US SOCCER

[InTheValley]

@SPChamp1, I think you are missing a few key elements. Let's take a step back.

Powers and Limitations of USSF
The USSF is the National Governing Body for soccer under the U.S. Olympic Committee. The USSF has to both comply with the USOC law (Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act) and the IRS Rules f
or non-profits (its a 501(c)(3)). The USOC law dictates certain things like "athlete representation" and the IRS rules dictate that it cannot engage in certain activities without violating its non-profit status. On top of this, the USSF also is a representative member of FIFA and must abide by the FIFA bylaws.

The USSF, pursuant (in part) to the Ted Stevens law has various "councils" that are voting members. These councils are broken into 4 power groups. Athletes Council (required under the law); Pro Council (required if you want the money guys to support the federation); Adult Council (2nd largest from a delegate stand point); and Youth Council (largest number of delegates).

At the end of the day, however, delegates don't matter because votes are weighted to give near equal weight to each of the councils.

The Federation, as a non-profit, isn't suppose to engage in "for-profit" activities (its violates the non-profit law). While its receives money in the form of "membership" fees from its various council members, the lions share of its revenues come from the USMNT and USWNT ($30M in FY 2017) and the monies generated from licensing ($49M). The membership fees are really pathetic:

Youth = $4.1 M
Referee = $3.1 M
Pro = $1.2 M
Amateur = $500k
Coach = $1.1 M

The MLS, USL, NWSL, are separate "for profit" entities that are members of the USSF through the various councils, BUT the USSF is not a shareholder/member or have any other management say.

If the USSF attempted to mandate to the MLS or USL that they must implement Pro/Rel, these leagues have two options (1) comply with the suggestion; or (2) say no thanks well just drop out of the USSF and give up our seats on the Adult and Pro Councils, and while we are at it ... you can't have any of our athletes for your National Team (Hockey just did this for this years Olympic cycle).

When it comes to the youth Council (AYSO, US Youth Soccer (Cal South), US Club, etc.), they are the groups that bring in the youth membership funds and are the groups mandated under the USSF Bylaws to effect change in the youth soccer world. Everything youth related flows through these non-profit organizations, except for two things (1) the Youth National Team and (2) the operation of the DA league (not, its just a league ... the clubs participating are all their own non-profits).

Pay-to-play is the funding source for the clubs that play in the various youth soccer associations. The USSF doesn't not receive these funds, except a very small portion ($1 per player) earmarked as membership fees. The cool thing about charging just $1 per youth players tells us in Fiscal 2017 that 4.1M youth players actually contributed their $1 to the Federation.

Editorial - is anybody surprised, shocked, dismayed that only 1 freaking dollar of their $1,500 to $3,000 in "club" fees goes to the federation? Follow up, what should the federation do with that dollar?

MLS is a Closed Entity / Pyramid Scheme
The MLS is not a "league" like we have seen before at the professional level. The MLS is an LLC where each member (owner) owns a percentage and is given the right to operate an MLS team in a particular region. The players are allocated to the team by the MLS and paid by the MLS (not the team). The MLS do date, has been breaking even so making a small profit through SUM (soccer united marketing), but has yet to see real success. It makes about $60M per year under its TV deal. Compare this to the NFL, where the league is an association of independant franchisees. Each franchise is its own legal entity and competes against the other franchises under the league rules. The NFL's annual TV deal pays it roughly $3 billion per year.

Youth Club Have No Outside Revenue Incentives
Because the MLS and Professional Players view the payment of solidarity and training fees to youth clubs as taking away from their pockets, the MLS and Professional Player have objected to the USSF administering these payments.

The sole funding source for the vast majority of youth soccer is parents.

The DA - MLS - Youth Connection
The federation and MLS recognized P2P creates barriers for some elite talent so are undertaking a strategy to create fully-funded DA Academies.

The obligation to fund these programs is not the USSF, but the clubs. After all the USSF only receives about $4.1M in youth fees.

There are two groups of DA clubs. MLS affiliates and non-MLS affiliates. The economic incentive is different for each group. The MLS affiliates, pursuant to the MLS rules are able to identify "Homegrown" players and get some cap relief for their homegrown players, which is the current incentive. The non-MLS academy teams are nothing more than marketing ploys. Clubs like Surf, Strikers, Arsenal, Legends, etc., have DA teams that are used as part of their training pyramid. Join our Flight 3 team as a U9 and your kid could move up the ranks to the DA team, which is partially to fully funded. These clubs/teams subsidize their DA programs on the backs of the non-DA teams.

Ultimately, the goal is eliminate P2P for the super-elite players (.5% to 1%), but P2P will always exist for the rest of the players.

The USSF's only role here is the creation of a league with rules that require the independent clubs/teams (where the money is) to abide by certain training rules.

With all of that said, the MLS is a major impediment to making real change. Until another league with the financial backing can threaten its position and provide the USSF a genuine alternative, the US Soccer landscape will not change.

The good news is, however, that European clubs have an eye on the US and appreciate that there is significant talent potential.

