Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

1081 - 1100 of 1405 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,088 Posts
NCAA FBS: 12 games, 85 scholarships.
NFL: 16 games, 53 players.

The NCAA men's soccer scholarship limit is 9.9 scholarships.
They don't even give the entire starting 11 full rides.

EVERYONE but Tulane has women's soccer (aka, a soccer field).

So… the 74 FBS schools without men's soccer could add it tomorrow if they lowered football scholarships to 65, and raised men's soccer to 16.5 scholarship limit.

BOOM. Three NCAA men’s sports just got better:

Football - fewer scholarships means the talent just got spread out more. “You can walk on at Ohio State, or you can take a scholarship in the MAC” is trickle-down talent increase for everyone outside the BCS.

Men’s soccer - more opportunities for scholarships in men’s soccer makes our nation better at the sport. It creates 74 new programs.

And you’ve got between 3.5 (didn’t have men’s soccer) and 6.6 scholarships you can spread out to your other sports.


The idea that Title IX is the reason big schools don't have men's soccer is garbage. The real reason is because they don't want to divert resources from football, because they only really care about winning at football and maybe men's basketball.
The large P5 conferences have surpluses because of football and the TV revenue that the sport generates, but are forced to reduce men’s scholarships because of Title IX. It’s a one size fits all approach to solve a problem. Take a look at the Ivies. They don’t offer scholarships, have football, and well rounded athletic departments. The key is that they don’t offer scholarships.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,382 Posts
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

This is a DOE website (credit to Bona84 for posting this awhile back) that reports revenues and expenses and participants for college athletics. I’m too tired to research what “participants” really has to do with equality in college athletics.

In any case, you’ll find that not one Big 12 football program operated in a deficit and not one Big 12 athletic department operated in a deficit. Some schools offered equestrian and beach volleyball for women yet did not have men’s soccer teams.
An accounting class or two might help you better parse the numbers. States and municipalities in this country aren't allowed to run deficits, either, but that doesn't mean the State of Illinois isn't in the deep kimchi.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,382 Posts
The large P5 conferences have surpluses because of football and the TV revenue that the sport generates, but are forced to reduce men’s scholarships because of Title IX. It’s a one size fits all approach to solve a problem. Take a look at the Ivies. They don’t offer scholarships, have football, and well rounded athletic departments. The key is that they don’t offer scholarships.
Don't kid yourself, JAF. The Ivies offer vast amounts of aid to athletes, in some cases more than a lot of FBS schools do. This is particularly true for the sports with limited rides. Keep in mind any school can offer an athlete aid of any kind as long as it offers that same aid to non-athletes. And the wealthy Ivies do that -- in spades.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,641 Posts
OK Jaffie, I dont want to fight with you because I like you. I am not saying you or anyone else cant enjoy football. I personally cant enjoy it because I see how it has bastardized college athletics as a whole. Basketball is close to my heart so that is the sport I focus on. To me the effects are undeniable. How about we just agree to disagree and move on? Xavier sucks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,088 Posts
An accounting class or two might help you better parse the numbers. States and municipalities in this country aren't allowed to run deficits, either, but that doesn't mean the State of Illinois isn't in the deep kimchi.
Unfortunately I have had my share of accounting and finance classes. I am only saying that dollars are not the reason that the B12 and other P5 schools do not have men’s soccer programs.

The Ivies don’t offer scholarships and as such make decisions regarding their athletic programs based on the needs and desires of the school. They only have to provide facilities and amenities to equally to both men’s and women’s programs. They have a need based financial aid system that is the same across all of the schools and is the same for athletes and non-athletes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,088 Posts
OK Jaffie, I dont want to fight with you because I like you. I am not saying you or anyone else cant enjoy football. I personally cant enjoy it because I see how it has bastardized college athletics as a whole. Basketball is close to my heart so that is the sphort I focus on. To me the effects are undeniable. How about we just agree to disagree and move on? Xavier sucks.
Why did you have to mention Xavier? That totally ruined the moment.

I bet you watched the Script Ohio You Tube video that I posted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,382 Posts
Unfortunately I have had my share of accounting and finance classes. I am only saying that dollars are not the reason that the B12 and other P5 schools do not have men’s soccer programs.
As with Abraham Lincoln and the Law, Bona84 and I are self-taught accountants.

The Ivies don’t offer scholarships and as such make decisions regarding their athletic programs based on the needs and desires of the school. They only have to provide facilities and amenities to equally to both men’s and women’s programs. They have a need based financial aid system that is the same across all of the schools and is the same for athletes and non-athletes.
But they do, JAF. You're making a "distinction without a difference". Offering athletes, many of whom who would not otherwise be offered admission, need-based scholarships is no different than offering them athletic scholarships either to the athletes or the school. In fact, it has its advantages. The difference is not in that they spend less or more flexibly, it's that the Ivies, or at least most of them, have more resources.

There's nothing stopping anyone else from doing the same thing -- except the vast majority of schools couldn't afford it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,502 Posts
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

This is a DOE website (credit to Bona84 for posting this awhile back) that reports revenues and expenses and participants for college athletics. I’m too tired to research what “participants” really has to do with equality in college athletics.

In any case, you’ll find that not one Big 12 football program operated in a deficit and not one Big 12 athletic department operated in a deficit. Some schools offered equestrian and beach volleyball for women yet did not have men’s soccer teams.

You’re a smart guy ‘55. Is Title IX really working when AD’s have a surplus - in most cases in excess of 8 figures - yet can’t fund men’s soccer because their football program that is wildly profitable skews the number male scholarships?

