Let's cut to the chase here (After 400 posts or so!) Would anyone have a problem with NCAA football be excepted OUT of Title IX requirements, and all other aspects of the law as it applies to ALL other sports being left to the proportionality rule?
I would. Don't blame one gender for the other gender having a sport which requires more players and perpetuating the myth that you need four times the starting lineup on scholarship. I'm not to get into how the law should be interpreted because that's way too sticky and I'm really not sure exactly where I fall on the matter. But I know this: as much as I disagree with strict proportionality, you can't remove one sport just to make it easier. That's as discriminatory as it gets. The ADs and presidents need to find better ways to work around the football issue. Go to 70 scholarships. Those 15 scholarships could generate more than $150K that can be shifted to the women's side to add some sports. Those sports may not be fully funded with scholarships, but they will be there creating participation numbers that willbalance better. And do you really think that spreading 70 scholarships around instead of 85 will kill a football team? I think, in fact, it will strengthen the programs locally because more people from in-state will get the opportunity to walk on.
I would. No cake and eating it, too. DePaul, Northridge and many other schools realize they can be excellent schools and have prestigious academic and athletic programs without football. If AD's are stuck on the idea that football is so important, they should HAVE to sacrifice to keep it. And alumni and students alike should take them to task about it. Football should not be more important than wrestling, swimming, volleyball, baseball and soccer combined. That's just sad. And I'm a football fan.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Miami University (OH) soccer loses appeal If so, that was a really, really stupid interpretation. Good Lord, are you sure about this? It's such a Plessy v. Ferguson mentality. Why did Brown v. Board come about? It is my belief that if white and black schools had been equally funded, this decision might never have happened, and it sure wouldn't have happened in the 50's. Brown v. Board happened because the schools were NOT separate but equal. They were separate and unequal. You can't have 8 sports with 100 schollys for women, and 8 sports with 200 scholly for men, and say men and women have the same opportunity for schollys. That's stupid on its face.
If we want medium-sized universities to stop axing men's soccer, quit sending money to them, quit sending your kids there. In reality, however, the stream of soccer talent will not be affected. Good players have plenty of options, including project-40 or going to Europe. College soccer is a viable option for serious players only if they go to play at a serious soccer school. UCLA, Indiana, and Virginia come to mind. Miami of Ohio, however, was never a talent machine, and I will not shed a tear for their misguided decision to cut men's soccer.
So, Football, which generates practically ALL the revenues, should pay for women's sports that produce practically nothing. And as for those 15 young men (half of which are probably black males), we simply tell them, tough luck, we gave your scholarship to some female Field Hockey player from Cambridge, Mass (whose Dad is a lawyer and Mom is a doctor) OK, so I am being sarcastic! But hey, if that is the way it is, no big deal to me, I just want to make sure we all are on the same sheet of music here!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Miami University (OH) soccer loses appeal Dave: I understand the gist of your point. There where/are some major differences between 1956 and Brown, and 1972 and Title IX. Be that as it may, the law was never interpreted to mean proportionality until 1993 and the Clinton administration. For an excellent discussion on the law, see any post that John Galt has posted. He has been spot on all week!
Donna Lopiano and company wouldn't go for this in a million years. I honestly think they have a visceral dislike for major college football and what it represents to them: male entitlement and domination, male hogging of resources and glory, perpetuation of age old traditions, men as performers and women as cheerleaders etc. etc.. I think they would sooner agree to an exemption for male wrestling programs (which they won't) than to any exemption for football. As a traditionalist and green eyeshade type, I would say a lucrative cash cow (in cases where football is) should not be treated in same way as straight expenses for Title IX evaluation. But that opinion that you and I probably share is no basis for consensus.
