Further cuts to come for men's sports

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. We swam UW twice--no diving boards, so we couldn't take the diving points (which is ok cause I think diving is about as dumb as rhythmic gymnastics). BTW this title IX debate gives me an ulcer because I can't get otherwise seemingly normal human beings to see it my (the right) way.:)

We swam UW twice--no diving boards, so we couldn't take the diving points I think about the only major renovation done to the pool in the last 70 years was removing the boards at some point. I can still see the places in the deck where the boards were once mounted. Possibly the final dual meet (although I wouldn't want to bet on it) swum in that pool was last year between the UW and WSU women's teams. There was a scheduling conflict with the King County Aquatic Center pool, otherwise it would have been held there. They started the races from the (4 foot deep) shallow end, which is pretty rare these days!

BTW this title IX debate gives me an ulcer because I can't get otherwise seemingly normal human beings to see it my (the right) way.:) Nope, you're wrong. :)

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? I imagine, but don't know, that it makes alums feel soft and mushy and gives them a reason to go back to campus for games and recall days of their youth, so they open their wallets when the university solicits them for Annual Fund and endowments. At the Ivies, it is the intellectual capital and business success for which alums are grateful, allowing them to become rich as Croesus. They go to games with same soft spot, but pockets are controlled by other side of the brain - and are often deeper. How institutions deploy their funding might be closely held information. Or perhaps it can be discerned from the annual report. The public face is that "football matters"; but the sport might indirectly be underwriting a new nursing school or library (via direct solicitations of ticket holders, president's dinners, "Friends of" groups). I'd certainly like to see some studies, too. Perhaps Craig, with experience in nonprofits, knows?

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. I completely disagree with this. What are the odds that without Title IX, these same universities do away with BOTH men's and women's swim programs? I think they are pretty good.

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.

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. AMEN! I was in college when Title IX hit. There were several women who asked me if I would coach a women's track team at the school if they could get permission to organize it. (I had coached some intramural teams sucessfully, so I guess that was the "why me?" part.) We were repeatedly turned down because of budgetary reasons. (As I was told in a meeting: "This would impact the football team. (which sucked anyway) ) The radical things we were asking for were: 1) Time to use the indoor track 2) 5 or 6 t-shirts with the school's name on it as our "uniforms." 3) A few awards so we could have a very small invitational meet for women. We did it all ourselves anyway - and the school took some undeserved credit for being so "foward-thinking" - and I've never sent a penny to them in alumni donations as a result. Football is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. It MAY raise alot of money for a few schools (e.g. Penn State), but it's just a Viagra substitute for some of the AD's and alums at schools where it's a huge drain. -LBJ

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? Chris: At one point I looked up the schools with the top apparel sales and it was pretty much the cream of the university sport's crop, with our own beloved school consistently in the top 5. This link may show it as well: www.clc.com/.../The Collegiate Licensing Company Names Top Selling Universities and Manufacturers These deals bring in huge money for schools. I suspect, but can't prove, that success in sports gets you more exposure which drives more sales. Plus, we know when a school wins a championship the first thing everyone wants is a t-shirt. If it's officially licensed, a portion of that sale goes right back to the school.

Chris: At one point I looked up the schools with the top apparel sales and it was pretty much the cream of the university sport's crop, with our own beloved school consistently in the top 5. This link may show it as well: www.clc.com/.../The Collegiate Licensing Company Names Top Selling Universities and Manufacturers These deals bring in huge money for schools. I suspect, but can't prove, that success in sports gets you more exposure which drives more sales. Plus, we know when a school wins a championship the first thing everyone wants is a t-shirt. If it's officially licensed, a portion of that sale goes right back to the school. Interesting that 13 out of the 20 schools with top apparel sales are in the South.

I am alumni of a school (Texas Tech) that had its mens and womens swimming program cut way back in 1986 right after my senior year. We had a middle of the pack program (at best). We worked hard and had a lot of pride, but frankly lacked the ability to attract talent (lack of resources for the program, etc.) to compete with Texas, Texas A&M, SMU, etc. The history of the swimming program was that it was started as a club team back in the 50s and was a club team for quite a while before it developed enough support to be picked up within the athletic department. Alumni funded all the scholarships and the athletic department funded the annual costs which if I recall correctly was around $200k to 250k per year. That doesn't seem like a lot, but it was probably $6 to $8k or so per student athlete/year because we only had about 30 swimmers and divers on the team. I hate to say it, but most businesses (and universities and athletic departments are businesses) would have cut a program that didn't have prospects of funding itself. Now, similar to ASU the TTU program was cut very quickly and with no discussion of self-funding which angered many people. It was long before the internet and the alumni and swimming communities didn't react immediately and it was gone quickly with minimal struggle. I am sure there are many similar stories and from much better swimming schools than TTU. Also, at the same time, the football program was realizing that it was never going to compete in the long-run with Texas and Texas A&M and they were building an indoor practice facility so they could compete in recruiting, etc. The facility was just underway my senior year and the rumor was that the athletic department had the construction costs funded and realized that the maintenance on the facility wasn't budgeted well and cutting the swim teams just made up the difference. I don't know if we would have ever been able to raise $250k per year to run the program even if we would have had time, but if I were the head of any college swimming program I would make sure my program was self-funded by alumni or other fundraising. If not, shame on you because there have been countless learning experiences in the last 25 years. If you are self-funded the only excuse for cutting the program is Title IX. You can whine all you want about Title IX, but until you take away the financial argument for cutting the program swimmers are making it a really easy choice for athletic directors who likely have to take finances and Title IX into consideration. Also, if you are self-funded presumably you could have a club team that could still compete at a high-level (I am not sure if club teams can compete at NCAAs, but they should). I have been impressed with the University of Colorado club team - they don't have any superstars and appear to be more or less self-coached, but they care a lot about the sport (it seems a lot like masters swimming actually). Maybe that is the future for many university swim teams who can't compete with Texas and Stanford, etc. Remember, swimming in college is a privelege and not a right. That privelege is getting harder to earn every year and it is probably more due to finances than Title IX. It seems like schools with the best finances almost always keep all their programs including mens swimming. I must say when Crabtree caught the touchdown pass to beat Texas this year I thought to myself that cutting the swim team probably helped make that happen and football is king in Texas. I have my Cotton Bowl tickets so I must not be too bitter. For those of you lucky enough to have competed at more financially priveleged schools and enjoyed some of the greatest coaching and facilities money can buy and probably never have any worries that your swim program will be cut, stop your whining about swimming programs being cut. Actually, the better and stronger your overall athletic programs get due to their financial strength the harder it is for lesser universities to commit financially to try to compete with you in every sport and swimming is among the first to go. Maybe there should be some sort of athletic department cap for various sports to even out the playing field and take some of the money out of big-money sports and spread it around to other sports (yeah, like that will happen). If swimming is going to thrive in the future at the college level for more than the most elite schools and swimmers, it most likely will need to be self-funded (by alumni, parents, and the fund-raising). Most states don't have the money to provide some basic services so why are swim teams important to anyone outside the swimming community? Essentially, alumni need to open up their check-books and swim coaches need to get involved in fund-raising in almost every school and parents might need to kick-in some too to fund your athletes aspirations in college. It is a cruel financial world and everything must stand on its own. Tim