11/21/24
June 29, 2008
Title IX, Curse or Blessing?: Title IX opened a door for women in athletics. Its impact has been great, and has led to more and more opportunities for women to excel. Particularly at the high school level, I have seen many young girls become confident young ladies from their participation in athletics. Many feel that Title IX has led to decreased opportunity for male athletes. In this article, the author raises many valid questions concerning the way in which Title IX is interpreted.
Nothing in that article makes me think that male athletics are being unfairly neglected. So, in schools where women vastly outnumber men, men's athletics are being cut back on. Good. Put that money where it can aid a larger portion of the student body.
posted by bperk at 08:40 AM on June 30, 2008
Consider the source. Allison Kasic is president of the so-called Independent Women's Forum, an organization whose women's rights agenda sounds good on paper, but on closer examination often seems to be a stalking horse for conservative causes. The argument that smaller men's sports like wrestling are hurt by Title IX is a classic bottom-of-the-heap argument. When you suddenly allow all students (instead of just half) to participate in sports, of course, something's got to change. But what exactly dictates that it must be wresting -- those awful evil feminists, or the Word From On High that gives the lion's share of a high school's athletic budget to football? Before you complain that person next to you eating beans and rice took your goodies away, take a look at who's eating steak.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:53 AM on June 30, 2008
Curse or blessing? Just consider what women's athletics would probably be like without it. Virtually non-existent, because without prodding it is likely that most universities would never have committed resources. Overall, it has to be considered a blessing. In fact, I can't even figure out a potential curse.
posted by graymatters at 12:34 PM on June 30, 2008
Personally, while I am all in favor of women being able to compete in sports at all levels, the one complaint I have about Title IX (at least at the college level) is that it doesn't take into account the "profit" sports vs. the "non-profit" sports. There is a damn good reason that such a large amount of money is spent on football programs: they make the money that is spent on all the other sports. Let's face it, if we're trying to balance out the male and female sports, football is a 500-lb gorilla on the men's side of the scale, and it forces either cuts on one side or wasteful spending on the other. But money has to be spent on football and men's basketball, because they are the primary money makers for most schools. Some sort of partial exemption for the "profit" sports would probably a be a good tweak to the system. Aside from that, Title IX is a good concept with its heart in the right place.
posted by TheQatarian at 03:10 PM on June 30, 2008
"The rustle of silk rules the world." said another way: Women Rule. If you don't believe that, you're as clueless as a high school sophomore. Live with it.
posted by Fly_Piscator at 03:24 PM on June 30, 2008
But money has to be spent on football and men's basketball, because they are the primary money makers for most schools. Title IX focuses on participation in athletics, not spending on athletics.
posted by bperk at 03:55 PM on June 30, 2008
Personally, while I am all in favor of women being able to compete in sports at all levels, the one complaint I have about Title IX (at least at the college level) is that it doesn't take into account the "profit" sports vs. the "non-profit" sports. There is a damn good reason that such a large amount of money is spent on football programs: they make the money that is spent on all the other sports. The facts don't support this. Men's football and basketball turn a profit at a relatively small number of Div I schools; at many others, they're huge money pits. Take a look at CU, just to use one example. More to the point, this is sort of like arguing that students who pay so-called "full" tuition should be allowed first choice of dorm rooms over scholarship students (when in fact, all students' tuition and US colleges and universities is subsidized), or that students in programs that attract more alumni donations should be allowed priority for use of the library, and their programs should be allowed to have preference for classroom space (even if it means that other courses must be abolished). These actions are antithetical to the function of an educational institution.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:02 PM on June 30, 2008
I also think this needs to be looked at as a work still in progress, rather than something that has run its course and demands resolution. There have been undeniable gains for women because of title 9 in the realm of collegiate athletics. There have also been some losses absorbed by men's athletics, my alma mater Miami University was one that did away with its wrestling program recently, and that's a shame. There are, however, many things in life that involve some negative or sacrifice to bring about a positive, or to right an egregious wrong. It's the nature of the world that very rarely can everyone be made happy. What is important is that we examine the effects of these programs and honestly reevaluate them from time to time. Then, things can be fiddled with and tweaked to try to bring about a greater good. Is title IX a complete success? Probably not yet. But it has brought about, in my opinion, more opportunities than it has taken away, so I think it really was and will continue to be a step in the right direction.
