ktabz16

title IX strikes again. the most sexist legislation of the modern era.

i have a friend from scotland who went to see the us women's soccer team play in the olympics. he had rave reviews and he asked me why the women were so much better than the men's national team. i answered "title IX". young people will play the sports that get them scholarships. women's soccer presents a deeper talent pool than the men.

it's time for congress to do the right thing and exempt college football from title IX requirements since at a lot of schools the football revenue funds the women's programs.

__________________
we don't suck

e-parade

Also since there is NO women's sport that has nearly as many scholarships as football. Basically every other sport there's a fairly equal equivalent.

PVP

Private schools need to really evaluate where the money is going. Put the money where they can be successful. For example on Hawk Hill I think they can compete at a very high level in Mens & Womens crew. They have the structure in place to do it. Now their soccer team can't recruit and has been abysmal for some time now. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

__________________
2005 Regular Season Locks of the Day Champion
2007-08 A10 Regular Season Contest Champion

RF1

Many state schools are even more cash strapped than privates. Given Richmond's endowment and student body, I would say it is far better funded than most state schools. Just because a school is private and doesn't get any public funds (which if you hadn't noticed is dropping very fast), doesn't make it poor. There are several private schools such as all the ivies and others such as UR that turn that notion upside down.

hykos1045

Also frowned upon on message boards is using all capital letters, and your Cowboys signature/icon is somewhat of an insult.

This is an A10 board first, and all topics are on the table. Richmond's athletic department strategies are very relevant to most of us here. If you don't like it, move on. Not every thread has to be for everyone. Maybe, to placate you, an OT tag could be put on the thread, and a pacifier in your mouth, but we're having a valid discussion and you're the only one out of line here, z8minutemen.

UMass87

Depends on how you define "a lot". For FBS schools it's between 50% and 60% of football programs that break even or make money. For FCS schools it is about four percent. In a sum total of 22 D1 schools can the statement "football revenue funds the women's programs" be construed as a statement of fact since only 22 FBS schools and zero FCS schools had athletic departments that were not net negative in revenues. No school below division 1 has net positive revenues.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/prod...2010RevExp.pdf

hykos1045

I met Jim Miller at a basketball game three or so years ago and I commended him on the recent stadium upgrades particularly regarding how they would affect soccer. He rubbed me the wrong way by brushing it off like it was not a soccer decision and there was never going to be a soccer decision. Whereas I had been under the impression that soccer's temporary location off campus was a newer facility, he made it known to me that they were just using temporary arrangements so that they could complete the work on other priorities at Richmond which was definitely not soccer. I was baffled by his deep lack of reception as he showed little or no interest in what a soccer fan would think by his remark but now it adds up. I guess he would have catered to me more if I had a lacrosse interest. Lacrosse is hypnotizing, all right... it is the only sport that has ever literally put me to sleep. (at my first, last, and only Wings game in Philadelphia, I didn't even make it to the end!)

e-parade

There are what, 124 FBS programs? I'd say 62 schools having other sports at least partially funded by football revenues would count as "a lot"...but then again, there are a hell of a lot more than 62 schools that have athletics.

UMass87

And ktabz didn't say "other sports partially funded by football revenues" did he? No, he said "at a lot of schools football funds the women's programs".

e-parade

So in your mind either things are fully funded by something or not at all? The football revenue helps to fund other sports programs at a good chunk of schools. Those Pell Grants I got certainly funded my education, I'm not going to tell people they didn't just because it didn't cover 100% of the costs. The fact of the matter is that without those 60+ football programs operating in the black the other sports programs would need to find their money elsewhere, and in a lot of cases would just end up getting cut.

AKA, without football a lot of the programs wouldn't exist anyway (despite not being fully funded by it).

Get it now?

UMass87

Stop being obtuse e-parade. Ktabz said it in the context of Title IX - this is not about "other sports programs". Ktabz is saying football pays for WOMEN'S sports. It does not. It's really not that complicated.

The fact is that almost all college sports teams cost money. In a very small number of cases Football and men's basketball make money or break even. That's it. All the othe teams, be they men's or women's, cost money. The big difference is that women's coaches get paid less and they use less expensive facilities so that, in general, the cost per participant for women's sports is less than for men's so people whining about Title IX should just SFTU.

e-parade

I'm really not being obtuse here. At those schools, you provided a percentage, football breaks at least even. The profits from that support the rest of the athletic department - without those profits, parts of the rest of the department would likely be cut due to lack of funding. When one team goes down, so does another (to keep the scholarship counts similar enough for title IX). If ANY program gets cut, ANOTHER program gets cut. The fact that ANY program can receive funding from football means that title IX NEEDS to come into play.

Do the football profits directly pay for women's sports? Maybe not. But the Athletic Department's budget includes all revenues that come from football, and without those revenues from football, not all the teams would exist due to budget constraints. That means that some women's sports (and men's because you can't cut one without the other) exist SOLELY because football makes money. Therefore they are funded because the football program allows them to be funded. You can't just take this knowledge and then turn it around to say it doesn't fund the women's programs. That would be like saying booster programs don't support women's sports because most of the money goes to football first.

DistrictBaller

Great work from ESPN's Dana O'Neil on Richmond Head Coach Chris Mooney, the man.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...ege-basketball

__________________
"We will wreak havoc on our opponent's psyche and plan of attack."
- VCU Head Coach Shaka Smart

Flyer75

Wow, great article. Great man too and family too. Richmond is fortunate to have him.

SpiderDave19

Awesome. Just awesome.