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.
Elise - I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, if any. The richest athletic departments (the "haves") generally excel in almost all sports they choose to participate in. I'm sure there are lots of reasons but fundamentally money means great coaches, great facilities, focus on recruiting, and an expectation of winning.
Those rich football programs distort the NCAA world for all other teams that try to compete in football. The Texas Tech example earlier is a great case study. They spend most of their money on football to try to compete in the Big12.
gobears asked me what my husband was basing his argument on in saying that football means more scholarships for women. The facts speak for themself. More revenue from football = ability to pay high caliber swim coaches + ability to give out lots of scholarships, attracting the best swimmers = strong women's swim program.
It's a fairly logical argument that because of football, there are more scholarships for women. That is the point I suppose I'm making above. This is outside the Title IX argument. Without Title IX, of course, there might not be many athletic scholarships for women.
Elise - I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, if any. The richest athletic departments (the "haves") generally excel in almost all sports they choose to participate in. I'm sure there are lots of reasons but fundamentally money means great coaches, great facilities, focus on recruiting, and an expectation of winning.
Those rich football programs distort the NCAA world for all other teams that try to compete in football. The Texas Tech example earlier is a great case study. They spend most of their money on football to try to compete in the Big12.
gobears asked me what my husband was basing his argument on in saying that football means more scholarships for women. The facts speak for themself. More revenue from football = ability to pay high caliber swim coaches + ability to give out lots of scholarships, attracting the best swimmers = strong women's swim program.
It's a fairly logical argument that because of football, there are more scholarships for women. That is the point I suppose I'm making above. This is outside the Title IX argument. Without Title IX, of course, there might not be many athletic scholarships for women.