posted by tahoemoj at 04:56 PM on June 30, 2008
"Nothing in that article makes me think that male athletics are being unfairly neglected. So, in schools where women vastly outnumber men, men's athletics are being cut back on. Good. Put that money where it can aid a larger portion of the student body." Just because women make up more than half of the student body does not mean that more than half of the student athletes have to be women. Nor does it mean that female students WANT to participate in athletics in equal numbers as male students. This is quota-based thinking and it's precisely this kind of idiotic political correctness that needs to be stopped. How about we fund student athletics based on how many students actually want to participate instead of assuming that female students MUST participate on equal per capita numbers with male athletes? It's not the end of the world if female students choose not to participate in athletics in equal numbers with male students. Female students don't exist merely to validate the social engineering dreams of frustrated academic Marxists. If we are going to use the brute force of the federal government to meddle in college athletics, I'd much rather it do so to increase support for neglected sports which could use the help to raise the level of USA play in international competition. There are a lot of neglected sports that could use the support and doing so would also increase female participation at the same time - for instance soccer, rugby, cricket, team handball, field hockey, badminton, wrestling, etc, sports that are a big deal internationally but which (with partial exception now of soccer) get little to no help from NCAA or other academic sporting institutions. It would also be nice to get the NCAA to abide by the rules of the governing international bodies of said sports. Look what the Australians have done with their success in international sports (per capita, much more impressive than the USA in international competition). Forget this politically correct crap about getting equal numbers of female to male athletes, and get the government to encourage more amateur and international athletic competition and you'll have more opportunities for female athletes than ever. I don't think the Aussies have an equivalent of Title IX and their female athletes do fine. American amateur sports are a mess and the NCAA is a big part of the problem, but quota based, PC victims rights mentality a la Title IX is not the way to go about fixing things.
posted by dave2007 at 05:53 PM on June 30, 2008
bperk: You are correct about the policy itself not being about spending, but the enforcement of the policy is an entirely other matter. When an NCAA auditor comes around and is trying to determine whether or not a school is complying with Title IX, they primarily end up looking at two factors: participation level and budgets. If both of them are way out of balance toward the men's side, a school is going to run into lots of trouble. Therefore, schools end up being so afraid of Title IX-related sanctions that they try their best to balance things out as much as possible, and that causes problems when football programs have both large participation numbers and large budgets, and there is no equivalent sport on the female side. dave2007: Amen.
posted by TheQatarian at 06:14 PM on June 30, 2008
How about we fund student athletics based on how many students actually want to participate instead of assuming that female students MUST participate on equal per capita numbers with male athletes? Because there is not an unlimited budget at schools, so hard choices have to be made. Everyone who wants to be on the debate team doesn't get to be. I fail to see why athletics should be any different. If a larger student body can be served by putting that money towards the library, then I think that is the right choice. Therefore, schools end up being so afraid of Title IX-related sanctions that they try their best to balance things out as much as possible, and that causes problems when football programs have both large participation numbers and large budgets, and there is no equivalent sport on the female side. I have spent quite a bit of time on the DOE database and I just don't see that happening. Football costs far more than any other sport, and I don't see that balancing out at in all the schools I have checked out.
posted by bperk at 08:07 PM on June 30, 2008
When an NCAA auditor comes around and is trying to determine whether or not a school is complying with Title IX, they primarily end up looking at two factors: participation level and budgets. That -- the bit about budgets -- is so very, very not even a little bit true. The last thing in the world that football and men's basketball want is budget-based equity; if you think that's even once happened in the era of Title IX, I'd like some of what you're smoking.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:51 PM on June 30, 2008
Off topic: Happy 10,000th thread SpoFi!
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 12:17 PM on July 01, 2008
For those who seem to think I'm way off-base, I can cite my alma mater (U of Minnesota) as a prime example. Back when we had two athletic directors, the women's AD (Chris Voelz) was a master at practically extorting money for new women's athletic facilities anytime another dollar was spent on a men's profit sport, even if that money was mostly coming from private donations. She would claim that if we added seating to the hockey arena (which increased revenue -- U of MN is one of the few schools where men's hockey is a profitable venture), then if you didn't build a new hockey arena or some other new women's facility, you were violating Title IX, according to Voelz. Even recently, with Voelz long gone, the building of a new football stadium (which is largely privately financed and will generate revenue) ended up requiring the building of a $3M heated boathouse for the women's rowing team (which will never generate a dollar), with Title IX compliance being cited as one of the reasons. This isn't intended to be a knock on the women's rowing team by any means -- I'm happy they are getting a needed facility -- but it does support what I'm saying about money being a large factor for those who think I'm smoking something. I was not saying that the money has to balance dollar for dollar, because obviously that would be silly. But Title IX does influence the balance of athletic spending for both genders, and while usually this is a good thing, there are holes where a tweak to the system would be helpful. Personally, I believe profit sports should get a little more leeway, which would likely help some of the issues, though that issue is certainly open for debate. If there is anything we should have learned about college athletics between the BCS, the debate about paying the players, and everything else related to the NCAA, we should be fully aware by now that money is *always* going to be a factor.
