I have written this idea to Swimming World and USA Swimmer and now I want to share it with my Forum Friends to see if I can garner any support. I just read the report in the ASCA magazine on how the implementation of Title IX has hurt men's swimming. As a supporter of womens sports I think Title IX has done much more good than harm. As a fan of college swimming I think the NCAA has done more harm than good. I was searching for a solution that would get swimming out of being at the mercy of the NCAA.The solution seems to be to start a scholarship fund for swimmers to be administered by USA Swimming. Criteria would be set up,both athletic and academic,for deserving swimmers to earn college scholarships to the college of their choice. The swimmer would be free to swim for the college if they had a team if desired or for the appropriate club if they don't. If they earn a swimming scholarship from the college the extra funds could be recycled back into the program.In the interest of fairness the scholarships would go to an equal number of men and women. This program would not be a way to get around Title IX but to get around the NCAA. Yes,it would take a massive fund raising effort,but I think most swimmers,parents,Masters,and corporate sponsors would be interested in donating(I would.) It would give swimming great publicity and would be a great recruiting tool. What do Y'all think?
Former Member
I actually do not know much about title ix other than the basics--trying to keep # of teams equal by gender and such...and obviously as with anything money...
but I know some high school teams in my area had to really fight to keep their mens swimming, because a lot of schools (esp. schools with football) that went on to instate mens' lacrosse were becoming too unbalanced. I can almost see the rationale behind cutting a men's high school swim team, especially in a state like NY where the mens and women's seasons are seperate...the schools paying either a different team of coaches (than the girls team) or the same coach a 2 salary. The team is using the pool (-$), traveling (-$), etc....
However, in college it almost seems pointless to cut one of the swim teams, ESPECIALLY if they are using the same coach for both teams. Because I mean what I know of most teams you have the same coach (1 salary), the same pool times (not using more time where school can be creating outside revenue on open swims or whateveR--and cleaning/maintanence issues), travel together (1 bus) ect... so by cutting the men's team say, how much money overall do you really save? While if you cut say the men's soccer team, you would clearly save a lot more money...
but, thats fisheye view of swimming I suppose...we're expendable.
a few random thoughts:
I think I or someone else said this a few months ago on a similar thread, but if you are a dude and don't play football or basketball, good luck finding sports money to put you through college.
Regardless of what we say about them, regardless of how bad the teams get, despite football and basketball tending to use the most money, they also bring in the most money to a college/university. Season tix sales, school-logo gear, tv $. I think all college bowl games after Dec 29 06 guarenteed at least $300k to the participating schools. You gotta spend money to make money.
And hand in hand with the Stanford/Kinney issue, lets not lose sight of the fact that these kids are Student/Athletes. The NBA has helped make that phrase a debacle for basketball. Most of these kids are going to need to go pro in something other than sports - and thankfully, I think most of these kids in our sport know that.
:argue:
Jeff, someone said it earlier on here.....don't remember who....but, even though some of these schools bring in a pretty big sum of money, the majority of them are paying out more then they are bringing in. So they are actually losing money.:2cents:
Very ambitious idea Allen. Not a bad idea at all, just ambitious. I would be interested in hearing what kind of response you get from the periodicals you mentioned.
About sports coverage, I keep hearing about all of this March madness and NCAA events...yada yada yada. Somehow I keep expecting one of these radio commentators to mention something about NCAA swimming but not a peep has been spoken about it.
Jeff, someone said it earlier on here.....don't remember who....but, even though some of these schools bring in a pretty big sum of money, the majority of them are paying out more then they are bringing in. So they are actually losing money.:2cents:
Tracy,
Agreed and not disputing! Just pointing out that if you put aside the expenditures, football and basketball are generating the income. While they may run deficits, they've gotta generate the income to pay off the loans in order to keep running those deficits, and thats where football/basketball come in.
For the record, unless you are a Notre Dame, Florida or one of about 6 or 7 schools that have huge stadiums that fill up and who consistenly make bowl games, the only way a program makes money is to make it to a BCS bowl you do not make money. Last year the Rutgers football team lost more money BECAUSE they made it to the bowl game. The same probably happened this year. The fact that one can take in money doesn't mean anything if you loose overall.
There was a DII school down south that dropped their football team a few years back and I heard a story about it on NPR this fall. They added a bunch of other sports with the money they saved and donations to the school are now considerably higher than they were with football. So how about giving that a try for a few years.
As I said before, the Amateur Sports Act gave the NCAA an exemption from being governed by the various NGBs because they were doing a good job of developing Olympic athletes. Now that they have turned in the NFL's minor league, this needs revisiting.
Leo
Maybe I don't know everything there is to know about title nine
Here's all you need to know (quoted from en.wikipedia.org/.../Title_ix)
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (United States), commonly known as Title IX, is a 37-word law enacted on June 23, 1972 that states: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
Interestingly the wording has no mention at all of athletics and I would imagine most people would agree with the basic premise of the law. Obviously the way it has been interpreted with respect to college athletics has been a little more questionable.
I don't know if this is all you need to know. 37 words isn't it.
Maybe not, but those are the words everyone should know about Title IX before spouting off about how bad it is.
This is a horrible idea!!!! USA Swimming can give out scholarships as it wants. Any organization can. The way explained would cause so much bureaucracy to ensure that everything went right. Also, why should USA Swimming dictate to colleges how they run their programs? I am sure under this plan that theere would be a few great powerhoused n no time. Colleges must be given the independence to address their own needs.
What is the real horrible truth about athelitc scholarships is that in many private large schools, t he only mionority men in the campus are athelitic scholarship.
Men's rowing is not within the NCAA. They are clubs. It does seem to work to me.
The outline of Illinois colleges was incomplete. UI Chicago has swimming. That is where the state masters meet has been held. Overall, though, I told by a recruiter at a sate school that when all of th estate scholarships are added up, men's swimminig in Illinois does much better than wrestling, baseball and tennis and there aren't as many female swimming scholarships given in Illinois as there are women's. Right now, I think that two of the U of I's star swimmers are walk-ons.
