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.
The ADs will make a choice NOT to cut football and basketball and instead will cut "lesser" sports if their revenue declines. Your old school, flush with a > $115M budget, won't cut anything. But other schools without the massive revenue stream will cut something.
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.
At Zones, some lady was saying how there was a time when women weren't allowed to swim. Now with this Title IX crap, with all these cuts to men's college programs, the reverse is happening for men who went to swim in college. I just remember all these girls on my college team getting scholarship money and they didn't have junior cuts. One girl got money and she wasn't even close to a Junior National cut. I couldn't even get book money yet a second off In the 2Fly and a very well round swimmer. Of course, I was able to get some money the second semester. But, even slower girls got some dough too in the second semester. Title IX is disaster and discriminatory. Pretty soon, all you will have at college, is basketball and football for the men. For the women, every sport you can think of.
At Zones, some lady was saying how there was a time when women weren't allowed to swim. Now with this Title IX crap, with all these cuts to men's college programs, the reverse is happening for men who went to swim in college. I just remember all these girls on my college team getting scholarship money and they didn't have junior cuts. One girl got money and she wasn't even close to a Junior National cut. I couldn't even get book money yet a second off In the 2Fly and a very well round swimmer. Of course, I was able to get some money the second semester. But, even slower girls got some dough too in the second semester. Title IX is disaster and discriminatory. Pretty soon, all you will have at college, is basketball and football for the men. For the women, every sport you can think of.
We got another one, Geek. :rolleyes:
Not a chance, baby! I moved to this county for the public schools and have no interest in sending my kids to private schools in general and especially at $25,000 a year.
Besides, I've heard the private schools may do the same.
I find it somewhat ridiculous that most schools don't have their own swimming pools. All our high schools and even junior highs had them when I was a wee young one. Having to rent pool time, and then displacing the club teams and forcing them to practice at odd hours, blows.
A competition class indoor SCY pool can cost $7M to build. A competition LCM pool can easily cost $15M now. These are solid pools - but not an NCAA pool. That's why schools don't have them. They have to issue bonds to pay for them and voters have to approve.
In Austin - there are zero pools owned by a public school system. I keep hearing that UT quietly but forcefully discourages anyone from building a pool in Austin because UT wants the $$ from hosting meets.
San Antonio on the other hand has several, including one built recently. These are school district pools, shared by several high schools.
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.
The ADs will make a choice NOT to cut football and basketball and instead will cut "lesser" sports if their revenue declines. Your old school, flush with a > $115M budget, won't cut anything. But other schools without the massive revenue stream will cut something.
At Zones, some lady was saying how there was a time when women weren't allowed to swim. Now with this Title IX crap, with all these cuts to men's college programs, the reverse is happening for men who went to swim in college. I just remember all these girls on my college team getting scholarship money and they didn't have junior cuts. One girl got money and she wasn't even close to a Junior National cut. I couldn't even get book money yet a second off In the 2Fly and a very well round swimmer. Of course, I was able to get some money the second semester. But, even slower girls got some dough too in the second semester. Title IX is disaster and discriminatory. Pretty soon, all you will have at college, is basketball and football for the men. For the women, every sport you can think of.
The reality will be seen IF we see women's programs get the axe this coming year as well as men's. When was the last time a college dropped a women's program?
We got another one, Geek. :rolleyes:
There has been a lot of man crying angst on the forum this week. They always bust out the Title IX stuff when there's a lull in the action or when they need a good man hug. It's not so mantastic, in my book, but, then again, I don't pine for the good ole 1970s anymore. Don't stop believin' you lame whiners!
UT does not lose money on football. No way.
Go talk with Whitten about it...he's one of the folks who has been leading the charge on the whole "save college swimming" effort and according to him not a single one of the 100+ Div I college football programs including Ohio State & Texas is a money maker when you look at "tradtional" accounting methods of P&L....
I suspect selective accounting is at play here. Merchandise deals with apparel companies typically go to a school's general fund, not directly to the sport. I imagine the same from bowl appearances, conference sports contracts, etc. If you exclude those things, it is probable football does not turn a profit. But, that's is excluding a huge money maker for a school just to make a fairly watered down point. Turning a profit is irrelevant, that's not why schools or university sports are in existence.
I don't particularly follow college (or other) sports, but it seems to me M. Phelps could be of help here if he got out of the "pose and promote" mode and spent a few weeks traveling around to select college campuses giving talks in praise of swimming, with ticket fees from the enormous crowds dedicated to keeping swimming programs going for another year or so.
He can't do it single-handledly, of course. Maybe Frazz? :)
(Nice comic in today's paper praising Mrs. Volckening's oatmeal cookies:
Kid: "I'm impressed. Every year you go to Masters swim meets knowing you're going to get crushed."
Frazz: "A small price to pay for improvement. ... Also, Mrs. Volckening brings oatmeal cookies.")