posted by TheQatarian at 01:23 PM on July 01, 2008
Personally, I believe profit sports should get a little more leeway, which would likely help some of the issues, though that issue is certainly open for debate. Can you reference the balance sheet for U of MN's football and hockey teams? Also, what makes a sport a "profit sport" -- one year in the black? I refer you again to CU. If a football team costs a school money, should it get a smaller percentage of the budget in subsequent years? Because somehow, that never seems to happen...to football.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:41 PM on July 01, 2008
Personally, I believe profit sports should get a little more leeway, which would likely help some of the issues, though that issue is certainly open for debate. I think they already do. It sounds like your AD was trying to keep it close, but it isn't close. Women at the University of Minnesota outnumber men as participants in sports, but the funding for men's athletics is about 30% more than that for women's sports. The difference is pretty much the expenses for running the football team. Men's athletics bring in the most revenue and have the most expenses.
posted by bperk at 02:12 PM on July 01, 2008
Men's athletics bring in the most revenue and have the most expenses. That in itself is a balancing act. Im no accountant but it seems to me the books would show both credits and debits. I have not looked it up but I don't think football is all that profitable once the expences are paid.
posted by Folkways at 04:54 PM on July 01, 2008
I have not looked it up but I don't think football is all that profitable once the expences are paid. Most of the money is from donations from boosters. If the football team does well the donations start coming in. When the team does bad, the donations stop and coaches get fired.
posted by docshredder at 07:19 PM on July 01, 2008
Most of the money is from donations from boosters. Cite? Example?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:55 PM on July 01, 2008
Also, what makes a sport a "profit sport" -- one year in the black? Well these are pretty good one year numbers for the top twenty. (click the link for the top twenty in pictures for all the info) If a football team costs a school money, should it get a smaller percentage of the budget in subsequent years? Lots of things cost a school money. Football isn't the only school program that may run in the red and still be kept around. My hunch is that football and men's basketball are a few activities that occasionally make the school some coin. Most of the money is from donations from boosters. Cite? Example? From UT's page on the top twenty: *In addition, the football program was directly responsible for $16.2 million in donations to the Volunteer Athletic & Scholarship fund via ticket reservation fees. Take a peek at U of Minn financial s and you'll see that the school operated on a huge operating loss before state subsidizing and donations. So I'm inclined to believe that the whole Institution is a crappy revenue generator. (And without doing much more research, I'm comfortable saying that UM is very typical) The article wasn't bashing Title IX, it just suggests that it may need some tweaking to be more reasonable. And when the article states this: The total number of women's teams has exceeded the total number of men's teams since 1995. I have to wonder if Title IX has been a reasonable "solution" to gender inequities. Also, I don't know or have missed all the cites regarding "CU."
posted by tselson at 11:07 PM on July 01, 2008
Also, I don't know or have missed all the cites regarding "CU." Touche. Demanding proof from others while providing none yourself smacks of hypocrisy.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 06:06 AM on July 02, 2008
Well these are pretty good one year numbers for the top twenty. (click the link for the top twenty in pictures for all the info) I'd say they're somewhat incomplete numbers that don't paint a totally rosy picture. Take a look at the numbers, for example, for the University of Michigan Wolverines: "Value: $85 million Profit: $36.2 million... Michigan will add 83 luxury suites and 3,200 club seats to "the big house" next year at a cost of $226 million. " What's not explained is where the $226 million comes from. Plus, as I said before, this is a relatively small number of schools. Is this the rule for football? Even for Div I football? I doubt it. Lots of things cost a school money. Football isn't the only school program that may run in the red and still be kept around. My hunch is that football and men's basketball are a few activities that occasionally make the school some coin. But that's the point, which bperk made way back when, and which I've made since: the mission of an educational institution, particularly one receiving public money (and any school subject to Title IX regulation is receiving public money), is not to make money, it is to educate. Educational institutions don't axe departments for not turning a profit. So why should occasionally bringing in more revenue than your costs be grounds to elevate your program head and shoulders above everything else? Now, you can make a valid argument that collegiate athletics as a whole has gotten out of hand and that it's a bit of a joke to call it an educational program...but that horse left the barn a long time ago. Whether you feel it ought to be that way or not, in the present day, sports teams mean athletic scholarships, which mean educational opportunity. And, before you start saying that the notion of the scholar-athlete has become a joke, take a closer look at the female scholar-athletes who have benefited from Title IX -- who, without Title IX, would never have received scholarships. From