West Virginia soccer survives Title IX cuts for now

From the article:

"Losing sports comes at a time when WVU is undergoing massive maintenance and alterations to its primary athletic facilities, the basketball-housing Coliseum and football's Mountaineer Field.

An ongoing $21 million project will eventually modernize many decaying aspects of the Coliseum. Mountaineer Field is expected to have 18 new sky-box suites and a 650-seat club area and concourse built by the start of the 2004 season."

Damn those feminists and their insistance on skyboxes and clubseating.

 

Hey, Dr. Wanker-

Don't just read into this article what you want to see. For everyone else who has not read the entire article, this is from the 5th paragraph-

"The cuts from WVU's approximately $26 million athletic budget were done in part for the school to remain in Title IX compliance and also because the cost of an athletic scholarship -- the self-supporting athletic department pays the school for these -- is expected to rise significantly over the next five years."

Your quote was 22 paragraphs in. Title IX was the driving factor.

 

I didn't READ INTO the article. I read the article.

So, yeah, right. It's all Title IX, even though they're also spending extravagently on stuff they don't need.

Also, notice the key words in the passage you quote: "in part." Which implies that it's NOT necessarily the driving factor, but one among many.

 

Why would you call me a Simpleton?

I merely interpreted the article in the manner in which it was intended. The section you quoted was essentially an afterthought in the article- an "oh, by the way, this is also in the plans...." (my own quote- not from the article).

The article clearly states that the decision was based on Title IX compliance and the rising cost an athletic department must pay for scholarships.

This is, although not exclusively, another loss due to Title IX legislation.

The reality is that we are losing Division I college soccer programs. The reasons are numerous- but a drivng factor is so that athletic departments can stay in compliance. I think there is something wrong with that. Title IX, in our case (men's soccer), is being enforced incorrectly.

It is a simple thought, but not from a Simpleton.

 

Whatever simpleton

Everyone needs a scapegoat, why not womens sports.

 

Don't read much, do you?

The article also also clearly states that there are other expenses relating to cosmetic improvement of the football and basketball arenas. You could try to deal with the complexity of this issue. Or you could just blame women. Your call.

 

Dr. Wankler-

Clever.

Go back and change your previous post to make yourself look good.

I have not blamed the women. I love women. I only made comment that Title IX is being enforced incorrectly; unfairly.

I have no reason to be ashamed of what I have written, so I will leave my posts as they are.

 

Do you think that skyboxes and clubseating are ultimately going to be (money losers) subsidized by the athletic budget? I imagine that the University did not decide to add all of these luxuries for fans to enjoy for free. Evidently there are people who are willing to pay the price for such amenities and the University will recoup a large amount of money from them.

After all, if NFL owners make a ton of money why should we expect that college football programs like West Virginia run deficits (when they also pack their stadiums five or six times a year, not including a bowl game) when they get 60,000+ fans in seats and a couple thousand more in luxury boxes?

It's not like the "salaries" of college football players are higher than those of pro athletes. Even if the scholarships (up to 85, right?) and special athletic amenities run to $50,000 or $60,000 a year for a hundred man squad, ($6,000,000) they are on par with what the average NFL team pays its quarterback per season. And yet they WVU make money when they sell out 60,000+ seats and luxury boxes?

They don't have to pay stadium rent - they own enormous stadiums. Their coaches don't have enormous salaries (relative to pro coaches). They have huge ticket sales (season tickets are around $200 for WVU - for only six games! That is the same price as 14 DC United games!). They have inexpensive athletes. They have big-time TV money through college football contracts. They have revenue sharing (through the conferences). They get nice money from concessions, parking, merchandising (you never see any wearing WVU merchandise, do you?), enormous booster clubs . . . . How could they possibly be losing money?

If a college program like West Virginia's does not make a profit - then what is the point of MLS even trying to make a go of it - renting stadiums, drawing piddly numbers of fans, having shoestring advertising . . . it would be inconceivable that any MLS team could make money if the West Virginia football team does not generate a large profit (which goes towards the overall university budget).

If profits are not shown due to the West Virginia University football team, it boils down to slick accounting designed to keep the money out of public budgets, where it would be subject to regulations that bind the use of it. That is where the real smoking gun is.

Come on Dr. Wankler. Do you seriously believe that WVU football doesn't generate millions of dollars on the positive side of the ledger (someone's ledger)?

 

Talking to Dr. Wankler about this issue is like talking to Andy Mead about soccer bashers. They have their mind made up and nothing you say can change that. Don't waste your time.

 

If you honestly believe that a school like WVU doesn't make millions of dollars on its football program - stadia improvements included - could you please explain to this simpleton where the millions upon millions of dollars go?

Ticket revenues alone (conservative estimate based on season ticket price times average attendance) = 51,993 * $196 = $10,190,628

plus tv money

plus concessions, parking, etc

plus merchandising.

