I think you missed where I mentioned that even super-elite schools produce only ~2% of all NFL players. I just checked a few of the elite NCAA schools: Kansas: 7 players in NBA Kentucky: 11 North Carolina: 14 Duke: 10 Maryland: 8 UCLA: 7 Arizona: 10 Indiana: 4 Syracuse: 2 Michigan State: 7 So these ten giants combined to produce 80 players, roughly 20% of the ~400 former collegiate players in the NBA. Beyond that, you've got dozens of good basketball schools that produce one or two guys. See for yourself: http://www.sportsline.com/collegebasketball/alumni-tracker#K By contrast, MLS has 176 former collegiate players, including everyone down to State Fair CC (Edson Buddle). 16 come from UCLA alone, and the majority (90) come from only 12 schools. Thx to Sandon for compiling the list: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=58060
The situation was - and someone on here who was closer to it can correct me if I'm wrong - Bucknell's wrestling alumni wanted to do it. But they wanted to shift money they had already raised to help fund a women's sport. So they wanted to take money away froma women's sport to fund wrestling. Also in the mix were a host of NCAA infractions by the wrestling coach, including under-the-table payments to a number of wrestlers. I once found the full investigation report and it was frightening some of the stuff they did. Basically from what I heard through the grapevine and by reading documents, the administration felt the problems were so deep that they needed to just get rid of the program. They had to make some changes - eith eradding a women's sport or something - to meet Title IX, so the timing was perfect for wrestling to get the axe and the dirty laundry get buried. A perfect case of how Title IX is a reasoning for cutting a sport, but not always the reasoning. There were a whole host of issues in there. As long as they equally fund a women's program, IIRC. This is a part of the interpretation I really don't agree with. If a private source (i.e. Nike, adidas) can help them keep a basketball or football coach by supplementing their salary, why can't a private source help fund a sport?
Because that loophole will be brutally exploited by Division I football programs, and the NCAA will become a dead letter. ...you've convinced me. Actually, "privately funded" programs are really an invitation to accounting fraud when it comes to Title IX compliance. To pick an example completely at random, the BYU PDL team. So that's the main problem I would have with it.
I see your point, but it could work if it were tailored for "non-revenue" sports. Or were contingent upon a clean record. The problem right now is ear-marking funds. Privately raised dollars pay for scholarships at a lot of schools and help offset general fund balances. But it's hard to give to one sport. And if stuff were earmarked for football, that would, idealistically, clear more money for other sports. Which is exactly what is happening at some place with the shoe money paying the coaches big bucks off the University payroll. That's really no different - in theory - than a medical school professor getting a grant to pay for his salary. I think examining a way to do it is better than putting up a brick wall and going with the status quo where the law says you have to give money to women, the ego says you have to give money to the big sports and the smaller sports fight for the crumbs with tuition, insurance and operating expenses rising at an ever-increasing rate.
As I said, how do you want to interpret the data? You chose 10 schools, but why not 25? Completely at random, I picked the letter C for NFL players from "C" colleges. The breakdown went something like this 29 players from 18 different schools 30 -- California 9 -- Cincinnatti 19 -- Clemson 37 -- Colorado 11 -- Colorado State That's 106 from Div. I schools, and even more salient, 86 from BCS schools. How you interpret 86 out of 135 (63%) depends on what you're trying to prove, but I contend that supports the theory that most pros come from elite programs. I Not surprisingly, if you were trying to come to a different conclusion you might look at other numbers in that sample to support your theory. . . For the sake of not hijacking a thread, why are we talking about this? We're testing the premise of whether pro players in MLS would be diminished if there were fewer NCAA soccer programs.
Forgot to discuss this. 176 players out of 240. (10 rosters of 24 men is my assumption-- waivers, mid-season signings, etc. must be ignored) 73%. Pretty strong numbers. I wonder how they compare to the NBA? Edited to say that a quick review of 4 NBA rosters showed 62 of 64 with college experience. More data for the issue of whether more college teams would help MLS.
Initially, you were saying that 10-15 programs might be enough soccer development. Having seen the data from other sports, do you still think that?
Exactly what I said was: Having seen the data from MLS, I think that is indeed very true. Seeing other sports, I still think it is true. The fact is there are 160+ (I'm not digging back for the exact number) Div. I soccer programs, and even if MLS pro development was the same as the NBA and NFL (which it's not), that is more than enough for an adequate farm system, (if that's all college sports were for). Yes, 10-15 is probably too much hyperbole. The point would be stronger saying 20-30 programs could provide adequate pro development, but the main premise is still the same. Title IX, even if it hampered men's soccer programs (which I don't concede), would still not impact MLS professional player development. P.S., we've ignored two large points (1) NHL, Lacrosse, MLB, WUSA, WNBA, etc., other pro systems and their college make-up, and (2) we've assumed without deciding that college is a viable way for preparing for MLS.
P.S. look at how much Title IX has hurt the U.S. men's gymnastics team. http://espn.go.com/oly/news/2003/0821/1600873.html
It might be, if these programs were fully funded at affordable schools, and if they were better distributed geographically. The global number of 160 programs obscures the fact that there's only one DI program in Texas, two(?) in Florida, none in Minnesota, etc. Remember, it was Minnesota's AD who said that if not for Title IX, they could run a men's soccer team at zero cost to the school. Given that the vast majority of MLS players have played in college, point (2) is hardly at issue. I don't get where you're going with point (1), either. MLB has an enormous minor league system, which soccer can't afford. The women's sports have exploded thanks to generous funding in the collegiate system. Lacrosse and hockey also have quite a few college programs in their respective regions, but pro lacrosse isn't a big deal, and pro hockey seems to be stocked with players from abroad.
