Urgent!

good article....these AD's fear soccer, they are aware of its global nature and they do not fear Lacrosse or Ice Hockey as they know those sports are zero threat to them. My son's high school does next to nothing for the boys soccer program while force feeding the irrelevancies that are Lacrosse and Ice Hockey and encouraging the heck out of them....

 

Yeah, we need more colleges that have soccer teams for sure, those bigger colleges could afford it too.

 

He mentions the Title IX issue, says it can be overcome, and even alludes to solutions, yet never really gives one. Until he does forget it. What women's sport does UT or A&M not field currently that can be added to allow for Men's Soccer? Riddle me this, how many Div 1 Men's soccer programs have been ADDED since Title IX became law? How many have gone away? Almost universally, the Men's soccer programs in existence today all predated Title IX, so the schools that had them had to deal with current players, parents and coaches if they wanted to shut them down. But the same isn't true for schools that never had Men's soccer. Could it happen? Sure, it could. Will it? Highly unlikely. There just isn't enough reason.....despite all the great Texas youth players. College AD's aren't hired to make places for youth players.

 

He said teams could convert 10 scholarships into half scholarships leaving 5 full or 10 half scholarships for men's soccer. He also said asking 15 other people could generate 15 other ideas that would work. He also pointed out that somehow other major programs figured out ways to do it. Summed up they are using Title IX as an excuse because they don't want men's soccer. Nothing relavatory there. Just as soccer slowly gets more coverage as sportswriters age and retire and newer ones who understand soccer come along, the same will happen in athletics. Maybe one of the AD's grandsons will be so good at soccer he starts a program at his school. If that school is UT, A&M or OU others will follow not to be outdone.

 

"While more than 18 million youths are participating in soccer nationally, in contrast baseball participation has declined steadily since 1990.

Last year, participation in baseball among kids between the ages of seven and 17 dropped by 6.7-percent. Soccer increased by 9.8-percent."

Add to this the flop of this year's "World Cup Baseball-thing" and the jump in media exposure of this year's World Cup in the U.S.

If this trend continues then the writing would be on the wall. At the university level, baseball programs could be raided to provide scholarships, money, stadiums, etc. etc.

 

This is very positive, but a little over-the-top thinking. Baseball programs, while fielded at most 'major' universities, are WAYYYYYYY down the totem pole for money. In fact, most collegiate baseball players play on partial scholarships only due to the lack of overall funds provided for the programs.

And nevermind the fact that a kid can still be drafted right out of high school (something the NFL banned and the NBA is cracking down on). Not to mention that college baseball is still sometimes looked at by major leaguers as a wasted opportunity to develop in a professional environment.

I think collegiate soccer doesn't necessarily need to be promoted. Of course, I like the idea, but forcing it to compete for highly limited dollars is not necessarily the best course of action. Men's soccer smacks of tokenism and I like the sport too much to see it relegated to that staus. I think a better idea is to promote developmental leagues and the USL PDL is a good start.

I think MLS should form a comprehensive plan to include a PDL team/system as part of each franchise's structure, with incentives to make them competitive. These players could even be given partial scholarships to allow them to attend school if they are of college age, or approved host families if they are not. The Juniors system of Hockey in Canada has done very well for providing the richest talent pool in that sport in the world with a very small population.

Thoughts?

 

To get a taste of what could actually be possible if the fricking Regents of UT and TAMU added mens teams take a look at the link (and nice stadium) from the recent TAMU V NC womens game. Over 8k attended at I heard it was rocking.
http://www.aggieathletics.com/pressRelease.php?PRID=11645&SID=WSO&fg=1

Oh yeah they stream live video (attention FCD!)

 

They already do this. Still no school, that I'm aware of, has added Men's soccer since Title IX was approved.

Isn't that sweet...after this we'll solve world hunger and create peace in the Middle East.

No, they haven't....they just maintained existing programs....not created new ones. There is a big difference.

No, the know Men's soccer is a money loser and they don't want to add Men's Soccer AND two Women's programs that also lose money to create the scholarships. This isn't simply bias against soccer, it's bias against money losing.

Maybe, and maybe if I wish real hard an uncle I never knew will leave me $20 million....maybe.

 

Just because you add one men's team doesn't mean you have to add double the number of womens teams??

Every sports program is a money loser except Football (if you belong to a good conference or have a great team). Basketball generally breaks even or makes a little money. Nobody made much money in college baseball until LSU changed the scene and then teams still don't make much (but they support themselves and the girls softball team).

The question is - is there passion for soccer at the college level in Texas for creating a business plan for games that attract 3-5K / game and foster an atmosphere that will result in at least break even financials.

 

Michigan added men's soccer about six years ago. If a huge football school like that can do it, other big conference football schools can do it, too.

Granted, I don't know HOW Michigan did it and the fact that more haven't done it likely makes Michigan the exception that proves the rule, but, it CAN be done.

 

I knew Sandon would enter this thread eventually.

Thanks for that, Sandon, I was sure if I posted it enough times someone would prove me wrong.

But, yes, I think it's the exception that proves the rule. I suppose there is always hope that some big school in Texas gets a bug up their butt about being competitive in Men's soccer....but I think it's nothing more than hope.

 

Not necessarily, but you do need to add the same number of scholarships. Considering that UT and TAMU already have just about every other Men's and Women's teams possible they'd have to find at least one, if not two, Women's sports to make up the 9.9 scholarships they would use on Men's soccer.

 

Now, if they could have just done this 4 years ago, my Gators coudl have won the College World Series in 2004.

 

Tex: I agree that yes, it's difficult to add men's sports in this day and age. But at the same time, there must be some flexibility shown by the administration to account for shifts in demographics and shifts in participation levels of sports.

What is ridiculous is that there is zero state-wide attempt to address an obvious hole in serving a massive number of the state's constituents.

Trust me. Yes. Finding money can be extremely difficult at a public institution. What is lacking is somebody willing to make the argument to the university.

If an AD decides that come hell or high water, he will see that his public institution will address this need, then it gets done.

The problem is that these football-lovin' ADs are frankly too lazy and/or too arrogant and/or too afraid to do their duty to the public that they serve.

If the University of X is seriously concerned about the economic constraints not just of adding soccer but also a comparable women's sport, then they can go to the legislature and state the case that the state's voting populace is NOT being heard.

 

So, basically, to add Men's Soccer UT woudl have to add Field Hockey or Women's Water Polo. It probably doesn't make sense to add Women's Gymnastics without adding Men's Gymnastics since you would be forfeiting team awards at most meets. Does any other BIG XII school have Field Hockey or Women's Water Polo??

 

HA!! Yeah, because Texas Legislaters are clearly overly concerned with how the voting populace feels about education spending.

 

I'm just saying that there's a very compelling argument to be made for the expansion of D1 soccer in the state of Texas, and that in the grand scheme of things, it's really not that difficult to finance. That they can take it up w/ the legislature.

 

Some big schools have elevated their mens soccer program some. A good example is Ohio St in Columbus. It has improved competively by quite a bit. There are so many good soccer players that even 4 schlorships spread in halves and quarters at a big school will bring in enough good players to do well on the field. SMU had a top 10 and top 20 program with about 4 to 5 schlorships long before they had the current max which is 9.9 for div one.