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

[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

 

[Multi Sport]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[JJP]

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]

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/scho...-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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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!]

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?