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

[Real Deal]

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]

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]

.....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]

So you reminded me of an example where Cal was going to shut down their baseball program because of Title IX few years ago. Some of the MLB alums from Cal stepped up and donated money to keep the program open and going.

Several colleges have quit their mens football and soccer because of TIX situations. Also, big schools like USC, Oregon have no mens soccer because they cannot make it work with TIX.

I understand why TIX exists but lets not pretend that it doesn't impact mens programs. They do. Just look at the amount of scholarships available for D1 soccer. Women's = 14, Mens=9.9, as an example.

The last thing that you're not quite correct is where the revenue is spent from mens programs. Mens football revenues go towards both gender athletic programs. They go to prop up non-revenue generating sports for men and women. Without the revenue from football and basketball, many sports programs will shut down, even at some of the biggest universities.

If you are so concerned about the men's soccer team being short 5 scholarships then take them from the football team. The number of women athletes in college is pretty close in number to the total roster of a large football program.

 

[outside!]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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