As long as we have enough Nationals playing oversees at young enough ages, our National teams will improve.

Please stop making sense. This is not the forum for rational thought. I say burn it all down and spend all of our resources on rec leagues and HS soccer, just like they do in all the great soccer powers. Vast sums of money and resources will assuredly flow into the game once we obliterate the only pro and youth leagues and clubs that have ever managed to remain afloat and develop anyone of consequence. The soccer revolution is coming! Power to the people!

 

[timbuck]

After Title IX became law, the NCAA created scholarship limits for the various sports, which was supposed to accomplish two things (1) primarily prevent schools from hoarding athletes to ensure competitive balance between members schools and (2) secondarily assist schools in meeting the new Title IX mandates by disproportionately limiting scholarships available to men v. women. Note, the two men's money sports, football and basketball receive enough scholarships to field multiple teams (1st, 2nd, and 3rd string). The other sports, by NCAA rules are limited, often based on "equivalency rules," versus the "head count" rules. Thus, partial scholarships are handed out so coaches can field a team. With regard to soccer, the limits are (see, http://www.scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html):

• NCAA DI = 9.9 for men, 14 for woman
• NCAA DII 9 for men and 9.9 for women

The other two college sports associations, treat men and women equally, thus, this is an NCAA problem and not directly related to Title IX, because these associations have chosen to allow schools to manage the Title IX mandates.

• NAIA 12 for both
• NJCAA 24 for both

Ultimately, my only point here is that the NCAA is doing no favors to soccer and the popularity of the sport will not occur via the college system because a coach cannot even field an entire team with full-ride scholarship players. To the extent the NCAA treats men and women difference due is part to Title IX, I say its BS.

Moreover, the lack of scholarships available to men is especially harsh for the sport. To the extent that others believe the college game in relevant to increasing the popularity on the men's side, I disagree because the college men's programs are hamstrung by the NCAA scholarship limits.

And how many D1 men’s scholarships go to foreign (

The OP on page 1 summed it up nicely:
"One thing that limits soccer is pay to play"

"If we want to get better, the US Soccer Federation has to develop a better system. It can't be the case that potential stars aren't found because they can't afford to play or that they're just overlooked entirely"

IMG is the tops for pay to play, have you seen them play in DA? terrible and near the bottom of the tables.

Ussf has 110+ million dollars in profits they are sitting on, I can think of a many ways they could be spending that profit. He's one orginal one: give out grants to any school or parks that wants to convert parts of blacktops or play space to futstal courts. Getting more kids playing futstal at elementary and middle schools would create a whole generation of players with better skills. I've seen some cities converter some seldom tennis courts too futstal and the cost was minimal.

Im with you on solidarity payments, the established stakeholders are against that so going to take special to get that done, hopefully not a another Olympics or world cup miss.

My kids are almost done with youth soccer so it's pretty much now or never so trying to make the best of it.

I’ve heard several people suggest that we need to build more futsal courts. I call BS. There is no reason that a group of kids that want to play small sided soccer (on blacktop, on grass, on dirt, in a gym) can’t just go out and play. They can use cones or pug goals.
The problem is that not enough kids want to grab a ball and play unless it is a scheduled activity.

 

[MWN]

And how many D1 men’s scholarships go to foreign (

At the D1 level: 16% for men, and 6.2% for women. There are 5,956 men playing collegiate soccer and 9,383 women playing collegiate soccer. Due to Title IX mandates regarding gender equality, there are far fewer men's soccer programs at the D1 level because schools with Football and Basketball programs tend to cut men's soccer altogether. My only point here is not to attack Title IX, but just to recognize that collegiate soccer for men is seriously disadvantaged when compared to women because the lions share of D1 men's scholarships are in Football (18,200), Basketball (10,700) and Baseball (10.3k) although women's basketball is about the same as mens.

If the issue is promoting "soccer" as a sport at the youth level using college as a carrot, college men's soccer is not a viable solution and a poor choice due to the realities of Title IX. For girls its a different equation.

 

[SPChamp1]

Where, exactly, is the money and investment going to come from? If you build a soccer pitch in a cornfield in Iowa, the ghosts of soccer past will all appear out of thin air to play ball, which will generate massive ticket sales revenue that saves the farm, er, team from foreclosure? Will someone, anyone, please do us all a favor and explain the business plan and proposed budget as if they were seeking a bank loan? The bank has a few questions...

Who is going to “invest” in a program that could evaporate in a single year due to relegation? Why would an MLS team drop a million a year on a program that, for three of them every year, will just vaporize? Where is a newly promoted non-MLS team going to obtain the approximately $350,000 we are going to loan it that it takes to operate a team every year? How much do you think it will cost to hire and pay scouts (who actually know what to look for) to scour rec leagues for talent? Where is the money going to come from to pay these scouts? What is the likely return on investment paying people to scout 12-14 year olds playing AYSO? How many 13 year old rec players in the history of the world have ever developed into a pro soccer player, or even a college star? If that number is zero, as we think it is, why is paying people to scout AYSO games a better return on investment than scouting dance recitals for soccer players? Or spending that money and time coaching kids who are aleady committed to the sport? If money and investment are going to flow like the River Jordan into a system with P/R, why didn’t that happen with the really awesome CSL that @jpeter described as the greatest and most successful youth soccer development model of all time? A system so mind-bogglingly brilliant that all of the best clubs and players all left it?

