Further cuts to come for men's sports

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. WTF do you expect from NCAA schools who pay old fat washed up football players millions of dollars a year to coach football teams and provide entertainment to mostly drunk, fat, want-to-be athlete, spectators. :)

Paul, and you are surprised? Give the way she and other AD's announce cuts (like chickens***s) to men's intercollegiate athletic programs, this would be par for the course. Wonder if she was at the ASU/UofA football game, after all that is a "revenue sport" right? What are the economics of major football and basketball programs anyway? If you aren't a major program, do these sports actually make any money? I profess ignorance on this topic but I really wonder what the economic reality of college sports is. Now is a bad time to look for funding though with the (worldwide) economy in the tank. Maybe the NCAA's loss will be USA-Swimming and USMS' gain. Really sucks though, athletics are an important part of the college experience for those of us fortunate enough to participate in them. Looks like fewer kids will get that opportunity after high school. Very sad indeed for swimming and other Olympic sports. One of the more facinating speaches was by Phil Whitten where he told the group of a study that was completed earlier this year that found that not one single college football program in the country is profitable. Bottom line is that the colleges have been cooking the books a bit at places like Ohio State and Texas with regard to how/where they place items like luxury boxes, infrastructure improvement (ASU'a all season indoor training field), etc. I need to ask him where it was published as I did a quick search on-line and din't find anything.

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. Please don't take my comment the wrong way. I don't agree with this thinking either. But the problem with many schools that are not comparable to UT and Ohio State in terms of budgets are forced to spend a disproportionate amount of money to compete in football. Good examples in the Big12 - only three schools with men's swimming. The other nine don't have it. Even though Oklahoma is a fb power - their overall athletic dept. budget is far smaller than Texas. Texas Tech is a good example of a strong Div 1 football team that spends most of its money on football. UT does not lose money on football. No way. I also do not see Texas making any radical changes. Maybe Eddie only gets to have 30-35 on his roster instead of the 40 he has now.

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.

It's not just men, John. Get over it. My county is proposing to cut high school swimming for both girls and boys. I have to agree; a lot of the schools around here (Connecticut) are looking to cut due to budget cuts! Very very sad!

In conception, Title IX was a good thing – equal opportunity for men and women. Who could be against that? But remove football from the equation and men are now the under-represented sex. It's men who are being discriminated against." I read your article Paul and I have several issues with it. I do agree with most of his assessment about how ADs use Title IX so they don't have to be accountable. I think his assertions that ADs and administrators are unethical and rigid in their thinking is dead on, but his conclusion (quoted above) completely shrouds the rest of his argument. If you're studying the ratio of men to women in collegiate athletics, you can't simply throw out the single largest population of male participants with no basis (just for Chris, I don't think it meets Chauvenet's Criterion). In a bizarre twist, Bradley University in Peoria (private, Div 1, no football program but an awesome BB show) Not related to swimming at all, but one of my alma mater's (University of New Mexico) brightest basketball stars (I'm sure there's room for argument about that) came from Bradley. Danny Granger! He single-handedly carried the Lobos to the tournament in 2005!

What is happening with Title IX is that the radical feminists have taken it to the limit and beyond. In conception, Title IX was a good thing – equal opportunity for men and women. Who could be against that? But remove football from the equation and men are now the under-represented sex. It's men who are being discriminated against." Yet, you have mainly men to blame for football taking up all the men's sport dollars. It's not the radical feminists in the U.S. who would never be willing to give up their College Gameday. I'm one of the odd women that actually loves to watch college FB, but I'm in the vast minority. Instead of recognizing the real problem (mainly STODGY MEN who are not willing to recognize the value of more than one or two sports), you rant and rave about a legal attempt to justify years and years of inequality for women. Is the law perfect? No. It doesn't prevent greedy (mainly) MEN from abusing it for their own gains. Not Title IX's fault. Not a feminist issue. It's silly to argue otherwise, IMO.

The University of Washington is going to renovate their football stadium at a cost of $300 million. This is for a team that went 0-12 this season. Meanwhile, the swim team still uses the pool built in 1938. Yeah, that needs a head-scratching smiley. UMD is doing something similar. They're renovating the football stadium, adding suites, and expecting to expand capacity when all phases are complete by 15-20,000 (we're currently ~55,000 capacity). All this for a football team who typically sells out for only one or two games a season (zero this season). But the swim team has a 10yr old state-of-the-art facility that still looks about as good as it did the day it opened. Actually, the National-Contender soccer teams are probably the only teams that don't play in a place that is not practically brand new, though they're constantly adding bleachers and I think they have finally added locker rooms for them (they were in tents at the ends of the field when I was there).

O.K., I just fired off a reply without reading Phil's article, but I don't agree with Phil blaming radical feminists for the current state of affairs. The end result of Title IX is probably not what was intended or expected, but that you can't take back 35 years of change. A cap on football spending would be fine with me - it works in the NFL and other professional sports and promotes fairness and competition. Maybe you could have an exception for universities that have the financial ability to support more men's Olympic sports, but they have to meet certain minimum guidelines for women's sports as well. My guess is that the universities would lobby against any change that might put pressure on them to reduce football expenditures and/or not allow them an excuse to carry fewer non-revenue sports. I think that the only reason universities support women's non-revenue sports now to the extent that they do is Title IX. Without it, my fear is that women's programs would be reduced and men's swimming programs would not be increased. I just can't see men's swimming making a comeback at Division I regardless of Title IX because the decision to support men's swimming is more financial related. If you reduce football spending, I don't think that would guarantee men's swimming would be brought back because universities probably have other uses for the funds somewhere else first. My personal experience is that both men's and women's swimming were cut at TTU. It was a financial decision, not Title IX. That is why I think current men's swimming programs need to be self-funded or heading that way. I think it would be a good idea to tweak Title IX enough so that men's self-funded programs are never at risk of Title IX and that Title IX can't be used as an excuse. Tim

I can't resist: 1. Title IX does have the effect of reducing the number of NCAA Div I mens college swim teams, which I think is something we can all agree is not good. 2. It does appear to me that the blame for this sad state of affairs is that virtually all of the scholarship money goes to the "revenue sports" of football and basketball. 3. Without Title IX, there would be close to zero scholarship money for women's sports (or at least a lot less). All that money would be plowed into the mens revenue sports. 4. I don't think the point of the "revenue sports" is solely or perhaps even primarily revenue. I think a big part of it is alumni relations. Maybe a good football team doesn't bring in enough gate receipts, concessions and TV money to be profitable, or at least not significantly profitable. But a good football team will definitely bring in the alumni donations, as nationally or even regionally televised games will keep the school in the hearts and minds of the alumni base. And alumni donations are a strong motivating factor. Wish I had the solution. I can definitely see a prolonged economic recession hurting swimming very badly at all levels. Swimming is a costly sport, and unfortunately in most of the country, is purely a "niche" sport.