UT's page on the top twenty: *In addition, the football program was directly responsible for $16.2 million in donations to the Volunteer Athletic & Scholarship fund via ticket reservation fees. "Ticket reservation fees" don't sound like what I think of as booster contributions -- it sounds more like what Ticket Bastard or another agency charges as an add-on to a ticket price. If I'm right about that, that money didn't come from checks written by boosters motivated by the football program, but was tacked on to the ticket prices, and no one who "contributed" that money had any choice in the matter. Even if that were booster dollars, it doesn't support the assertion that most of the football team's expenses are paid for by booster dollars. It could be true, it's just that that figure doesn't support it. The article wasn't bashing Title IX, it just suggests that it may need some tweaking to be more reasonable. The article's got an agenda. See my first comment in the thread. And when the article states this: The total number of women's teams has exceeded the total number of men's teams since 1995. I have to wonder if Title IX has been a reasonable "solution" to gender inequities. Not sure what you mean there...that things are now "unequal" because (according to the article) the total number of women's teams exceeds the total number of men's teams? If so, what about the total number of athletes? What about the total number of athletic scholarships? What about the total number of athletic scholarship dollars? Also, I don't know or have missed all the cites regarding "CU." I commented on it at length back when it happened, but here's a recap: in 2006, CU athletic director Mike Bohn found himself with a $2 million budget deficit, a large chunk of which was directly attributable to the football program (mostly a buyout of former head coach Gary Barnett's $3.1 million contract when he got canned in December 2005, and an additional $700k a buyout for the existing contract of incoming coach Dan Hawkins). Bohn's response to this unenviable situation was to cut $1 million from the athletic budget, $350,000 of which was made up by eliminating the men's tennis team. The elimination of the team, which was announced in late March of 2006, was effective at the end of the current academic year. Efforts were made to raise $1 million dollars privately, to effectively fund the tennis team for three years, but Bohn would not reconsider his decision -- the team was out. No one in the CU tennis program had any illusion that they lost their jobs and their team because of Title IX. They know why they lost their jobs. They know exactly why. A final note: while Bohn expressed regret over the axing of the men's tennis program, he stated in an article in the CU paper that that the decision was based on "revenue-producing ability, traditions and/or competitiveness. "It came down to the heritage of different sports," he said." In its final season, after receiving the axe from Bohn, the men's tennis team achieved its highest national ranking in the team's nearly one hundred year history.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:33 AM on July 02, 2008
So why should occasionally bringing in more revenue than your costs be grounds to elevate your program head and shoulders above everything else? One of the main jobs of a university president--and consequently significant people under him, such as an AD--is to raise money. You're right, programs aren't cut at universities solely because they don't turn a profit, particularly academic programs. On the other side of that coin, if you have a program that does make you money and has a possibility of making you lots of money, you want to encourage that. If you look at that list of top 20 valuable teams, there is mention of donations from the teams back to academic programs. Additionally, while it's likely that those ticket reservation fees are just a way of extorting more money from season ticket holders, there are still large donations made to schools that, while they may not explicitly hinge on the football or basketball team, they might be a little larger because the boys made it to a BCS game this year. Case in point, a former coworker of mine in Fairfax, VA left our office to become a project manager at nearby George Mason University in early 2006. We stayed in contact with him, and at lunch one day the following summer (after the Patriots made the run to the Final 4), he mentioned to us that due to a huge influx in donations, their budget for new buildings and renovating existing facilities (athletic and academic) had skyrocketed. I don't think that this is any different than what you would see at any other major university. On top of that, the impact of "money-making" sports teams also has to take into account money made from licensing and memorabilia, which could certainly be a large chunk. And lastly, there's publicity. In the Colorodo example (and I want to clarify up front that from what you've said, it really sounds like the tennis team got a raw deal), on the one hand, you have a football team in a BCS conference that has competed for major bowl games and national championships in the (not exactly recent but not too distant) past, with every game on television (some nationally) and a stadium that holds some 53,000 fans for every home game. On the other hand, you have a tennis team that is not on tv, has little or no spectators at it's matches and has won 5 conference titles (and only one since 1958) in it's 60 year history. In the words of Chris Rock, "I'm not saying he should have killed [the tennis team], but I understand." (As an aside: I played tennis in high school. It's a great sport, and it's a shame what happened, but it's a different animal from football.)