For the love of god, who said anything about just popping up a field in BFE and players are going to flock to it and we are going to win a World Cup.

It is my belief that while MLS would by most be considered a successful league with a great on field product, I do not believe that we are doing enough to continue to build the game domestically when it comes to developing youth talent. Our response shouldn’t be, “well as long as we send our kids to Europe we will be fine”. We have the resources here in the US to do a better job and raise the bar.

Competition is the biggest driver for change and improvement, if you introduce a merit based system and now 100 teams are looking to develop talent for their club so that they can possibly make it to the top of the pyramid, then it becomes a “keeping up with the Jones’s type scenario,” in that more clubs will look to improve the entire system to be relevant. Clubs will look to better develop coaches, they will look harder and deeper to find talent and not just rely on what pops in their lap.

There is money out there for soccer and while there is always a risk in an investment, if you open the system to a degree the reward for that investment becomes greater.

Agree or Disagree, I don’t care. I didn’t lay out a fool proof plan and say why doesn’t US soccer do this, just an opinion, but if the system isn’t challenged to a degree then nothing will change. I just think we can do better.

 

[SPChamp1]

Where, exactly, is the money and investment going to come from? If you build a soccer pitch in a cornfield in Iowa, the ghosts of soccer past will all appear out of thin air to play ball, which will generate massive ticket sales revenue that saves the farm, er, team from foreclosure? Will someone, anyone, please do us all a favor and explain the business plan and proposed budget as if they were seeking a bank loan? The bank has a few questions...

Who is going to “invest” in a program that could evaporate in a single year due to relegation? Why would an MLS team drop a million a year on a program that, for three of them every year, will just vaporize? Where is a newly promoted non-MLS team going to obtain the approximately $350,000 we are going to loan it that it takes to operate a team every year? How much do you think it will cost to hire and pay scouts (who actually know what to look for) to scour rec leagues for talent? Where is the money going to come from to pay these scouts? What is the likely return on investment paying people to scout 12-14 year olds playing AYSO? How many 13 year old rec players in the history of the world have ever developed into a pro soccer player, or even a college star? If that number is zero, as we think it is, why is paying people to scout AYSO games a better return on investment than scouting dance recitals for soccer players? Or spending that money and time coaching kids who are aleady committed to the sport? If money and investment are going to flow like the River Jordan into a system with P/R, why didn’t that happen with the really awesome CSL that @jpeter described as the greatest and most successful youth soccer development model of all time? A system so mind-bogglingly brilliant that all of the best clubs and players all left it?

For the love of god, who said anything about just popping up a field in BFE and players are going to flock to it and we are going to win a World Cup.

It is my belief that while MLS would by most be considered a successful league with a great on field product, I do not believe that we are doing enough to continue to build the game domestically when it comes to developing youth talent. Our response shouldn’t be, “well as long as we send our kids to Europe we will be fine”. We have the resources here in the US to do a better job and raise the bar.

Competition is the biggest driver for change and improvement, if you introduce a merit based system and now 100 teams are looking to develop talent for their club so that they can possibly make it to the top of the pyramid, then it becomes a “keeping up with the Jones’s type scenario,” in that more clubs will look to improve the entire system to be relevant. Clubs will look to better develop coaches, they will look harder and deeper to find talent and not just rely on what pops in their lap.

There is money out there for soccer and while there is always a risk in an investment, if you open the system to a degree the reward for that investment becomes greater.

Agree or Disagree, I don’t care. I didn’t lay out a fool proof plan and say why doesn’t US soccer do this, just an opinion, but if the system isn’t challenged to a degree then nothing will change. I just think we can do better.

 

[Keepermom2]

"Although scholarship limits came into effect around the same time as Title IX, in the mid-1970s, that's a coincidence. Back then, the NCAA was concerned that major football programs were hoarding players by giving them financial aid."

"But if you leave preconceptions aside and just look at the data, you will find that the real enemy of men's sports isn't Title IX. It's NCAA scholarship limits."

"Put simply, scholarship limits protect and promote revenue sports."

"The NCAA admits that, for some time now, its scholarship rules have been geared toward generating money. "For men's sports in Division I, the NCAA membership determined in 1974 to separate football and basketball financial aid from other sports," says spokesman Cameron Schuh. "This move was predicated on the ability of those sports at that time to generate revenue for the institutions as compared to the other sports the institutions fielded."

That's as much as the NCAA would explain, though, about anything related to its scholarship policies. We do know that the NCAA has fiddled with the limits over the years, occasionally reducing the overall number to cut costs in hard times. But at most schools, you still have to get to the fourth-string tight end or the third-string point guard before you find a player who's not getting a full ride in football or basketball, while soccer coaches can't even field a starting lineup of scholarship athletes."

