseball and girls softball.
> 
> As to the money they get, it’s not dependent on who has the better skill set.  I watched Jenny Finch strike out Bonds and Pujols and thought she was amazing.  The point is people pay to watch the top baseball players, not the top soft ballers, so the top baseball players deserve the money they earn.
> 
> ...


T9 is not about wealth distribution. All the football or basketball money in the world would not prevent a men's program being scrapped i favor of T9. 

That said, I see nothing wrong with football or basketball money that is not needed for the actual program to be funneled to other sports or other college programs.


----------



## MakeAPlay (Dec 19, 2017)

Multi Sport said:


> Bleacher report has a great article on the 25 best 5-7 players and shorter in the world. That would make for one heck of a team...


My player's college team is always one of the shortest on the field with 5 starters that were 5'5 or shorter.  It hurt them on set pieces but they were only outpossessed once all year and that was 52/48 in the NCAA final.  Height is nice but it isn't everything.


----------



## espola (Dec 19, 2017)

MakeAPlay said:


> My player's college team is always one of the shortest on the field with 5 starters that were 5'5 or shorter.  It hurt them on set pieces but they were only outpossessed once all year and that was 52/48 in the NCAA final.  Height is nice but it isn't everything.


The so-called "possession" stat is pretty much meaningless.  For instance, who has possession while the clock is ticking as the ball is being retrieved for a throwin - the team that kicked it out, or the team that will throw it in?


----------



## MakeAPlay (Dec 19, 2017)

espola said:


> The so-called "possession" stat is pretty much meaningless.  For instance, who has possession while the clock is ticking as the ball is being retrieved for a throwin - the team that kicked it out, or the team that will throw it in?


The 3 best teams at holding possession all made the College Cup on the women's side.  I am going to go with it matters A LOT!!  The thing that they emphasize the most in training is holding possession by connecting passes and trying to pierce lines with passing.

I trust her more than a dilettante.


----------



## espola (Dec 19, 2017)

MakeAPlay said:


> The 3 best teams at holding possession all made the College Cup on the women's side.  I am going to go with it matters A LOT!!  The thing that they emphasize the most in training is holding possession by connecting passes and trying to pierce lines with passing.
> 
> I trust her more than a dilettante.


You didn't answer the question.

And I didn't say that possession wasn't important.  I merely pointed out that the oft-quoted measurement of it is ill-defined garbage,


----------



## MakeAPlay (Dec 19, 2017)

espola said:


> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> And I didn't say that possession wasn't important.  I merely pointed out that the oft-quoted measurement of it is ill-defined garbage,


Your question was rhetorical.  I'm sure that you have the time to look it up and answer the question for all of us.  Please don't ask me questions that you can Google the answers for.  The stuff that I talk about isn't on Google....


----------



## outside! (Dec 19, 2017)

MakeAPlay said:


> The stuff that I talk about isn't on Google....


It is now.


----------



## espola (Dec 19, 2017)

MakeAPlay said:


> Your question was rhetorical.  I'm sure that you have the time to look it up and answer the question for all of us.  Please don't ask me questions that you can Google the answers for.  The stuff that I talk about isn't on Google....


You apparently don't know what "rhetorical question" means.


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Dec 19, 2017)

MakeAPlay said:


> My player's college team is always one of the shortest on the field with 5 starters that were 5'5 or shorter.  It hurt them on set pieces but they were only outpossessed once all year and that was 52/48 in the NCAA final.  Height is nice but it isn't everything.


man city killing set pieces with short players. killed ManU twice and Mou loves touting his team of trees. sometimes desire and coaching - Pep is an okay coach


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Dec 19, 2017)

Not_that_Serious said:


> man city killing set pieces with short players. killed ManU twice and Mou loves touting his team of trees. sometimes desire and coaching - Pep is an okay coach


Being a ManU fan for half my life I dislike Mou. He stifles play by not letting his players attack. He's afraid of losing which happens anyways. And, Pep is a better coach.


----------



## Frank (Dec 19, 2017)

espola said:


> The so-called "possession" stat is pretty much meaningless.  For instance, who has possession while the clock is ticking as the ball is being retrieved for a throwin - the team that kicked it out, or the team that will throw it in?