posted by bender at 09:18 AM on July 02, 2008
One of the main jobs of a university president--and consequently significant people under him, such as an AD--is to raise money. You're right, programs aren't cut at universities solely because they don't turn a profit, particularly academic programs. On the other side of that coin, if you have a program that does make you money and has a possibility of making you lots of money, you want to encourage that. No matter what? Even if it subverts the educational mission of the university? In the Colorodo example (and I want to clarify up front that from what you've said, it really sounds like the tennis team got a raw deal), on the one hand, you have a football team in a BCS conference that has competed for major bowl games and national championships in the (not exactly recent but not too distant) past, with every game on television (some nationally) and a stadium that holds some 53,000 fans for every home game. On the other hand, you have a tennis team that is not on tv, has little or no spectators at it's matches and has won 5 conference titles (and only one since 1958) in it's 60 year history. In the season following the sacrifice of the men's tennis team, the CU Buffs football team went on to rack up one of the most embarrassingly losing seasons that any football team has ever experienced. They squandered money in a way that makes drunken sailors look like Poor Richard, then turned around and stunk up the joint in record fashion. And you still want to argue that lavishing money and support on this team and getting rid of the tennis team was the right thing to do. If you can't see that the game is rigged, even from an example as stark as that one, I'm not going to be able to convince you. Yeah, Title IX did it. It's all Title IX's fault. Hail football, maker of revenue (just don't ask us to show you all the numbers, including expenses, and graduation rates, let's not talk about those either), and if those wussy little sports get cut, it's the fault of the damn Washington politicians and the damn uppity women.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:04 AM on July 02, 2008
Yeah, Title IX did it. It's all Title IX's fault. Hail football, maker of revenue (just don't ask us to show you all the numbers, including expenses, and graduation rates, let's not talk about those either), and if those wussy little sports get cut, it's the fault of the damn Washington politicians and the damn uppity women. I don't think anyone here or the article was saying that. I just don't get why football becomes the main topic whenever Title IX comes up. I don't get why it's so hard to accept that some football programs are profitable. I don't know what that has to do with Title IX possibly needing a look at since there has been time to see what it's strengths and possible weaknesses are. That is, if gender equity is still the ultimate goal here.
posted by tselson at 12:25 PM on July 02, 2008
No matter what? Even if it subverts the educational mission of the university? When did that happen? In the season following the sacrifice of the men's tennis team, the CU Buffs football team went on to rack up one of the most embarrassingly losing seasons that any football team has ever experienced. They squandered money in a way that makes drunken sailors look like Poor Richard, then turned around and stunk up the joint in record fashion. And you still want to argue that lavishing money and support on this team and getting rid of the tennis team was the right thing to do. If you can't see that the game is rigged, even from an example as stark as that one, I'm not going to be able to convince you. But despite that epic disgrace of a following season, CU is still going to be on tv and they're still going to have thousands of people come to watch them play and they will rebound on the field eventually. I think I mentioned a couple times in my post that I don't like the cutting of their tennis team. If, as you say, private money was raised to fund the tennis team and the AD shot it down anyway, it sounds like perhaps he had some ulterior motive there. I don't know. You seem to be much more the expert than I am. With regard to Title IX, we've strayed a good bit away from there by now. It was not my point that Title IX was responsible for the killing of CU's tennis team or that it's bad for college sports even, but rather to say that the profitability of a team (football in particular) cannot simply be defined by Gate minus Expenses. ADs around the country don't spend 30% of their budgets on the football team because they don't mind losing money. Not to say that there aren't some schools in the red for football, but i'd be surprised if there were very many in BCS conferences in that situation. Sometimes you may have to make a tough decision, but when facing the (unique) situation described above, I think a lot of ADs would make the same decision.
posted by bender at 12:45 PM on July 02, 2008
Not to say that there aren't some schools in the red for football, but i'd be surprised if there were very many in BCS conferences in that situation. I think football teams in a major conference are a no-brainer. You have to spend the money because even if your team is not succesful, you get a pretty large chunk of the pie anyway. However, the vast majority of college football teams do not fall into this category. They still take a huge amount of money to operate. Schools argue that they help balance the women/men enrollment deficits at schools and bring a higher profile to schools. Are they worth their rather large cost? I don't really know. I do know that the schools choosing to operate a football team has to meet their obligations under title IX. If the football team is successful, then there should be more money to spend on all the other sports. If the football team is successful, then the school needs to consider how they are going to meet the obligations of title IX with a football program eating up a large chunk of the athletic department's budget.
