As of 8:10am this morning one of the finer programs in the country is lost due to "budgetary" problems.
No one saw it coming and they just recently signed some top level recruits that gave them one of the top 3 recruiting classes in the country.
Parents
Former Member
Is this true? A football roster, including walk-ons, is ~ 100. A Title IX compliant university should have male/female participation counts approximately proportional to the male/female ratio of the student body. Assuming a 50/50 ratio taking football out should leave more female athletes.
"Should".
Schools are granted a bit of lee-way for "trying" (i.e. adding female sports and dropping men's sports).
From what I can remember, most schools aren't 100% compliant regarding sports. And from what I can gather, virtually every school is compliant regarding dollars-spent on male and female students, which wasn't the case 35 years ago, w/ male students and male-centric curricular and extra-curricular activities receiving far more funding.
Sports become the easy target when in reality there's no longer the need to force the issue.
Another thing that complicates the issue for small, private colleges: administrators are beginning to say that small colleges are becoming a de facto Country and Fitness Club. They use sport participation as a way to bring in students. They can't compete w/ the elite schools for students, so this is one way they can do it.
Now. Throw in the declining academic performance of boys, throw in strict Title IX guidelines, and you end up tying small colleges' hands in their attempt bring in desperately needed students.
Their high-performing female students want better mentorship programs, better pre-grad school orientation and preparation, better liaison with the business community, better student services in general, etc. Not more sports teams.
Is this true? A football roster, including walk-ons, is ~ 100. A Title IX compliant university should have male/female participation counts approximately proportional to the male/female ratio of the student body. Assuming a 50/50 ratio taking football out should leave more female athletes.
"Should".
Schools are granted a bit of lee-way for "trying" (i.e. adding female sports and dropping men's sports).
From what I can remember, most schools aren't 100% compliant regarding sports. And from what I can gather, virtually every school is compliant regarding dollars-spent on male and female students, which wasn't the case 35 years ago, w/ male students and male-centric curricular and extra-curricular activities receiving far more funding.
Sports become the easy target when in reality there's no longer the need to force the issue.
Another thing that complicates the issue for small, private colleges: administrators are beginning to say that small colleges are becoming a de facto Country and Fitness Club. They use sport participation as a way to bring in students. They can't compete w/ the elite schools for students, so this is one way they can do it.
Now. Throw in the declining academic performance of boys, throw in strict Title IX guidelines, and you end up tying small colleges' hands in their attempt bring in desperately needed students.
Their high-performing female students want better mentorship programs, better pre-grad school orientation and preparation, better liaison with the business community, better student services in general, etc. Not more sports teams.
