Girls Development Academy

Glen said:
What about schools without football? Say UCI or UCSB? Why shouldn’t they be able to give out 15 soccer scholarships as long as they meet Title IX proportionality requirement?

Football gets 85. Why 85?

FYI - limits were put in place before Title IX was even enacted.
Click to expand...
Large schools with large athletic programs, particularly the P5 schools and Notre Dame, with large football programs drive the NCAA. Those rules were put in place for programs like that in mind.
The reason they won’t allow more scholarships for programs that don’t have football is that it wouldn’t be fair for some schools to have more scholarships than others, hence each sport has the same maximum number of scholarships regardless of the school.
 
Glen said:
Don't mean to intrude, but I would offer one caveat to your assessment. Title IX has certainly provided more opportunities in college for women, but that's not the reason that they have more opportunities than men. The NCAA arbitrarily limits the number of men's scholarships in soccer, which has really nothing to do with Title IX. There should be a much bigger discussion and push by schools to get rid of the artificial caps placed on men's sports, particularly soccer. You get rid of those caps, development (and talent) on the boy's side would look a whole lot different.

In sum, it's the NCAA fault.
Click to expand...

Read this: http://www.espn.com/espnw/title-ix/article/7959799/the-silent-enemy-men-sports
 
davin said:
Those limits aren’t arbitrary. Men’s and women’s athletic programs must have the equivalent amount of scholarships. With men’s foootball teams taking up 80 scholarships, they have to limit the scholarships available to other men’s sports in order to keep women’s and men’s scholarships equal, which is why men’s soccer teams have a smaller allocation of scholarships by NCAA mandate than women’s soccer.
Click to expand...

Almost right. Nothing in Title IX requires identical numbers of scholarships, although that is a simple way to show that the school has made the effort to equalize opportunity.

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.​
 
MakeAPlay said:
You are still missing the point. Let me spell it out for you slowly. TRULY ELITE boys are in the DA for a short time and usually are firmly on a pro track. There are many less college soccer opportunities for boys (there are about 100 more D1 women's programs than men's). TRULY ELITE girls are on track to go to college and maybe the Alarcorn among Unicorns goes to the full WNT. Anyone else is making less money than they could using their degrees. Boys have many more opportunities to be professional and girls have many more college opportunities (thank you Title IX). Treating boys and girls as if they are identical ignores a million years of evolution and the realities of our own society.

That's it.
Click to expand...
The Pac12 for boys soccer is really the Pac6, or Pac5 with San Diego State and that's a power5 conference. smh. No work being done to develop either pathway imo, the pro or the college pathway. The opportunity is very limited for boys... Maybe even more so for girls, who have a whole movement going for them to develop the programs in the nation, even if there are "bumps" in the road.
 
davin said:
Large schools with large athletic programs, particularly the P5 schools and Notre Dame, with large football programs drive the NCAA. Those rules were put in place for programs like that in mind.
The reason they won’t allow more scholarships for programs that don’t have football is that it wouldn’t be fair for some schools to have more scholarships than others, hence each sport has the same maximum number of scholarships regardless of the school.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree , except for the part that "it wouldn’t be fair for some schools to have more scholarships than others". That's not true. The schools still have the same number of scholarships per gender. The schools can chose to allocate the scholarships however they want per sport. Schools can chose to maintain their football programs or allocate scholarships to other sports. It should be choice. The NCAA shouldn't be putting its thumb on the scale to help a minority of the institutions for the NCAA's bottom line.
 
Glen said:
I don't disagree , except for the part that "it wouldn’t be fair for some schools to have more scholarships than others". That's not true. The schools still have the same number of scholarships per gender. The schools can chose to allocate the scholarships however they want per sport. Schools can chose to maintain their football programs or allocate scholarships to other sports. It should be choice. The NCAA shouldn't be putting its thumb on the scale to help a minority of the institutions for the NCAA's bottom line.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.
 
Glen said:
I don't disagree , except for the part that "it wouldn’t be fair for some schools to have more scholarships than others". That's not true. The schools still have the same number of scholarships per gender. The schools can chose to allocate the scholarships however they want per sport. Schools can chose to maintain their football programs or allocate scholarships to other sports. It should be choice. The NCAA shouldn't be putting its thumb on the scale to help a minority of the institutions for the NCAA's bottom line.
Click to expand...

If the NCAA doesn't worry abut it's bottom line and the revenue sports, would that not affect all sports? How do you provide scholarships to anyone if there is no money for them?
 
F@ct said:
Typical lies from Fact. Show me where I said I thought it was a good idea. It will happen, though. The DA was created to exert control over the top players. Control their coaching, their environment, their opportunities. That's the whole point of this exercise. I would be shocked if any ECNL kids called into national teams are not told to move to a DA club, unless there just isn't one around.
Click to expand...
Hum JoeBieber went AWOL in Feb and reappeared on May 3, the same day you created an account. I don’t think that is a coincidence. And he was always using word play just like a slimy attorney that defended the Aneheim Surf false birth certificate issue.

What I find very telling is that you imitate me. You know imitation it the sincerest form of flattery? Please continue. Everyone that knows you is enjoying laughing at you.
 
espola said:
From the student activity fees.
Click to expand...

That might work at the large public schools where there are enough students to charge a small fee of a grand or two. At the smaller private schools that would be a nonstarter as the fee could easily top $10k (think of s Notre Dame, Stanford or Duke).

The schools fudge the numbers when it comes to expenses. My kid's school weirdly had exactly as many expenses as revenue. I love the school but that is about as obvious as the name of Cohen's LLC "Essential Consultants."
 
El Clasico said:
If the NCAA doesn't worry abut it's bottom line and the revenue sports, would that not affect all sports? How do you provide scholarships to anyone if there is no money for them?
Click to expand...

How would it impact money available for sports at UCI, UCSB, or the vast majority of schools and leagues around the country? They don't have profitable sports programs. How many sports programs are profitable in the WCC? Maybe Gonzaga basketball makes money? In my mind, you are really referring to Alabama and dozen or so schools - as well as the coffers of the NCAA. Frankly, most non-football sports programs are pretty cheap to run. So to say that football or basketball is paying for the other programs isn't persuasive IMO-especially since so many non-football schools or small-time football schools have funding for broader sports programs.

And I'm not really calling for no scholarship cap at all. But most men's sports are capped at less than the amount of field players, while football has scholarships for 8 times the number of field players. That doesn't make any sense. If the Pac 12 wants to remain the football league, that's great. But why not allow the WCC or other leagues to become the great soccer league or flourish in other sports and provide other athletic opportunities? That's all I'm really getting at.
 
Interesting article from a writer who critiqued bio banding and then got a call and had a conversation with the originator who happens to be with US Soccer now. Good read to give background.

Also, this has started to happen on the boys side also, but I didn't read too much on the article I saw giving details.

U.S. Soccer Bio-Banding revisited with High Performance Director James Bunce via @OnefootballEN. Read it here:
https://1.ftb.al/tW8dtIIZZM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top