Stadium rent = $0.

Cost of scholarship/athletic amenities at WVU . . . 85 * $50,000 + 20 * $20,000 (walk ons) = $4,400,000.

Where does all the money go?

 

I guess you skipped over the phrase "in part."

Some other tidbits:

So that just kills the specious "they had to cut men's sports" arguments because he clearly states he had a choice and refused to bite the bullet.

When a school has a lot of sports and cuts, Tite IX can take a lot of the blame. But when they only have a few sports, it's obviously they don't care about providing a wide-range of activities for their male students.

That's a shame. And it's a shame that some people put blame on the women when the women athletes are the biggest supporters of these guys.

These issues are incredibly complex. Anyone trying to paint them as only Title IX is, plain and simple, stupid.

 

Wow. Dr. Wanker already let Monster know that there was a Title IX thread up. Who woulda thunk it?

Monster, care to weigh in on the how in the world is it possible that the WVU football team doesn't generate millions and millions of dollars of profits considering it a) owns its stadium b) has access to all kinds of ancillary revenues (parking, concessions, merchandising, et al) c) has enormous booster clubs that raise money d) has over 50,000 fans a game paying premium prices e) "pays" its athletes pennies on the dollar compared to pro sports teams f) has big time tv money . . .

Its amazing that we are suckers enough to hold out hopes that MLS can survive if such a program as WVU's football team only makes scraps of money, as you and Dr. Wanker seem to think.

For the record:

Let it be known sirs,
that I am a . . . stupid simpleton.

Shakespeare couldn't have improved on it.

 

Re: Whatever simpleton

Or football. Or dinosaur ADs who can only think about BASKETBALL. FOOTBALL. Ugh. Grunt.

There are plenty of scapegoats to go around.

And there are plenty of division III programs that have oodles of women's sports AND oodles of men's sports (only minus the scholarships) and everyone is happy (except maybe those sectors of the population that have a greater dependance on athletic scholarships in order to have the opportunity to attend college).

If it is only anti-feminists who fault the manner in which Title IX is applied, then why do people like Debbie Zow advocate altering the proportionality requirement? Wouldn't be because it would make sense, would it?

Sorry, I am a plain and simple, stupid, simpleton.

 

And...fixed.

 

I went to WVU. The soccer program has been in the tank for a long time. I used to drive from Morgantown to watch United, but wouldn't drive to the Coliseum to see the Mountaineer Men's Soccer Team. The team is not at all popular.

The Mountaineer Football team makes a ton of money. They have some of the nicest training facilities around. As for the soccer team, they didn't play on national TV 6 times last year.

 

Yay!!! All the pro-Title IX'ers are coming home to roost! It is a lovefest for Title IX. Donna and Martha and the gang would be smiling if she didn't have a permanent scowl etched on their faces.

Mr. Metro? Would you care to comment on the contents of the thread, or would you prefer to just stop with labeling us as zealots?

 

If you can admit, as many of us "pro-Title IXers" have, that Title IX is not the sole reason that the soccer program at WVU was eliminated, that the AD had some choices to make, and he chose to cut soccer, then sure.

Was Title IX a factor? Yes. Was Title IX the only reason, the "driving force" behind the demise of the soccer program at WVU? No.

Why is that so hard to accept?

 

The point is not that the soccer team rivals the football team in popularity. The point is that Dr. Wanker and Monster and most pro-title IXers suggest that football and basketball are a drain on the athletic budget of schools like WVU and THAT is why they end up cutting teams.

They believe that these cuts have little to do with the demand that a school make a stab at creating a womens sports program that has more slots and more scholarship dollars than the men's athletic program (unless the school wants to live on the edge and risk a Title IX lawsuit to see if a judge agrees that they are complying with the other, vague prongs of Title IX).

They think the school should competitively cripple its football program by cutting way back on spending. Then they would have money for all sorts of sports programs (none of which would make much money). The school wouldn't miss its big football program, they argue, because it is not true that football makes net profits. Hard to believe, given the huge fan interest, ticket sales, the tv revenues, etc. But it is true somehow, they claim.

 

Sure there are other factors. Richt76 talked about some of them. But what percentage do those other factors amount to? 70% 20%

If interest is such a problem - why are there so many more women's soccer teams than men's soccer teams at the NCAA level? Do college women simply have a greater level of interest in soccer? Obviously.

If pure economics are the issue - then why not eliminate EVERY sport that doesn't at least pay for itself and let that be the standard. I could live with that. No problem. Then enterprising entrepreneurs could set up sports leagues modelled after the PDL or something to fill the gap in amateur athletics.

Title IX has thrown a major wrench in this business. I have no idea how big the wrench is. I just know that it is big. And so do people like Debbie Zow, who would rather see proportianality requirements eased to a sustainable level, now that women have few if any barriers (at least relative to men) to participation in collegiate athletics.

