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
True that football programs lose money, but consider:
blog.nj.com/.../rutgers_fundraising_efforts_re.html
"Rutgers University, traditionally a fundraising laggard among big schools across the country, took in a record $103 million in private donations in the fiscal year that ended in June, university officials said today.
. . .
"The $103 million figure represents an increase of 32 percent in private donations over the 2005-06 fiscal year, when donors gave about $78 million.
The jump reflects a new emphasis on fundraising at the 50,000-student university, which has shed jobs and classes in the wake of steep state aid cuts. . .
The recent successes of the football and women's basketball teams have provided an additional boost. The football team finished with an 11-2 record last year, climbing into the national rankings and claiming the team's first bowl victory in its 137-year history. The baketball team played for the national championship, falling to Tennessee."
The point being: The sports are designed to break even or lose money. However, successful high-profile sports increase non-sport fundraising. A successful minor sport, like swimming or fencing, doesn't. I wish it did, but it just doesn't.
Also, if you are a public university, you are more likely to increase your state funding - or at least stave off decreases - with a successful major sport program.
True that football programs lose money, but consider:
blog.nj.com/.../rutgers_fundraising_efforts_re.html
"Rutgers University, traditionally a fundraising laggard among big schools across the country, took in a record $103 million in private donations in the fiscal year that ended in June, university officials said today.
. . .
"The $103 million figure represents an increase of 32 percent in private donations over the 2005-06 fiscal year, when donors gave about $78 million.
The jump reflects a new emphasis on fundraising at the 50,000-student university, which has shed jobs and classes in the wake of steep state aid cuts. . .
The recent successes of the football and women's basketball teams have provided an additional boost. The football team finished with an 11-2 record last year, climbing into the national rankings and claiming the team's first bowl victory in its 137-year history. The baketball team played for the national championship, falling to Tennessee."
The point being: The sports are designed to break even or lose money. However, successful high-profile sports increase non-sport fundraising. A successful minor sport, like swimming or fencing, doesn't. I wish it did, but it just doesn't.
Also, if you are a public university, you are more likely to increase your state funding - or at least stave off decreases - with a successful major sport program.