Re: Title IX, Feminism and The Road to 70% But what about the poor little boys forced to play against their will? Don't you feel sorry for them, too?
Clubs have learned from the past not to put young prospects into the main club unless they are sure they're ready for it. It's not unusual to see player not enter the 1st team until around 20 years of age. The question with men's soccer under Title IX is that it limits the ability of AD's to add sports according to the demands of the student body,which is much more fair. Here's an article from April 2001 which talks about the effects of Title IX. http://reason.com/0104/fe.ml.title.shtml
Title IX doesn't limit that any more than existing budgetary issues and the current budget crisis at most colleges. In fact, I think most people working in higher ed would say budgets, not federal regulations, are the flash point for any fiscal decision at colleges and universities in the last 18-24 months. As much as some people try, there's no one reason. It's all very complex. And Title IX is just one part of it.
Title IX can affect university budgets if it prevents AD's from better spendign budgets or performing vital restructuring of budgets. You may not be even able to cut programs without getting a lawsuit dropped on your head.
I never said it didn't affect things, only that it's not the only thing that affects the situation. I don't see why it's too hard for people to admit that rising tuition is a big problem keeping sports from being added. Or the large salaries of administrators. Or rising insurance costs. Or the costs of lawsuits. Or paying coaches who you fire before their contract ends. And on and on and on and on and on. There is no one reason for this stuff. And the mix of reasons for decisions at each institution is different. Imagine that concept, huh? The myopia of placing all the blame on Title IX is silly because it ignores the reality in higher education. Colleges and universities are laying off employees left and right. But it's only Title IX that keeps them from adding men's sports? Silly.
... yet they're adding female athletes left and right. Those athletes primarily come from privileged economic backgrounds, and they already have the opportunity to play sports and attend college. Thus the increased spending accomplishes nothing, apart from making the rich richer. Under its current interpretation, Title IX is a silly burden to place on our schools. Its costs easily measure in the hundreds of millions of dollars a year. That's a big deal, regardless of whether that lost money results in tuition hikes, lost jobs, or reduced opportunity for male athletes.
So Title IX drives tuition hikes and layoffs on campuses? Wow. If that's what you are saying, I really don't know how to react to that "logic." Wow.
Financial crises are costing jobs. You said it yourself. Title IX adds hundreds of millions of dollars a year to the costs of universities. You've admitted as much yourself. Q.E.D.
Ooh, he breaks out the Latin. You may be right, you may be wrong, or you may be a women-hater. But let's assume you're right. If you are, your position is still unjustified. You may think that diversity in the sports world and especially in the college environment is a "silly burden" but I assure you that we ought to be spending, in abstract, two or three times as much money as we do now to make sure that everyone - and I mean everyone - gets the opportunities that they deserve. If that means that sports suffer, a wild theory to which I do not ascribe, so be it. Soccer is a game. As much as I love it, I have no problem sacrificing it for the right of equality, and neither should anyone on this board. But you're still wrong. Colleges aren't going anywhere, and the institutions of higher learning are still going to make athletics a part of life. So until this changes - and even after this changes - let's make sure that we, the masculine half of this human race, break our backs to make sure that the feminine half get what they deserve. Just saying.
To consider those of use who don't like Title IX as women haters goes low. The problem with your statement is that any more money would have to come from state coffers. Money from there doesn't come without any strings attached. Equality doesn't exist when people lose their rights to satisfy someone else. No one should have to "break their backs" in the name of equality.
Let's not dwell on the small stuff, alright? Funding for Title IX is fine where it is. The point is that we should be doing more to make sure that everyone is on level pegging. If that's what you believe, then you don't understand the historical power of the argument, and if you don't understand it by now, the time it would take for me to explain it would far exceed my patience. You've never been on the other side, have you?
Men' sports cost more than women's sports. You're hopeless. You hate women as much as Tom, but try to hide it. That's sad that you can't admit multiple factors cause these situations, all of which differ from place to place. I weep for the ignorant.
Men haven't lost rights. Playing college sports and getting a scholarship for it are not rights for either gender. But if you do it for one, you have to do it for the other. I don't agree with how they determine "equity" right now, but it's gonna happen one way or another. Title IX is one part of the current equation when decisions are made regarding what sports to offer. Existing budgets are an issue. Tuition rates (which determins scholarship costs) are an issue. Fundraising (which pays for scholarships at many schools) are an issue. Title IX does not affect those factors for many men's sports. It's a veryc omplicated issue. Are you denying that there are multiple factors in these decisions and placing the blame solely on Title IX? If so, you really have no grasp of the situation. Remember, just because someone doesn't think Title IX is the scourge of the devil doesn't mean they agree with the current situation. Some of us just have a more enlightened view.
"On the battleground of parity between men's and women's collegiate sports, opponents of how the Bush administration is interpreting Title IX are rebounding with a new legal challenge. The College Sports Council, a coalition of coaches, athletes, parents, alumni and fans from collegiate track, swimming, golf, gymnastics, baseball and wrestling, is once again challenging the Department of Education's interpretation of Title IX. "Anyone who thinks that we're going to roll over to politicians or gender activists is sorely mistaken," said Jim McCarthy, a spokesman for the CSC...." Would somebody please drop a line to the people at CyberSoccerNews? They post long front-page-headline-blaring diatribes attacking the "Bush Administration" for trying to "gut" Title IX and send women "back to the kitchen", while people actually, you know, involved in College sports feel that the "Bush Administration" are siding with the feminists. But I suppose that's the kind of cognitive dissonance you get when you really care more about airing out your personal political biases than about soccer. Or facts.