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.
Read the whole thread, and can say my Div I college cut men's swimming & diving back in the late 1970's. It was a very sad thing. I suspect they would have taken out women's as well, but the facilities were already there and they needed to balance opportunities.
Perhaps we need only look at the public pools being built (or rebuilt) these days to see the end of compettive swimming as we know it... splashpads and waterslides are now must-haves for pool makeovers, with lane space (and markings) at a premium if they are planned at all.
I think the big public universities are going the way of the public parks. Only sell what the majority really wants. Look to Division II, Division III and private universities for your collegiate swimming near term.
Pretty hard to swim upstream with the Lisa Love's with chopping block authority and full backing of univ presidents. Hey, remember this?? Aggie men's team is still here! What a pleasant surprise every year. Jay Holmes in one the nicest people in the world!
Texas A&M's Byrne Dumps Mel Nash
College Station, TX , June 29th, 2004
Texas A&M Director of Athletics Bill Byrne has taken another strike at swimming. Following the elimination of the men's and women's swimming programs at Oregon and the men's program at Nebraska, Byrne has uprooted longtime Aggie men's coach Mel Nash.
Geek,
Note Ms. Love's comments on her decision to cut the sports.
says Love, "these three sports were selected with the following criteria: financial impact, potential competitive success, conference/regional support and gender equity. Our revenue trajectory has been positive, however, our ongoing financial challenges have been well documented by the media. The decision to discontinue sport programs is a last resort, yet necessary."
Geee....... You don't suppose "gender equity" was one of the components that had to do with her decision? Could that possibly mean the effects of Title IX had something to do with this? ...... :-)
Hmmmmmmmm
I think Jay Holmes is a fine coach. He unfortunately has to work under the giant shadow of Eddie Reese. And Bill Byrne has so far proven his critics wrong - he has maintained men's swimming. I think Jay is good enough to have a top 10 program but he needs some help recruiting.
Maybe some of those ASU swimmers need a new team to swim for....
To say that football is a revenue producing sport is WRONG at almost all schools.I was told by a semi-reliable source that 6 Div 1 teams actually made money.Yes it is "prestigious" to have a good FB team,but by the time you pay for everything it takes to compete in FB it loses money.Add in the fact that many of the football players(and even more of the basketball players) don't really want to be in college and the whole situation becomes obscene.Maybe this has something to do with top college swimming coaches going back to clubs.
Not really.
The interpretation of Title IX has evolved, and the problem is that it hasn't evolved to accommodate social changes and the fact that women now have the opportunity to compete in sports.
We're not in the '60s!
I'd prefer that some money be spent on getting women through the glass ceiling that still exists for women, instead of offering more and more sports that women just aren't interested in.
Put $100K into programs for female graduate students w/ children so that they can finish their degree in a timely manner.
Put $100K into programs for female graduate students that will enable them to have children if they so desire and still reach tenure when they become a professor, which is a MAJOR issue.
Or put $100K into programs that link female business leaders w/ undergrads so that they can network, learn about which battles to fight and when, foster female solidarity in the business world, etc.
The reality is that women nowadays have played sports and take what they want from them.
The reality is that there are better ways to spend money on a student-body that reflects their true needs, not the standards put forth by an outdated, archaic piece of legislation.
To a degree.
But just like there's a knee-jerk reaction to blame everything on Title IX, so is "financial stupidity" a red-herring.
It's a loss-leader.
The reality is that w/o a football team, alumni just won't give nearly as much money per year.
Who says they're not interested? And what do you mean by the statement that women "take what they want from" sports? Don't much like the sound of that ... Is this somehow different than men? And if the new women's crew team is currently undersubscribed or unsuccessful because it's a fairly new women's sport, does that mean it will be 10 years from now when high school teams are more common? Let's not write off women's interest in sports off so quickly! I just read in the Post that the DC area has nationally ranked crew teams, but no school funding.
And how exactly can "financial stupidity" be a red herring in light of the dollar numbers we know are spent on football and basketball?
If alumni won't give money without a football team, it's a decent reason not to go to that school. After this third or fourth discussion of Title IX, I will continue to encourage my kids to pick their school for academic reasons. I have no regrets that I did.
Let's be honest, ASU had 36 years to adjust to Title IX.
Not really.
The interpretation of Title IX has evolved, and the problem is that it hasn't evolved to accommodate social changes and the fact that women now have the opportunity to compete in sports.
We're not in the '60s!
I'd prefer that some money be spent on getting women through the glass ceiling that still exists for women, instead of offering more and more sports that women just aren't interested in.
Put $100K into programs for female graduate students w/ children so that they can finish their degree in a timely manner.
Put $100K into programs for female graduate students that will enable them to have children if they so desire and still reach tenure when they become a professor, which is a MAJOR issue.
Or put $100K into programs that link female business leaders w/ undergrads so that they can network, learn about which battles to fight and when, foster female solidarity in the business world, etc.
The reality is that women nowadays have played sports and take what they want from them.
The reality is that there are better ways to spend money on a student-body that reflects their true needs, not the standards put forth by an outdated, archaic piece of legislation.
Midas - good points. I think schools hide behind Title IX so as not to admit to financial stupidity.
To a degree.
But just like there's a knee-jerk reaction to blame everything on Title IX, so is "financial stupidity" a red-herring.
To say that football is a revenue producing sport is WRONG at almost all schools.I was told by a semi-reliable source that 6 Div 1 teams actually made money.
It's a loss-leader.
The reality is that w/o a football team, alumni just won't give nearly as much money per year.
I agree with you that football and basketball are key drivers for alumni donations. They are also the sports most popular with the student body. Women's basketball draws a good crowd at a few schools. Women's soccer averaged almost 5,000 per game at Texas A&M.
One of the reasons I enjoy college football is how alive the campus becomes on game day. Just about nothing else can do that to a large campus.
This statement is often made and simply assumed to be true. Have either of you seen proof of it? Since it is often used to justify the existence of (marginal) football programs it would seem in need of some examination. I don't think it would be all that difficult to do.
A friend of mine -- a former college swim coach -- claims to have seen studies that disprove it (or, more accurately, fail to prove it). I have not followed up myself.
Personally, I doubt that it is true for ALL types of schools. Where I work, football games are poorly attended -- the campus certainly does NOT "come alive" on game days. If current students don't care much about the team, how would it induce them to give more money after they graduate?
My own giving to my alma maters (one of which is a "football school") is not at all correlated to the existence of the football program or how well the team is doing.
What seems to me to be important for alum giving is to create "warm fuzzy" feelings associated with a school (school pride, etc). Football can accomplish that, but so can other sports (as Dan himself says) and even non-sport organizations. So I suspect that the common assertion that we must keep football programs to raise money for the school is a weak one, except for the big powerhouse programs whose football programs directly generate lots of revenue.
Title IX doesn't work for the same reason that racial quotas (affirmative action) do not work. They force unrealistic and accelerated change upon institutions that are ill equipped to implement and manage them. Both have been shown ultimately to be counter productive and in this case, as many others, destructive.