When you read the way the OCR goes about investigating Title IX compliance in case resolutionas and how they calculate compliance, it appears that some schools could potentially be dinged for non compliance for under representing men because of the one size fits all NCAA rules. It would be interesting to look at the numbers that each college is required to provide on a yearly basis but not enough so that I will try and get that information.

http://www.espn.com/espnw/title-ix/article/7959799/the-silent-enemy-men-sports

 

[jpeter]

And how many D1 men’s scholarships go to foreign (


I’ve heard several people suggest that we need to build more futsal courts. I call BS. There is no reason that a group of kids that want to play small sided soccer (on blacktop, on grass, on dirt, in a gym) can’t just go out and play. They can use cones or pug goals.
The problem is that not enough kids want to grab a ball and play unless it is a scheduled activity.

I was referring to elementary to middle school kids. 90% of them likely never heard of futsal and have no knowledge of the games starting out.

During free time recess and/or lunch kids go to the blacktops to play basketball, handball or whatever because that what's available to them. Having a futsal court in the mix will allow them the opportunitity to play and learn the game, PE could teach that in there rotation of sports. Grade school Basketball is popular partly because there are so many hoops and courts at school almost anybody can get involved, soccer not so much if there is room on grass or if there is even a pitch for 7v7, so not many kids are playing at lunch or whenever.

 

[MWN]

"Although scholarship limits came into effect around the same time as Title IX, in the mid-1970s, that's a coincidence. Back then, the NCAA was concerned that major football programs were hoarding players by giving them financial aid."

"But if you leave preconceptions aside and just look at the data, you will find that the real enemy of men's sports isn't Title IX. It's NCAA scholarship limits."

"Put simply, scholarship limits protect and promote revenue sports."

"The NCAA admits that, for some time now, its scholarship rules have been geared toward generating money. "For men's sports in Division I, the NCAA membership determined in 1974 to separate football and basketball financial aid from other sports," says spokesman Cameron Schuh. "This move was predicated on the ability of those sports at that time to generate revenue for the institutions as compared to the other sports the institutions fielded."

That's as much as the NCAA would explain, though, about anything related to its scholarship policies. We do know that the NCAA has fiddled with the limits over the years, occasionally reducing the overall number to cut costs in hard times. But at most schools, you still have to get to the fourth-string tight end or the third-string point guard before you find a player who's not getting a full ride in football or basketball, while soccer coaches can't even field a starting lineup of scholarship athletes."

When you read the way the OCR goes about investigating Title IX compliance in case resolutionas and how they calculate compliance, it appears that some schools could potentially be dinged for non compliance for under representing men because of the one size fits all NCAA rules. It would be interesting to look at the numbers that each college is required to provide on a yearly basis but not enough so that I will try and get that information.

http://www.espn.com/espnw/title-ix/article/7959799/the-silent-enemy-men-sports

@Keepermom2,
The ESPN article does not examine the disparity between mens and womans teams within the same sport, but simply concludes that revenue is the reason why men's soccer can't field a team. There is no questions that NCAA scholarship limits are designed to ensure competitive balance between the schools AND the fact that the money sports get the lions share of the scholarships is a clear indication that the NCAA is protecting those money sports.

However, where the ESPN article falls down is that it doesn't attempt to answer why mens soccer gets 9.9 and women's soccer gets 14. Like any issue the answers are generally multi-faceted and there always isn't just 1 answer. Does men's soccer generate less revenue than women's collegiate soccer? No. Mens collegiate soccer for a few schools is actually profitable to break even. The reason for the disparity between men's and women's soccer is because of how the NCAA has addressed Title IX demands in its scholarship limitation rules.

So, the ESPN article is a nice discussion as it relates purely revenue v. non-revenue sports, but please note that nowhere does it attempt to examine why across the board why women get more scholarships in a given sport compared to the same men's sport. It recognizes the discrepancy exists, but doesn't answer why. If its not Title IX, and it certainly isn't revenue for that sport as most collegiate sports programs are money losers, then what is it?

Bottom line, the NCAA has created rules that treats non-revenue sports differently between men and women because of Title IX.

 

[InTheValley]

For the love of god, who said anything about just popping up a field in BFE and players are going to flock to it and we are going to win a World Cup.

It is my belief that while MLS would by most be considered a successful league with a great on field product, I do not believe that we are doing enough to continue to build the game domestically when it comes to developing youth talent. Our response shouldn’t be, “well as long as we send our kids to Europe we will be fine”. We have the resources here in the US to do a better job and raise the bar.

Competition is the biggest driver for change and improvement, if you introduce a merit based system and now 100 teams are looking to develop talent for their club so that they can possibly make it to the top of the pyramid, then it becomes a “keeping up with the Jones’s type scenario,” in that more clubs will look to improve the entire system to be relevant. Clubs will look to better develop coaches, they will look harder and deeper to find talent and not just rely on what pops in their lap.

