Men's Ice Hockey turns a profit at a few schools that sell out big arenas, like Minnesota, but they are isolated instances.
Men's Ice Hockey turns a profit at a few schools that sell out big arenas, like Minnesota, but they are isolated instances.
coachrefparent
GOLD
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?
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
DA
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
DA
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.
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
DA
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.
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.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?
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.
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.
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.
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
GOLD
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 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
PREMIER
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
http://www.espn.com/ncaa/revenue
Seems like a parent that was drinking the juice finally came to the realization that you were just a paycheck.
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.
Soccerfan2
GOLD
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.
Also, just FYI, non-revenue men’s sports lose MORE money than non-revenue women’s sports.
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.