That's not how possession is calculated. Typically this time is excluded and not factored in to the possession % calculation. Meaning in a 90 minute game possession is typically calculated at somewhere around 70 minutes depending on out of bounds, free kicks, corners, etc.


----------



## espola (Dec 19, 2017)

Frank said:


> That's not how possession is calculated. Typically this time is excluded and not factored in to the possession % calculation. Meaning in a 90 minute game possession is typically calculated at somewhere around 70 minutes depending on out of bounds, free kicks, corners, etc.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_spot/2014/06/27/soccer_possession_the_inside_story_of_the_game_s_most_controversial_stat.html


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Dec 19, 2017)

espola said:


> http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_spot/2014/06/27/soccer_possession_the_inside_story_of_the_game_s_most_controversial_stat.html


Oh, E...you don't believe in possession soccer. We have debated this on other threads. And, I know you know what a rhetorical question is, as you employ it in many of your replies.


----------



## espola (Dec 19, 2017)

LASTMAN14 said:


> Oh, E...you don't believe in possession soccer. We have debated this on other threads. And, I know you know what a rhetorical question is, as you employ it in many of your replies.


I get a chuckle when I see people (especially coaches) referring to possession as if it were a real thing.  There is no agreement on how to measure it, and the methods admittedly include subjective judgments.  But then again so do classic stats like shots on goal, assists, and saves.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Dec 19, 2017)

espola said:


> I get a chuckle when I see people (especially coaches) referring to possession as if it were a real thing.  There is no agreement on how to measure it, and the methods admittedly include subjective judgments.  But then again so do classic stats like shots on goal, assists, and saves.


I guess passing the ball and making passes in succession is not a real thing either as it is a key concept in possession.  However one calculates something that does not exist doesn't really matter because it's not real, right?


----------



## espola (Dec 19, 2017)

LASTMAN14 said:


> I guess passing the ball and making passes in succession is not a real thing either as it is a key concept in possession.  However one calculates something that does not exist doesn't really matter because it's not real, right?


Increasing one's possession score, if we can agree what that it is, is certainly something worth striving for, but it's not a good measure of who won the game.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Dec 19, 2017)

espola said:


> Increasing one's possession score, if we can agree what that it is, is certainly something worth striving for, but it's not a good measure of who won the game.


Just to recant this post for clarification. Your saying that possession is now real if we can agree on what it is?


----------



## espola (Dec 19, 2017)

LASTMAN14 said:


> Just to recant this post for clarification. Your saying that possession is now real if we can agree on what it is?


When did I ever say possession is not real?


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Dec 19, 2017)

LASTMAN14 said:


> Just to recant this post for clarification. Your saying that possession is now real if we can agree on what it is?


Wait, and it's not a good measure of who won the game? That's a narrow perspective that requires more clarification because I can present scenarios to argue that point. Even scenarios where the better team lost and still won because we all know who did despite the score line.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Dec 19, 2017)

espola said:


> I get a chuckle when I see people (especially coaches) referring to possession as if it were a real thing.  There is no agreement on how to measure it, and the methods admittedly include subjective judgments.  But then again so do classic stats like shots on goal, assists, and saves.


Right here in your first sentence. You imply that possession does not exist.


----------



## espola (Dec 19, 2017)

LASTMAN14 said:


> Right here in your first sentence. You imply that possession does not exist.


Sorry if I wasn't clear.  I should have put that in quotes (as in "possession") referring to the magic number that is taken to be some measure of a team's performance.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Dec 19, 2017)

espola said:


> Sorry if I wasn't clear.  I should have put that in quotes (as in "possession") referring to the magic number that is taken to be some measure of a team's performance.


Hmmm...not sure that would matter.


----------



## smellycleats (Dec 19, 2017)

espola said:


> Sorry if I wasn't clear.  I should have put that in quotes (as in "possession") referring to the magic number that is taken to be some measure of a team's performance.


Lastman-1.    Espola-0


----------



## Chelsea dad g09 (Dec 19, 2017)

mirage said:


> You gotta do the math.
> 
> Baseball pitched at 95mph=139 ft/s over 90 ft distance = 1.54 ft/s
> Softball pitched at 60mph=88 ft/s over 60 ft distance = 1.47 ft/s
> ...



Baseball is 60'6" to home plate, softball is 43'...


----------