There is money out there for soccer and while there is always a risk in an investment, if you open the system to a degree the reward for that investment becomes greater.

Agree or Disagree, I don’t care. I didn’t lay out a fool proof plan and say why doesn’t US soccer do this, just an opinion, but if the system isn’t challenged to a degree then nothing will change. I just think we can do better.

Seriously, where does the money come from? If MLS teams already drop a million dollars a year on their academies, how does it become a better investment for them if there’s a 20% chance every year they’ll lose their entire investment, plus they need to drop another $100-200k annually to pay scouts to scour the rec leagues to find “potential”? That doesn’t exactly sound like a better investment to me, but what would I know about investing money?

“Keeping up with the Jones” was coined as a way of explaining that it’s a bad idea to do something that is unsustainable, by the way. It’s not exactly the sound business model that you that you think it is. Please just tell me, where is this money coming from once you drive those who are already spending it on development out of the business because you made it too risky and expensive for them? If you need a cliche, the better one is “don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”

 

[mahrez]

Seriously, where does the money come from? If MLS teams already drop a million dollars a year on their academies, how does it become a better investment for them if there’s a 20% chance every year they’ll lose their entire investment, plus they need to drop another $100-200k annually to pay scouts to scour the rec leagues to find “potential”? That doesn’t exactly sound like a better investment to me, but what would I know about investing money?

“Keeping up with the Jones” was coined as a way of explaining that it’s a bad idea to do something that is unsustainable, by the way. It’s not exactly the sound business model that you that you think it is. Please just tell me, where is this money coming from once you drive those who are already spending it on development out of the business because you made it too risky and expensive for them? If you need a cliche, the better one is “don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”

The Galaxy are spending $4 million or more on there academy per year and have yet to see much return on that investment. Can you name any pro 1st team or current MNT players that have spendt more than a season there as youth?

There not going to get regulated due to open competition at the youth level, the ones that are those clubs that are not competive, look at the u15-18 standings and you will see the problems.

MLS soccer and there academies are money losers currently for the most part and they keep aflot by deep pocket parent companies or rich indvidual families.

Us soccer has a huge surplus of money, govt gives out vast sums on sholarships, parents spend millions on pay to play so there are ways to get funding.

It's easier to get $ out of parents then to raise funds through soccer charties, sponserships, partnerships, etc so the path of less resistance has been choosen.

Think about all the soccer programs that are lower cost: High School, Latin Leagues, AYSO, indoor, etc they have a much larger base of players and manage so there businesses plans must be working right?

One of the biggest problem of all is nobody really wants to cooperate with any other organization be it ussf, da, us club, cal south, high school, etc and there all driving there own agenda so we don't have a unified apporach to the problem and the $ is spead wide & thin. Budgets can be planned, resources found but when you're primarily looking to parents to fund youth soccer than the usa might keep missing out at higher level play at the WC or oylmpics.

 

[Keepermom2]

Not accurate. NCAA rules throw certain colleges out of compliance with Title IX because of their caps as shown in the sports vice article I provided below. In addition, you can look at the data submitted to Board of Education for each school and see for yourself. Note the reports that the colleges are required to submit do not include scholarships by sport only the total scholarships. https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/ I said it early on because I am a numbers person; you can't put in global caps and meet the requirements under Title IX at every school and the article reiterates that point. NCAA may be saying that is why they are doing it but it doesn't make it so. The numbers speak for themselves.

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/d7mpqk/is-the-ncaa-undermining-title-ix

NCAA rules do not combine with Title IX- "In a bigger picture sense, perhaps this shouldn't be surprising. The Office for Civil Rights enforces Title IX, not the NCAA. The NCAA does not have Title IX requirements written into its bylaws and does not make Title IX compliance a requirement for membership, nor has it ever punished member schools who fall out of compliance. Similarly, none of the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, or Pac-12 have Title IX provisions. (The ACC told VICE Sports that it does not comment on ongoing litigation. The Big 12 declined to comment.)

In fact, the NCAA actually sued the federal government in 1976 in a failed effort to challenge Title IX. Today, that isn't an option: not legally, and certainly not from a public relations standpoint. Still, the association's history, governance, and current scholarship caps suggest that it doesn't seem to care a whole lot about Title IX—not unless it can hide behind the law in order to keep money away from athletes, male and female."

"Title IX is thrown up at times as a smokescreen to prevent candid ways of dealing with some of the longstanding problems that we've had in college sports," said Drexel sport management professor Ellen Staurowsky, a NCAA critic and college sports historian. "Consistent with the overall industry tendency, I think the rules get manipulated in service to whatever issue of the day is of greatest threat to the profitability of the entities involved."