posted by bperk at 01:14 PM on July 02, 2008
I don't think anyone here or the article was saying that. I just don't get why football becomes the main topic whenever Title IX comes up. Because whenever Title IX comes up, someone has to point out that men's sports suffer, because when you allow them damn uppity women to play sports, there isn't enough money left for the wrestling team -- or the men's tennis team. And then it becomes a money thing, and then you have to ask yourself not just where the money comes from, but where it goes to, and who's getting the lion's share of the budget. The hit that CU took for the contract buyouts alone would have funded their tennis team for more than ten years. Why should football not be the main topic? I don't get why it's so hard to accept that some football programs are profitable. Strawman. I don't know what that has to do with Title IX possibly needing a look at since there has been time to see what it's strengths and possible weaknesses are. That is, if gender equity is still the ultimate goal here. Third time now: the author of the article has an agenda. The author wrote the article not in an honest spirit of inquiry, but because she is against Title IX. She is head of an organization that rather skillfully hides its promotion of neocon anti-women agendas. Consider the source.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:22 PM on July 02, 2008
When did that happen? It happens every time a functional illiterate is given a scholarship so that the football team can have a really great [insert position of choice]. But despite that epic disgrace of a following season, CU is still going to be on tv and they're still going to have thousands of people come to watch them play and they will rebound on the field eventually. And so what? Just...exactly...so what? Why do they have a university, to get their football team, with its wonderful reputation for off-the-field crime, onto TV? Because a bunch of morons will continue to fill seats in their stadium no matter how shitty they are? I think I mentioned a couple times in my post that I don't like the cutting of their tennis team. If, as you say, private money was raised to fund the tennis team and the AD shot it down anyway, it sounds like perhaps he had some ulterior motive there. I don't know. You seem to be much more the expert than I am. Yeah, I got chapter and verse on it. The CU men's tennis coaches used to run a lot of summer programs (they don't have any $3.1 million contracts, ya know) and my older brother used to train there all the time. I got to know Sam Winterbotham, who was the head coach who got axed -- during the whole raw deal, he was a gentleman and a professional throughout. Incidentally, if you follow tennis at all, you've probably seen one of his former athletes from when he was at Baylor -- Benjamin Becker, the guy who defeated Andre Agassi in Agassi's final match. Sam ended up as the head men's coach at Tennessee, and CU did at least offer to continue the scholarships of his non-graduating players. With no team to play on, though, I'm not sure if any of them stayed. With regard to Title IX, we've strayed a good bit away from there by now. It was not my point that Title IX was responsible for the killing of CU's tennis team or that it's bad for college sports even, but rather to say that the profitability of a team (football in particular) cannot simply be defined by Gate minus Expenses. No, it's Gate plus Alumni Donations plus TV Fees plus Merchandise minus Scholarships minus Salaries minus Facilities Cost minus Capital Costs minus Other Operating Costs minus Buyouts minus Bailouts minus Legal Fees minus Hush-up Money... ;-) ADs around the country don't spend 30% of their budgets on the football team because they don't mind losing money. Not to say that there aren't some schools in the red for football, but i'd be surprised if there were very many in BCS conferences in that situation. Sometimes you may have to make a tough decision, but when facing the (unique) situation described above, I think a lot of ADs would make the same decision. Now...after having seen those numbers, how can you honestly say that? The money got raised. It wasn't a dime out of Bohn's budget. Oh, he had reasons -- they just weren't good, honest or ethical ones.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:37 PM on July 02, 2008
I think football teams in a major conference are a no-brainer. You have to spend the money because even if your team is not succesful, you get a pretty large chunk of the pie anyway. However, the vast majority of college football teams do not fall into this category. The BCS still accounts for 66/120 (55%) teams in division 1-A. Of other 1-A conferences, I'd imagine a few schools are profitable in football, and more than a few break even or worse. In 1-AA or lower, the expenditures are significantly lower due to reduced travel, smaller teams, worse facilities, etc., although the revenues certainly would be significantly lower as well. I couldn't find any numbers in a quick search to see how that would break out--if anyone knows a good resource, I'd love to see it. Of course, the payday they get for taking the buyout from a 1-A school on one home game a year could cover the rest of their expenses.
