Further cuts to come for men's sports

I read the article. Some good points - but the comments about radical feminists seems unfounded. And just because Whitten says no football team is profitable doesn't mean it is true. He hasn't looked at all the revenue sources an athletic dept. has to truly assess this issue. It really is all about money. The ADs may use Title IX as an excuse - and it may influence the decision on which sports get cut. But Title IX wouldn't be the issue at all if the ADs chose to spend money differently. It really is also about football (and basketball). The ADs will cut FB last because they think FB is most important and valuable. FB has the most $$ in TV, most media coverage, most athletes, etc. It brings more students together in one place six times a year than any other sport. Let's remember too that the AD works for the university president. The same person who allows BCS madness to continue. The presidents could do something different if they wanted to. The haves (UT for example) and their budgets for football and basketball cause as much damage to non-tier 1 sports as anything. It it UT's spending on football that forces Texas Tech (for example) to allocate almost all of its funds to football. How else can TT compete for recruits? UT uses private jets to fly recruits in. They pay their defensive coordinator $900K. If the NCAA had any balls (they don't) they would put brakes on the arms race. I think the best way to do that is to cut scholarships for football. Take it down from 85 to 46 and allow the scholarships to be fractional. Roster sizes go down, costs go down, and more scholarships are available for other men's sports. Kids have to perform to keep their fractional scholarship. And coaches can't just fill their rosters with a bunch of players who never see the field. I do not favor social engineering nor "big government" for college sports but I strongly believe the big, rich, programs have far too much influence.

I read the article. Some good points - but the comments about radical feminists seems unfounded. And just because Whitten says no football team is profitable doesn't mean it is true. He hasn't looked at all the revenue sources an athletic dept. has to truly assess this issue. It really is all about money. The ADs may use Title IX as an excuse - and it may influence the decision on which sports get cut. But Title IX wouldn't be the issue at all if the ADs chose to spend money differently. It really is also about football (and basketball). The ADs will cut FB last because they think FB is most important and valuable. FB has the most $$ in TV, most media coverage, most athletes, etc. It brings more students together in one place six times a year than any other sport. Let's remember too that the AD works for the university president. The same person who allows BCS madness to continue. The presidents could do something different if they wanted to. The haves (UT for example) and their budgets for football and basketball cause as much damage to non-tier 1 sports as anything. It it UT's spending on football that forces Texas Tech (for example) to allocate almost all of its funds to football. How else can TT compete for recruits? UT uses private jets to fly recruits in. They pay their defensive coordinator $900K. If the NCAA had any balls (they don't) they would put brakes on the arms race. I think the best way to do that is to cut scholarships for football. Take it down from 85 to 46 and allow the scholarships to be fractional. Roster sizes go down, costs go down, and more scholarships are available for other men's sports. Kids have to perform to keep their fractional scholarship. And coaches can't just fill their rosters with a bunch of players who never see the field. I do not favor social engineering nor "big government" for college sports but I strongly believe the big, rich, programs have far too much influence.