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.
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.
I have heard this said many times, that being successful in "major" sports increases fundraising. But other than simple assertions that it is so -- such as the one you reference -- I have not seen actual studies showing it to be true...which doesn't mean there are none. Do you know of any?
It seems like a pretty big assumption, if it is used to justify a sport that is as resource-intensive as football (and at the expense of sports like swimming). Ivy League endowments seem to be doing okay despite having pretty sucky teams.
The other thing I have heard frequently is that being successful in sports increases application pressure, though that doesn't necessarily directly increase revenue (though it might increase the quality of the incoming class). An increase in applications might be a little easier for me to believe, but again it would be nice to see proof.
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.
I have heard this said many times, that being successful in "major" sports increases fundraising. But other than simple assertions that it is so -- such as the one you reference -- I have not seen actual studies showing it to be true...which doesn't mean there are none. Do you know of any?
It seems like a pretty big assumption, if it is used to justify a sport that is as resource-intensive as football (and at the expense of sports like swimming). Ivy League endowments seem to be doing okay despite having pretty sucky teams.
The other thing I have heard frequently is that being successful in sports increases application pressure, though that doesn't necessarily directly increase revenue (though it might increase the quality of the incoming class). An increase in applications might be a little easier for me to believe, but again it would be nice to see proof.