After further reading and thought, it appears the NCAA has made an attempt to balance and meet Title IX without impacting too much the profitable sports football and basketball thus not only reducing the scholarships given to men in other sports but as the article states, still putting colleges out of compliance with Title IX in favor of men. Having said that, I would argue any college that doesn't offer football but has to stick to the NCAA limit would probably be out of compliance in favor of women thus still putting the school out of compliance with Title IX. I looked at information submitted to the Board of Education for two schools and was not shocked to see I was right on both of my assertions. One Pack 12 school looked okay until I realized they forgot to put the number of men's soccer players into their report which makes them out of compliance on the financial aid given in favor of men. I checked with my authoritative source Facebook to ensure there was an active team during the school year provided and yep there was. The other school I looked at didn't have a football program and was out of compliance in favor of women. https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/

My point again is that Title IX is NOT only for women and is not the reason why men get less scholarships in soccer. The NCAA could easily make it even in soccer and take away a small bit from Football or Basketball to meet whatever crazy one size fits all goal they are trying to meet under the guise of Title IX. If you read Title IX and the case resolutions, you will see it is NOT an "Entitlement" program for women nor are there any specific requirements catering only towards women. That is NCAA that has done that. It is a rule ensuring balanced opportunities for men and women in sports based upon enrollment of each gender and interest of students at each college. One size fits all caps clearly is not congruent with what Title IX is trying to achieve. I am guessing the OCR is not immediately doing anything about this because they are soooo bogged down with sexual harassment cases, transgender cases of discrimination, as well as 504 disability cases among many other cases. They have very few people to take these cases on so if there isn't a complaint they have to address, they don't do anything proactively unless of course there are many complaints.

This has been an informative run for me and I am done. I just really dislike blanket statements like women are getting favorable treatment when that is not true when looking at college sports in totality.

 

[MWN]

Not accurate. ...
My point again is that Title IX is NOT only for women and is not the reason why men get less scholarships in soccer.

The above is not true. Let me try this one last time. In 1982 at the NCAA Convention, the scholarship limits for women were established.

"Some women’s sports had higher financial aid limits than their comparable men’s sports. This was intentional and mainly due to the financial impact and ability for member institutions to meet Title IX proportionality requirements (NCAA Convention Proceedings, 1982)." (See, page 26, TITLE IX COMPLIANCE VS. NCAA SCHOLARSHIP LIMITS - https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/indexablecontent/uuid:c5a88a69-2a45-4102-9693-a4a17180e559)

Now, the author of this thesis (a female) concluded after reading the various NCAA minutes and proceedings what I have been trying to explain, the NCAA adopted disproportionate scholarship limits in order for its member institutions to meet Title IX requirements.

The argument that Tittle IX is not the cause of the NCAA's disproportionate scholarship limits is not based on fact and contrary to the NCAA's minutes. Moreover, it makes absolutely no logical sense that the NCAA would create disproportionate scholarship limits if there was not some force requiring member schools to offset scholarships granted for other mens programs (namely, football).

I note (as does the author) of the above link that the NCAA could handle this differently and simply make the scholarship limits equal, thereby giving schools the choice to either drop men's soccer entirely (as do many schools), especially those with football programs or schools could self regulate the number of scholarships granted by impacting whatever programs they see fit. The problem with the later is competitive imbalances may occur, which is fine by me as long as we raise the caps to allow a program to at least scholarship 2 year worth of athletes. (Thus, soccer on boys and girls should get 22-24).

One final note, just because a limit exists does not mean a school has to reach it. Its potential competitiveness will suffer, but Schools can choose which programs to invest in and which they won't. Setting a limit of 22 simply means a school cannot exceed that, its still free to only hand out 7 in order to meet Title IX requirements if another men's program is using most of the men's scholarships.

 

[Keepermom2]

The above is not true. Let me try this one last time. In 1982 at the NCAA Convention, the scholarship limits for women were established.

"Some women’s sports had higher financial aid limits than their comparable men’s sports. This was intentional and mainly due to the financial impact and ability for member institutions to meet Title IX proportionality requirements (NCAA Convention Proceedings, 1982)." (See, page 26, TITLE IX COMPLIANCE VS. NCAA SCHOLARSHIP LIMITS - https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/indexablecontent/uuid:c5a88a69-2a45-4102-9693-a4a17180e559)

Now, the author of this thesis (a female) concluded after reading the various NCAA minutes and proceedings what I have been trying to explain, the NCAA adopted disproportionate scholarship limits in order for its member institutions to meet Title IX requirements.

The argument that Tittle IX is not the cause of the NCAA's disproportionate scholarship limits is not based on fact and contrary to the NCAA's minutes. Moreover, it makes absolutely no logical sense that the NCAA would create disproportionate scholarship limits if there was not some force requiring member schools to offset scholarships granted for other mens programs (namely, football).

I note (as does the author) of the above link that the NCAA could handle this differently and simply make the scholarship limits equal, thereby giving schools the choice to either drop men's soccer entirely (as do many schools), especially those with football programs or schools could self regulate the number of scholarships granted by impacting whatever programs they see fit. The problem with the later is competitive imbalances may occur, which is fine by me as long as we raise the caps to allow a program to at least scholarship 2 year worth of athletes. (Thus, soccer on boys and girls should get 22-24).