posted by bender at 02:46 PM on July 02, 2008
It happens every time a functional illiterate is given a scholarship so that the football team can have a really great [insert position of choice]. I agree that the minor leagues that are college football and basketball do have some work to do with regard to student athletes, but (1) they do still allow for some students to go to college/receive scholarships who might not otherwise be able to, and (2) that doesn't detract from the institution's ability to fulfill their educational mission with the rest of the students. Besides, there are non-athletes who don't go to class as well. And so what? Just...exactly...so what? Why do they have a university, to get their football team, with its wonderful reputation for off-the-field crime, onto TV? Because a bunch of morons will continue to fill seats in their stadium no matter how shitty they are? No, the AD has an athletic department to work within the university and provide athletic opportunities for student athletes, and he has one team that has a recently tarnished reputation but still has the potential to be the one team that earns money to help pay for the other teams and get publicity to keep people interested in Colorado University. Now...after having seen those numbers, how can you honestly say that? The money got raised. It wasn't a dime out of Bohn's budget. Oh, he had reasons -- they just weren't good, honest or ethical ones. Perhaps I didn't phrase that part of my post very well. I meant when faced with the original situation, when he initially made the decision to cut the tennis team--not after the $1M was raised. Up to that point, it sounds like he was looking at a budget and had to make a cut somewhere, and unfortunately it affected some nice and unsuspecting people. The second decision sounds like he had his own agenda, and if you know any more about it, I'd be happy to hear about it.
posted by bender at 03:06 PM on July 02, 2008
I couldn't find any numbers in a quick search to see how that would break out--if anyone knows a good resource, I'd love to see it. I checked the DOE site posted above. You can search by aggregate institutions. I did a quick search of aggregate institutions in I-A and I-AA by expenses and by revenue. In I-A, the football revenue totalled quite a lot more than the expenses for football. In I-AA, those numbers about equalled out.
posted by bperk at 03:27 PM on July 02, 2008
Lbb, So the CU tennis team got screwed and it had nothing to do with Title IX. Glad you keep bringing it up. And the article is complete trash because a super secret "anti-woman," neocon wrote it to promote her skillfully veiled agenda of ruining women's rights. No football program is good for the school and it is impossible that they may actually make any money because UM is investing in stadium renovations to lose some more money. As it would be impossible to consider that a sound investment. And you like to say "damn uppity women," so that anyone who may have found it interesting to question whether Title IX is perfect as it stands now, is some sort of women's rights oppressor. If I'm missing a real point in there somewhere, let me know. In the meantime I've enjoyed perusing through bperks link. UM's football team generates enough profit to subsidize the entire athletic program and then some. There is one more women's team than men's and participation is almost equal (the women had a handful more) It all looks good based on the numbers and football appears to be an excellent place to spend quite a bit of money due to it's excellent ROI. As bperk also points out, football in D-I seemingly across the board covers it's nut. So, we can not let the facts regarding football get in the way and continue to bemoan that it is the crux of all evil in college athletics, or we can leave it out of a discussion on how Title IX is working out.
posted by tselson at 04:15 PM on July 02, 2008
bender: I agree that the minor leagues that are college football and basketball do have some work to do with regard to student athletes, but (1) they do still allow for some students to go to college/receive scholarships who might not otherwise be able to, and (2) that doesn't detract from the institution's ability to fulfill their educational mission with the rest of the students. Besides, there are non-athletes who don't go to class as well. You asked the question, I answered it. Now I have one for you: how does it not compromise a university's academic mission to pass, even graduate, an individual who is academically marginal at best? No, the AD has an athletic department to work within the university and provide athletic opportunities for student athletes, and he has one team that has a recently tarnished reputation but still has the potential to be the one team that earns money to help pay for the other teams and get publicity to keep people interested in Colorado University. And, of course, what better to interest people in CU than a losing football team with a reputation for shady off-field behavior? The NCAA champion ski team and cross-country team couldn't possibly have any appeal to anybody. The academic departments are of no interest to anybody. Shove them all to the back, it's football that'll bring in the kind of students we want to see! Perhaps I didn't phrase that part of my post very well. I meant when faced with the original situation, when he initially made the decision to cut the tennis team--not after the $1M was raised. Up to that point, it sounds like he was looking at a budget and had to make a cut somewhere, and unfortunately it affected some nice and unsuspecting people. The second decision sounds like he had his own agenda, and if you know any more about it, I'd be happy to hear about it. It was more back-office dealings that were not made public at the time of the announcement. It wasn't known until later, but Bohn had secured an $8 million "loan" from the university to bail him out. At that point, he didn't need the money the tennis team had raised, but refusing it would give him more future dollars -- he was going to have to "pay back" that $8 million, at least in theory (in reality, I think CU can kiss that $8 million goodbye, and all the academic programs that it might have funded), and the tennis team fundraiser would have funded them for three years, not forever. So, by axing the tennis team, he got himself $350K a year down the road.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:37 AM on July 03, 2008