 

No, we're saying that the ADs have a choice between cutting back on these programs (which, by the way, we figured out in another thread are profitable 36 percent of the time in a best-case scenario). They choose not to. That's their choice. But it's all not "Title IX's fault."

85 scholarships for men's football. Do they need all those scholarships? Blaming the women is an answer, but it's not the only answer.

BS. We're suggesting that perhaps the University of Florida doesn't have to put its football team up in a hotel the night before home games and then cry Title IX. But that's just a suggestion.

I didn't realize the goal of college athletics was to make a lot of money. If that were the case, most soccer teams would be eliminated tomorrow.

You're absolutely right. In 36% of the cases, best-case scenario.

 

Where's it go?

Lets start with....the 2003 WVU football staff

Steve Bird, Football Assistant
Jeff Casteel, Football Assistant
Tony Corley, Assistant Athletic Trainer
David Elson, Football Assistant
Doug Elias, Strength and Conditioning Coach
Tony Gibson, Football Assistant
Herb Hand, Football Assistant
Mike Kerin, Sr. Football Administrator
Dave Kerns, Head Football Trainer
Bill Kirelawich, Football Assistant
Calvin Magee, Football Assistant
John McCallister, Assistant Strength Coach
Dan Nehlen, Equipment Manager
Jim Nowell, Football Assistant
Rich Rodriguez, Football Coach
Dusty Rutledge, Video Coordinator
John Spiker, Coordinator of Medical Services
Bill Stewart, Football Assistant
Bruce Tall, Football Assistant
Rick Trickett, Football Assistant
Donnie Young, Administrative Assistant

That's not counting the Athletic Department staff that may not exist without football (c'mon, Morgantown is basically a one sport town)

Don't forget that while WVU doesn't pay stadium rent they do pay...
Parking attendants
ticket takers
ushers
overtime for police officers
security personnel
standby medical personnel
stadium staff (maintenance, groundskeepers, etc...)

Insurance costs?

Travel costs: In '02, WVU had away games at Wisconsin, Cincinnati, Rutgers, Temple, VA Tech, and Pitt. In addition to transportation costs, you're looking at food and lodging for a party of about 100 on each trip (I'm guessing over 2 days)

Recruiting costs: Anybody who travels for business can imagine how quickly it adds up to have your assistant coaches on the road up and down the East Coast for most of the off-season.

Even with all this, WVU is probably one of the 65 Division I programs for which football is a revenue-positive program.

But a point I'd like considered is this, if WVU joins a conference like the Big East for Football and Basketball revenues, shouldn't those programs share some of the pain incurred when teams like soccer, baseball, golf, etc. lose money in large part because of travel to places like Miami, Syracuse, or Storrs, Connecticut?

 

I guess NFL teams don't have staffs, workers or overhead that cost as much or more, do they. And yet they generate tons and tons of money. Wonders never cease. And they do it with player salaries that make the cost of scholarships+amenities for a Division I team look like peanuts.

I don't know why they should share all of it with other sports. But I do know this: money isn't enough, because they have to find a way to get hundreds of female athletes to offset the hundreds of male athletes who want to participate men's athletics. Sometimes that is hard to do. I don't know why. It just is.

 

Interesting, but I think you are looking at the small picture when you talk about the drain of Title IX on the ability of a university athletic department to field a full slate of athletice teams.

See this link to an NCAA study on athletic department profitability... http://www.ncaa.org/releases/miscellaneous/1996111901ms.htm

Allow me to make some points:

Division IA programs are, for all intents and purposes, the only programs to make money through their athletic departments...these profits generally derive from football and basketball

In general, Division IAA, IAAA, & II programs lose money, and programs with football teams lose more money than those without.

I'm going out on a limb and assuming that IAA schools give out less scholarships thatn IA schools (which are limited to 85). Division II schools are limited to 36.

It looks to me like the schools that give out the most football scholarships (and are thus compelled under Title IX to provide more women's scholarships) are the schools that have more profitable athletic departments.

So your assertion that providing more Title IX-influenced scholarships hurts the ability of an athletic department to field a full range of teams appears to be unfounded.

And I think this argument is based on a narrow view of the situation. Answer me this;

What schools are forced to abide by Title IX? Every school in the country? Nope. Only schools that accept money from the federal government.

You tell me, if Title IX is such a burden, wouldn't WVU be better off if it eliminated women's sports scholarships and stopped accepting federal funds?

No? So WVU gladly and knowingly accepts federal money, then gladly and knowingly pursues a strategy that maximizes Athletic Department revenue while also (surprise!) maximizing expenses, then decides to cut some money-losing sports (not surprisingly at a time of severe budget crisis for most states) and you think the problem is Title IX?

You know how 50% of scholarship recipients are supposed to be women? Well I bet the number of women paying the taxes that indirectly support those scholarships is pretty near 50% as well.