Further cuts to come for men's sports

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. I have no doubt that success in sports increases and adds revenue streams, but I think these are generally fairly easy to measure. What I am talking about are the nebulous claims connecting (specifically) football and alum giving. There are two comon ones: -- just HAVING a football team, even a bad one, increases alum donations. This is used as an argument against eliminating uncompetitive football programs, especially at small schools (an idea that was floated by the former president of U of Richmond...which is a small part of the reason he is the *former* president). -- success in football increases alum donations. I just don't like how both of these statements are often just ASSUMED to be true. In theory, if the information is available, it shouldn't be terribly hard to design experiments to test these assertions. For example, one can try to correlate football W-L record with alum giving rate and amounts. Or one could look at giving rates over time at schools that either cut or institute a football program. And maybe such studies have been done. My friend Dave Holland, who was a college swim coach at one time, once told me that he saw a study which showed that football had no impact on giving. But I didn't see the study myself, and I may be misremembering what he said. I wonder sometimes if football (and other high-profile sports) is used as something of a crutch by lazy Development Offices. I can see how it is useful -- bringing alums to campus for homecoming or tailgate parties, for example. But increasing donations is all about instilling school pride/spirit and there are a LOT of ways to go about that. I haven't been proud of the UNC football program...well, ever, really. And as much as I love UNC bball, I think the economy has a far bigger effect on my giving rate than their W-L record does.

I think a lot of folks missed this very informative interview with Phil about this: www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/.../12199.asp Bill & Leslie...I like how he sums up the Title IX abuse so well which those of us refer to so often and get called woman haters for: 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."

In a bizarre twist, Bradley University in Peoria (private, Div 1, no football program but an awesome BB show) cut both men and womens swimming a few years back. They still allowed local age-group programs to use their pool for practice and meets. Recently, they spent millions to demolish the old buildings and re-build a rec complex, complete with weightrooms, BB-courts, Sauna, and a pool! However, during the design, they deliberately built a 25 yd 6-lane pool ( complete with bottom lane markers and a set of lane ropes ) but with deck space to only one side and a small set of bleachers. Presumably, too small to hold even a tri-meet. Even worse, they told local age-groupers to stay away. Seems odd to me.... for a few more dollars, the facility would have been there to support a program, but I don't believe they wanted to be in a position to even consider such an option.

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." I've chosen to move on from something 35 years old. At this point continuing to whine about Title IX is a paranoid condition. Probably more fruitful to make changes rather than continue to wallow in self pity about the many abuses you've suffered at the hands of women, perceived or real. Removing football from the equation is a very convenient notion. However, it's kind of like removing the roof and walls from a house and complaining there's a draft.

Really? Radical feminists? Please. It must be a socialist conspiracy too. Are you telling me that .001% or less of our population is dictating how athletic departments spend their money? I would say most athletic departments are run by men. Men that have decided that football is more important than all other men's sports combined (at least in some universities). Why is it that schools like Standford and Texas and many others can field very competitive teams in almost every sport? It is because they have the money to do so and Title IX works when you have lots of money. When you don't have money, then you have to make financial choices and sometimes Title IX choices (which comes first is difficult to say, but in my experience the financial decision comes first or at least has equal weight). Title IX isn't all bad. I have two daughters and without Title IX they probably would have no chance to compete in college athletics and now they have a shot. We have a non-revenue sport, we should be happy for any support we get from universities. Tim

Really? Radical feminists? Please. It must be a socialist conspiracy too. Are you telling me that .001% or less of our population is dictating how athletic departments spend their money? I would say most athletic departments are run by men. Men that have decided that football is more important than all other men's sports combined (at least in some universities). Why is it that schools like Standford and Texas and many others can field very competitive teams in almost every sport? It is because they have the money to do so and Title IX works when you have lots of money. When you don't have money, then you have to make financial choices and sometimes Title IX choices (which comes first is difficult to say, but in my experience the financial decision comes first or at least has equal weight). Title IX isn't all bad. I have two daughters and without Title IX they probably would have no chance to compete in college athletics and now they have a shot. We have a non-revenue sport, we should be happy for any support we get from universities. Tim Tim....did you even read the article? I pulled one quote out mainly to get Geek & Fort's blood pressure up...go back in read Phil's entire piece and tell me if you think his position/thinking is out of line?

Tim....did you even read the article? I pulled one quote out mainly to get Geek & Fort's blood pressure up...go back in read Phil's entire piece and tell me if you think his position/thinking is out of line? Ha! I refuse to be drawn in. But I agree with Stillwater; I can easily live without college football even though Geek can't. Especially if it means radical feminists and women-hating men will be able to participate in endurance sports. Pretty soon CF will come along and say we're all ignorant anyway.

I can easily live without college football even though Geek can't. If it came down to my wife/kids or college football, there would be a few moments of quiet consideration. I do wonder when right wing wackos will stop blaming everything on radical feminists - probably about the time the radical feminists stop blaming right wing wackos for everything.

Ha! I refuse to be drawn in. But I agree with Stillwater; I can easily live without college football even though Geek can't. Especially if it means radical feminists and women-hating men will be able to participate in endurance sports. Pretty soon CF will come along and say we're all ignorant anyway. Read it you wimps! I like what he says about college football not going away but reducing scholarships of making it semi-pro.

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.