tselson: So the CU tennis team got screwed and it had nothing to do with Title IX. Glad you keep bringing it up. I brought it up because I was asked, and because a certain individual implied that I was a hypocrite for mentioning the incident in passing without providing detail. Do you have a problem with that? And the article is complete trash because a super secret "anti-woman," neocon wrote it to promote her skillfully veiled agenda of ruining women's rights. Is this your statement? No football program is good for the school and it is impossible that they may actually make any money because UM is investing in stadium renovations to lose some more money. As it would be impossible to consider that a sound investment. Is this your statement? And you like to say "damn uppity women," so that anyone who may have found it interesting to question whether Title IX is perfect as it stands now, is some sort of women's rights oppressor. Do not tell me what I think. If I'm missing a real point in there somewhere, let me know. You're missing a great many "real points" that evidently trouble you to the point that you'd rather invent statements to put in my mouth than acknowledge them. So, we can not let the facts regarding football get in the way and continue to bemoan that it is the crux of all evil in college athletics, or we can leave it out of a discussion on how Title IX is working out. Yes, of course we're free to talk about "how Title IX is working out". We should use an article as a springboard for this discussion, but we must never, never take a closer look at the author of the article to see where she's coming from. We can measure the "harm" done by Title IX by talking about losses of men's wrestling and other teams, but we are not allowed to talk about the football team, because it is sacrosanct. Really, tselson, college football is a classic case of "sleeping next to an elephant". How can you not bring it into a discussion of college athletics?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:45 AM on July 03, 2008
Now I have one for you: how does it not compromise a university's academic mission to pass, even graduate, an individual who is academically marginal at best? As I mentioned before, I'm not going to argue that reforms couldn't be made to make a better effort at grooming "student athletes" in colleges, particularly in football and basketball. I do, however, still believe that there are still a much larger number of players on football and basketball teams across the country who benefit here and do forward the academic mission. When you factor in (as mentioned in the last few posts) that money from football helps fund many or all of the other sports predominantly including all of the athletes who the NCAA likes to advertise are "going pro in something other than sports", those are some pretty compelling reasons to keep football at the top of the list. The NCAA champion ski team and cross-country team couldn't possibly have any appeal to anybody. The academic departments are of no interest to anybody. Shove them all to the back, it's football that'll bring in the kind of students we want to see! Are these your words? During every college football game, there are numerous advertisements from the schools involved. While they might have a shot of the football team, most of them show professors and researchers and students and are advertisements for why you should want to attend and/or support the university. Were the NCAA skiing or cross-country championships even on tv? Thank you for the info on the CU tennis team. That is along the lines of what I expected may have been the case there, and that truly is a shame for those players and coaches. That said, given that information, I'm not sure how germane that is to this discussion given that the decisions had a lot more to do with a self-serving AD than Title IX, a real budget crisis, or anything else.
posted by bender at 11:30 AM on July 03, 2008
So the CU tennis team got screwed and it had nothing to do with Title IX. Glad you keep bringing it up. I brought it up because I was asked, and because a certain individual implied that I was a hypocrite for mentioning the incident in passing without providing detail. Do you have a problem with that? No, you brought it up on your own and told everyone to take a look at what a money pit the football team is: The facts don't support this. Men's football and basketball turn a profit at a relatively small number of Div I schools; at many others, they're huge money pits. Take a look at CU, just to use one example. If you take a look at CU's info, you'll find that football is indeed not a money pit. You will also find that even without the men's tennis team, the men's participation percentage is still higher than it should be. Look, I have a son who hopes to play golf for a small school. I also have two younger daughters who play competitive soccer and basketball. I want them all to have a fair opportunity. That's why I found the topic interesting. I didn't invent any statements. I simply interpreted them. I have no idea why you started on about uppity women or awful evil women feminists. If they were directed at comments that were deleted, sorry. I simply tried earlier to point out that no one here seemed to be harboring that point of view. And then you said it again, directed at my comment as if to put those words in MY mouth. So, that's where I was coming from.
posted by tselson at 02:57 PM on July 03, 2008
I agree with what the article said. There are some cases where men's programs have suffered, but on the whole, the pluses far outweigh the minuses with Title IX. The thing that concerns me is that the availability of good coaching and training for female athletes lags behind the opportunities those athletes now have and the great advances in skill and athleticism that have taken place in recent years in female sports. This has put the overall physiological state of female athletes at greater risk. The epidemic of female sports injuries has to be thoroughly addressed across the board ASAP. It's a high school issue as much as an NCAA issue.