One final note, just because a limit exists does not mean a school has to reach it. Its potential competitiveness will suffer, but Schools can choose which programs to invest in and which they won't. Setting a limit of 22 simply means a school cannot exceed that, its still free to only hand out 7 in order to meet Title IX requirements if another men's program is using most of the men's scholarships.

Just because NCAA says they are doing it in response to Title IX does not make it so nor does the resulting lack of compliance with Title IX from so many colleges indicate that. I doubt there is anything in their minutes that showed support for how the caps they instituted provided gender equalization across all colleges in accordance with Title IX or said more than we have to do this in accordance with Title IX. Either they are completely ignorant to the law or they have their own agenda and I believe the answer is both. I believe the caps that NCAA put in place has to do with their own agenda which was to make sure the profitable sport of football was protected. At the moment that Title IX was put in place it would have been logical (without consideration of profit issues) to take from football to increase other women's sports since there isn't an equivalent female sport and the numbers required for football were so large but what NCAA put in place decreased scholarships to all of men's sports even though there was an equivalent female team and as such protected football.

What did they do that shows they were enacting rules that were in accordance with Title IX? Anyone can say they are enacting laws in accordance with a given law but if it has no resemblance of the law, than they didn't enact it as a result of that law.

 

[Grace T.]

During free time recess and/or lunch kids go to the blacktops to play basketball, handball or whatever because that what's available to them. Having a futsal court in the mix will allow them the opportunitity to play and learn the game, PE could teach that in there rotation of sports. Grade school Basketball is popular partly because there are so many hoops and courts at school almost anybody can get involved, soccer not so much if there is room on grass or if there is even a pitch for 7v7, so not many kids are playing at lunch or whenever.

Don’t disagree. Most kids don’t know futsal. But side note outside the burbs many cal schools have eliminated pe since nclb and common core creates incentives mostly for money to be pumped into core subjects and infrastructure, along with a rising pension problem. Sports arts and music were first to be cut.

Think about all the soccer programs that are lower cost: High School, Latin Leagues, AYSO, indoor, etc they have a much larger base of players and manage so there businesses plans must be working right?

One of the biggest problem of all is nobody really wants to cooperate with any other organization be it ussf, da, us club, cal south, high school, etc and there all driving there own agenda so we don't have a unified apporach to the problem and the $ is spead wide & thin. Budgets can be planned, resources found but when you're primarily looking to parents to fund youth soccer than the usa might keep missing out at higher level play at the WC or oylmpics.

All 3 programs have suffered due to club soccer. High school from da players having restrictions on play and a lack of college scouting. Ayso from top talent dropping out for club and by u14 being pretty much a waste land. Ayso is now canabalizing it’s own core program through extras and United, some teams of which are surprisingly competitive due to the large pool they select from. The best Latin league players are poached by pay to play clubs offering scholarships. Travel and transport are bigger problems for these players than club fees.

 

[timbuck]

Don’t disagree. Most kids don’t know futsal. But side note outside the burbs many cal schools have eliminated pe since nclb and common core creates incentives mostly for money to be pumped into core subjects and infrastructure, along with a rising pension problem. Sports arts and music were first to be cut.


All 3 programs have suffered due to club soccer. High school from da players having restrictions on play and a lack of college scouting. Ayso from top talent dropping out for club and by u14 being pretty much a waste land. Ayso is now canabalizing it’s own core program through extras and United, some teams of which are surprisingly competitive due to the large pool they select from. The best Latin league players are poached by pay to play clubs offering scholarships. Travel and transport are bigger problems for these players than club fees.

I’m not sure PE teachers are equipped for much. Certainly not to give guidance on how to play futsal.
In PE last year, my 6th header had to demonstrate that she could juggle. Not with a soccer ball. But like a circus clown. Had to get several rotations for an “A” that week.

 

[MWN]

Just because NCAA says they are doing it in response to Title IX does not make it so nor does the resulting lack of compliance with Title IX from so many colleges indicate that. I doubt there is anything in their minutes that showed support for how the caps they instituted provided gender equalization across all colleges in accordance with Title IX or said more than we have to do this in accordance with Title IX. Either they are completely ignorant to the law or they have their own agenda and I believe the answer is both. I believe the caps that NCAA put in place has to do with their own agenda which was to make sure the profitable sport of football was protected. At the moment that Title IX was put in place it would have been logical (without consideration of profit issues) to take from football to increase other women's sports since there isn't an equivalent female sport and the numbers required for football were so large but what NCAA put in place decreased scholarships to all of men's sports even though there was an equivalent female team and as such protected football.

What did they do that shows they were enacting rules that were in accordance with Title IX? Anyone can say they are enacting laws in accordance with a given law but if it has no resemblance of the law, than they didn't enact it as a result of that law.

