Let's keep cutting men's sports. Hey.... it's the economy now, not Title IX.
I find this reasoning amusing.
John Smith
=======================================
NCAA's Brand: Don't fault Title IX for Future Cuts
Author: ASA News
Blog URL: allstudentathletes.com/.../ncaabrandtitleix
Description:
Brand expects some schools to drop men's teams in coming months because
of the economic downturn. He is urging them in advance to cite the
economy, not the law that bans sex discrimination at schools receiving
federal funds.
Parents
Former Member
Dan...I think this kind of thinking is a huge mistake....one that Phil Whitten eluded to in the speach I mention earlier in this thread. If the study he referenced is true...and schools like Texas with a huge budget are actually hitting a net loss on football then even Texas swimming could fall...as we've seen the new trend is to have these programs endow themselves and erase them enitrely from the books.
Please don't take my comment the wrong way. I don't agree with this thinking either. But the problem with many schools that are not comparable to UT and Ohio State in terms of budgets are forced to spend a disproportionate amount of money to compete in football. Good examples in the Big12 - only three schools with men's swimming. The other nine don't have it. Even though Oklahoma is a fb power - their overall athletic dept. budget is far smaller than Texas. Texas Tech is a good example of a strong Div 1 football team that spends most of its money on football.
UT does not lose money on football. No way. I also do not see Texas making any radical changes. Maybe Eddie only gets to have 30-35 on his roster instead of the 40 he has now.
Dan...I think this kind of thinking is a huge mistake....one that Phil Whitten eluded to in the speach I mention earlier in this thread. If the study he referenced is true...and schools like Texas with a huge budget are actually hitting a net loss on football then even Texas swimming could fall...as we've seen the new trend is to have these programs endow themselves and erase them enitrely from the books.
Please don't take my comment the wrong way. I don't agree with this thinking either. But the problem with many schools that are not comparable to UT and Ohio State in terms of budgets are forced to spend a disproportionate amount of money to compete in football. Good examples in the Big12 - only three schools with men's swimming. The other nine don't have it. Even though Oklahoma is a fb power - their overall athletic dept. budget is far smaller than Texas. Texas Tech is a good example of a strong Div 1 football team that spends most of its money on football.
UT does not lose money on football. No way. I also do not see Texas making any radical changes. Maybe Eddie only gets to have 30-35 on his roster instead of the 40 he has now.