Definitely. I have big problems with that. Why would the biggest athletic team be exempt from rules covering athletics? The fact is, college football at the Div 1 level has nothing to do with academics or student athletes. Sure the occasional walk-on (usually a small school standout) makes the special teams, but football has more or less become an adjunct of college football booster clubs. A poor (rich) man's way of owning a professional sports team. When a college football coach gets bought out of a multi-year deal, more often than not it is the "boosters" that pay off the ex-coach. At UNC the boosters, who are known around town as the Ram's Club, are officially called The Educational Foundation. They ain't raising money for the chemistry department. Not only these teams de facto run by the boosters, they are more and more often being run for the benefit of the boosters. College basketball arenas and football stadiums are following the pros into the world of seat licenses, with current students being steadily left with fewer and worse tickets than a generation ago. Big time college sports is a disease. Giving it a "special exemption" will do nothing to further the academic mission of the schools they are puportedly attached to. Well that, and a special exemption for college football would definitely mean that the United States will win the 2014 FIFA World Cup.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Miami University (OH) soccer loses appeal Why the hell would you assume that decrease? Who would win a game between the Miami Hurricanes and the Carolina Panthers (1-15 last year.) The Panthers would completely destroy them. My point, which should be obvious, is that people don't root for teams based on their absolute quality. Otherwise, why be an MLS fan? What kind of fool follows Ajax or PSV? If Div. 1 reduced schollys to 65 across the board, interest in college football would not decrease one iota. Not one. Because every Saturday, the number of teams winning and losing wouldn't change one iota. Perhaps the bigtime schools might see revenue drop, if a limit of 65 increased parity. I doubt it, it hasn't happened before, but I can't say it's impossible. But then, if those big teams are losing more games, somebody's beating them. And those teams will have happier and more interested fans, and see revenue increase. See, here's the thing...once upon a time, there were no limits at all. Then it was 105. Now it's 85. These limits have seen a growth in interest in college football, as measured by our national symbol, $$$. Why in God's name would anyone think that another decrease would have the opposite effect? I'm NOT arguing that the limits have increased the money in the game. It is my belief that the limits are completely independent of the changes in the sports market that haves driven the money train. But it'd be pretty weird if the scholly limits were working against the money train. And if they are, it's like a mosquito pushing back a locomotive. The locomotive is gonna win that one. I completely reject your hypothetical of revenue decreases. It's like wondering what would have happened if Spartacus had a Piper Cub.
Who is calling for a complete cut of football scholarships? Football would do just fine at 70 scholarships. That is hardly Ivy league status. I get a little tired of the Football team with a University attached model. College sports have gotten so far from the original educational mission that it is ridiculous. If we really want to help the USMNT, we'll speed along the development of MLS and A-league reserve and developmental sides. More effective and avoids the hypocrisy. College is for education, not stocking pro rosters, not for the olympic team, not for making supporting NFL-lite type operations, and not for sliding athlete-"students" into school in any way possible. The Ivy league/Patriot league model will not be embraced by the big time football factories. Undergraduate education is also not being embraced by these institutions as well.
Your blatant hypocrisy is borderline offensive. Dude, most programs lose money. You can't possibly mean this to be some kind of standard for Title IX, or a meaningful contribution to this discussion. I won't even get into the issue of assessing extracurricular activities for profitability.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Miami University (OH) soccer loses appeal Coming from you I'll take that as a compliment.
I thought we were talking about schools here, for whom the primary concern was not supposed to be profit/loss. My bad. Nice. The Race Card. Are you sure you're not Thomas? You sound an awfully lot like him. No you weren't you were being absurdist. And yet we aren't.
USAsoccer-you suggest that it is unfair that football, which at some schools is a huge revenue producer, shouldn't live by the same standards as non-revenue women sports. How many men's sports are revenue producers? Would you have the college sports experience reduced to men's football, basketball, and and maybe one or two other sports (Women's hoops at UCONN, Men's hockey at a few schools, etc..). Here is the point-college is not pro. They are completely different, and as much as schools try to get into the big-budget arms race, they stray from what they should be doing. At EVERY school where the football coach is the highest paid employee, you can be damn sure that tons of classes are being taught by minimum pay/no-benefit TA's rather than professors. It is a sad irony that the idea of using a successful sports program to lure new undergrads, actually pulls those students towards the school least likely to care about their education.
Dave, relex, and don't be offended! With the exception of Basketball, some wrestling, baseball and hockey programs, no sport, men or women, break even, let alone make money! Now, run immediately to your happy place and think happy thoughts!!!!!
Why should they? And you base this on what exactly? I don't think they'd have any problem with football if it weren't such a sacred cow. Lopiano's been on record saying she thinks the way ADs often choose to implement Title IX is faulty. Why not? It's costing (most universities money). Are we supposed to give college football the Enron treatment to make Title IX work when many colleges have demonstrated that it's possible to be in compliance without gutting other sports in order to maintain their football program?
Newman: In reality, I was posing the question, not suggesting the answer. In fact, I agree with you and could care less what is fair or not fair to college football. The problem is that these threads get ciruclar. When people miss out on a large portion of the thread, they do not understand how the conversation gets to a certain point. Then they jump in (not accusing you here) and get all offended, and don't understand the CONTEXT in which a comment is made! Other's are simply trolls (see South Fla Metro) and are to be ignored! I have a problem with proportionality as a rule. Others do not. Life WILL go on!
Sadly usasoccer, I have read the entire thread. I think that must be enough evidence to diagnose some form of mental illness on my part.
LOL funny... I agree. I think I am going to put this thread to bed. I have had enough! Mike, what is that picture above your sig? Just curious?
Women should'nt suffer because fewer men are enrolling but, have you considered that with the ratios moving they way they are, in the future Title IX will then apply to the men attending college and the women will be facing the same things we are discussing.