Just take a step back. We have no reason to disbelieve Ms. Kantor in her review of the NCAA Convention proceedings from 1982. It also makes perfect logical sense. Consider the following:

1976 Title IX becomes law.
1976 NCAA and its members are figuring out how to handle this.
1981-1982 The NCAA begins tracking gender participation rates and is the first year of its detailed study.
1982 The convention gets the report and sees that it has a problem with participation rates almost double for men v. women. It recognizes woman sports for the first time will be subject to the "scholarship limits" just like the men. But how do we solve the gender imbalance? We can't allocate the same number as the men, because that won't offset the football problem, unless we take away sports from men and add additional sports for women. We want to ensure some limits to protect the money sports (football and basketball). The only thing we can do to address the Title IX mandate is give more scholarships for certain sports to woman to assist school in compliance with Title IX.

Its logical and how it happened, as reported by Ms. Kantor who (unlike you and I) actually reviewed the minutes. I don't doubt it because it makes perfect sense. Moreover, it was a reasonable solution by the NCAA at the time given the fact Title IX posed serious problems for NCAA institutions and still does.

With regard to your question "What did they do that shows they were enacting rules that were in accordance with Title IX?" What they did is treat certain men's sports programs in a disparate manner by providing women's programs with more scholarships to allow schools to cure the imbalance. Thus, men stayed at 9.9 and rather than giving woman 9.9, which would have not helped the football schools in meeting Title IX compliance so they gave women 14 in soccer and so on (basketball, women get 15 (men 13); X-Country/Track, men 12.6 and women 18, etc.)

Why are you fighting this so hard? Nothing I have written is wrong or untrue. The NCAA adopted disparate scholarship limits between men and women to assist its members in complying with Title IX. It was the solution the NCAA chose in 1982 to their member's Title IX compliance problems. Whether schools today are in or out of compliance with Title IX is inconsequential to the decision in 1982 to set the scholarship limits higher for women because of the relatively new Title IX mandates.

 

[Keepermom2]

Just take a step back. We have no reason to disbelieve Ms. Kantor in her review of the NCAA Convention proceedings from 1982. It also makes perfect logical sense. Consider the following:

1976 Title IX becomes law.
1976 NCAA and its members are figuring out how to handle this.
1981-1982 The NCAA begins tracking gender participation rates and is the first year of its detailed study.
1982 The convention gets the report and sees that it has a problem with participation rates almost double for men v. women. It recognizes woman sports for the first time will be subject to the "scholarship limits" just like the men. But how do we solve the gender imbalance? We can't allocate the same number as the men, because that won't offset the football problem, unless we take away sports from men and add additional sports for women. We want to ensure some limits to protect the money sports (football and basketball). The only thing we can do to address the Title IX mandate is give more scholarships for certain sports to woman to assist school in compliance with Title IX.

Its logical and how it happened, as reported by Ms. Kantor who (unlike you and I) actually reviewed the minutes. I don't doubt it because it makes perfect sense. Moreover, it was a reasonable solution by the NCAA at the time given the fact Title IX posed serious problems for NCAA institutions and still does.

With regard to your question "What did they do that shows they were enacting rules that were in accordance with Title IX?" What they did is treat certain men's sports programs in a disparate manner by providing women's programs with more scholarships to allow schools to cure the imbalance. Thus, men stayed at 9.9 and rather than giving woman 9.9, which would have not helped the football schools in meeting Title IX compliance so they gave women 14 in soccer and so on (basketball, women get 15 (men 13); X-Country/Track, men 12.6 and women 18, etc.)

Why are you fighting this so hard? Nothing I have written is wrong or untrue. The NCAA adopted disparate scholarship limits between men and women to assist its members in complying with Title IX. It was the solution the NCAA chose in 1982 to their member's Title IX compliance problems. Whether schools today are in or out of compliance with Title IX is inconsequential to the decision in 1982 to set the scholarship limits higher for women because of the relatively new Title IX mandates.

How does the NCAA scholarship limits comply with Title IX? Show me the link between how those limits are applied and the law?

 

[younothat]

Maybe we should just start over....

Since most people don't show up and play pickup anymore we can have organized training and games ever Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday at your local school, pitch, park, wherehouse or whatever.

Underground music scene festival style, show up in your costume (uniform of choice) but only blacks and whites please so we can figure who's on what team without spending money on those fancy pinnies.

$5 per hour per player, unisex, 3 age groups playing together, having fun, teams are picked by rock, paper, and scissors

You can call your league/team what every you want; Super Mario Bros, BLINK-1ETO'O, DIRTY SANCHEZ (adults only sorry), ABSOLUTELY FABREGAS, KLOPPS AND ROBBERS

Games go until the ice cream truck shows up, your don't have to buy from the truck but if you don't you might not have a referee since there pulling double duty

Parking is free unless you want to sponsor the kids who can't pay the $5 per hour.

Standing are keep so top teams advance to the Super KFC Wimbledon cup where you eat chicken and wonder what this has to do with soccer.

Title 99 says everybody can play as long as you can show a receipt that your bought "hot" air from the the balloon guy at the 99 cent store.

 

[coachsamy]

CSL was great until the great powers were being relegated by the smaller guy and those great powers went into form what we know as SCDSL...

 

[Mystery Train]

This thread ^^^^^