1/17/03: D-Day

Talk about a crappy stadium deal. The Rampage pay more than the Burn to rent a stadium!

 

Well, it involves more than just the stadium. There's an indoor facility there, and several fields, and the idea was that the Rampage would manage the facility year-round and utilize it for more than just their 14-20 A-League games. Apparently they couldn't generate nearly as much revenue from it as they thought they could.

And, from the FIU article:

Anyone you can think of around here who maybe should see that quote?

 

"School officials want to transfer more energy and funding to the football team, which just completed its first season, and the demise of men's soccer will add $360,000 annually to the $9.5 million athletic department budget."

I know it's just an outgrowth of the fact that our sport isn't popular, but quotes like that will always piss me off.

$360k was chump change and it's not going to put their football program on the map

 

This is per month and not per game. And it includes the whole facility not just the stadium. They also have their office and practise fields there. There is also a indoor facility that they conduct leagues and camps in. So the $18,000 covers more then just their games. It should also be noted that they have full control of parking and concessions.


The whole FIU thing sucks. They have a successful program that actulaly gets results. And they are going to drop it to put money into a program that will be mediocre at best. How can they ever expect to compete locally against Miami or state wide against Florida or FSU. At best they will get to the level of Central or South Florida. Also the whole bit about a sucessful football program being a money maker is a crock. There are way more D1 programs that don't make money compared to making money.

 

Sad, especially since Florida International has had a soccer team for a while. And a pretty decent one, I thought. I know a player from Austin that was looking at going to school there for the team.

Well, lose one, win one. I believe the number of Div I schools with soccer is still growing. But I wouldn't know for certain.

 

Poor FIU, its laughable to hear that guy say they didnt get cut because of title 9. You mean to tell me they would cut the best team at the school before some womens team if it wasnt beacuse of title 9. what a joke.

 

OK. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

 

It's amazing to me that Florida has no big-time mens college soccer programs. Imagine if UF, FSU or Miami had a team?

 

Does it make any sense?

 

I'm with this guy; if something runs counter to logic, then it's certainly not outrageous to question it.

I'd say it's up to them to provide evidence that it's NOT Title IX related, not the other way around.

 

So what kind of evidence do you want, Woodstein?

 

The strong to get stronger - LA Daily News

 

Mello said administrators took a long, hard look at every sport, and dropping soccer made the most sense. It is the one sport not affiliated with the Sun Belt conference. The conference requires members to field baseball and basketball teams, so those had to stay put. The NCAA requires six men's teams, and track and field is a cost-effective, three-pronged sport with indoor, outdoor and cross country under one coach and one assistant.

Title IX requires women to have equal opportunities in collegiate athletics, so FIU would be violating a federal law -- a law Mello said he strongly supports -- if it cut a women's team at this time. The school just added women's swimming to help offset the men's scholarships added with football.

''I want to stress that this was in no way motivated by Title IX,'' Mello said.

``Whenever a men's sport is cut, people cry Title IX, but that would be completely inaccurate in this case. This was a business decision, and in 22 years, singly the most difficult thing I've ever had to do. I know people are going to be upset. And if I'm those soccer players, I don't understand it, no matter how much I explain it.

They say they saved $360K. Based on most NCAA reports on expenses, they would have to cut two smaller women's sports or one big one. That, of course, would be a Title IX mess.

So Title IX plays a role, but only because they decided they needed to fund football more. That decision came first and precipitated by nothing more than ego and the arms race, in my opinion. Title IX doesn't enter the picture until they decide to expand a sport.

Then, they have two ways of doing it - cut or add to both sides. They chose the first. If all that stuff wasn't in the article, I'd say it's fair to question. But they freely admit their motives.

 

I haven't seen this elsewhere: a JD Power study of fan satisfaction at professional sports.

MLS came out tops.

http://www.jdpa.com/presspass/pressrelease.asp?ID=2003003

 

Once again Monster comes along to destory a perfectly good discussion by introducing facts and sources. Damn you Monster, Damn you.

 

Already a discussion on this somewhere.