It’s nonsense.

I kind of think that certain elements of Title IX are outdated and more damaging than beneficial. I can see where 40 years ago the good ol’ boy network would be more than willing to view women’s athletics as an afterthought, or the same network would be willing to take a contribution from an alumni to sweep a rape accusation under the rug. I would hope that we moved well past this BS.
An accounting class or two might help you better parse the numbers. States and municipalities in this country aren't allowed to run deficits, either, but that doesn't mean the State of Illinois isn't in the deep kimchi.
I was going to stay out of this scintillating debate, but since res brought up accounting classes...

Jaffie, you can use those DOE numbers if you'd like, but the institutions can pretty much tell whatever story they might like when it comes to the bottom line. For example, there is this little school in a suburb of Olean, NY that I know. For the year ended 5/31/17, my example university took in $11,911,641 in athletics revenues. The accounting department and financial managers proved to be terrifically competent, as they did not spend one dollar more than they took in. Athletics expenses for that year were $11,911,641. Their ability to manage the athletics budget is truly breathtaking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,088 Posts
I was going to stay out of this scintillating debate, but since res brought up accounting classes...

Jaffie, you can use those DOE numbers if you'd like, but the institutions can pretty much tell whatever story they might like when it comes to the bottom line. For example, there is this little school in a suburb of Olean, NY that I know. For the year ended 5/31/17, my example university took in $11,911,641 in athletics revenues. The accounting department and financial managers proved to be terrifically competent, as they did not spend one dollar more than they took in. Athletics expenses for that year were $11,911,641. Their ability to manage the athletics budget is truly breathtaking.
Since when did Olean get a suburb?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,054 Posts
The large P5 conferences have surpluses because of football and the TV revenue that the sport generates, but are forced to reduce men’s scholarships because of Title IX. It’s a one size fits all approach to solve a problem. Take a look at the Ivies. They don’t offer scholarships, have football, and well rounded athletic departments. The key is that they don’t offer scholarships.
A "surplus" isn't allowed because everyone is tax-exempt. Everything gets re-invested.

It's flat out ridiculous to say that Title IX is the reason everyone doesn't have men's soccer.

You bring up the Ivy League, who has men's soccer and football. FCS football, which has a scholarship limit of 63 instead of 85.

This is 100% just math. Not Title IX.

The average expenses for a NCAA D-I men’s soccer team in 2014 was $130,887. That is BCS pocket change.

Title IX says that the number of men's and women's scholarships, and the number of men's and women's opportunities have to the about equal.

It doesn't say football needs 85 scholarships, and the roster needs to be 100 to 160 players (look at Army's football roster. It's INSANE). The NFL has a roster of 53 players, playing 16 games. They have a taxi squad (aka walk-ons!).

You can have 9.9 men's soccer scholarships, 9.9 additional women's scholarships and 65 football scholarships -- which is two more than FCS football's scholarship limit of 63.

The voters on FBS rules (aka all the football schools) choose not to. Period. The end.

An unwillingness to increase the competitive balance of FBS football that prevents 74 FBS schools from having men's soccer.


How many of the 100 football players actually play? Tulane - again, doesn't have a soccer field - they played 62 players last season. Total.

What does any of this have to do with Liberty’s big move to the A-Sun?
Not a damn thing, other than it involved FBS football, so the "UMass is in the A-10 until they get an offer from an FBS conference that's equal to or better in basketball than the A-10 comes" elephant in the room got brought up. Which turned into a full-fledged "Football is the devil" discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,871 Posts
Is Title IX really working when AD’s have a surplus - in most cases in excess of 8 figures - yet can’t fund men’s soccer because their football program that is wildly profitable skews the number male scholarships?
No, they hide behind Title IX as they defund and cut men's swimming, soccer, baseball, wrestling, etc. so they can keep offering 85 MF'ing scholarships to their bloated-as-shit football program and pocket the surpluses to the tune of 8 figures so they can build a new multi-million dollar practice facility every decade... for their football program.

Here's the deal - they could still do all of that if they cut FB schollies to a reasonable number and also save other non-revenue men's programs in the process.

Title IX is not perfect and there's a bunch.. a BUNCH.. of bullshit associated with it that makes no sense and is outdated. It served its purpose for the most part. But Title IX is not forcing these presidents and AD's to cut men's sports, it's giving them an "out" when they have to explain why they did it when the 800 lb gorilla in the room is men's football.

Ask UB athletes that were cut off at the knees because they continue to spend waste millions on their super-shitty toilet-dwelling football program because they think they're going to someday be "big time". Ask Iowa State baseball players .. Iowa Fucking State - good baseball in the midwest.. as they poured 8 figures into football practice facilities for a squad that generally sucks complete ass.

There are 100s of examples of programs cut while money was being devoured by football. And again - for the most part they can keep feeding the FB program and still fund the other sports simply by removing bloat - scholarships and nonsense paid positions on the staff of those FB teams.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,088 Posts
No, they hide behind Title IX as they defund and cut men's swimming, soccer, baseball, wrestling, etc. so they can keep offering 85 MF'ing scholarships to their bloated-as-shit football program and pocket the surpluses to the tune of 8 figures so they can build a new multi-million dollar practice facility every decade... for their football program.

Here's the deal - they could still do all of that if they cut FB schollies to a reasonable number and also save other non-revenue men's programs in the process.

Title IX is not perfect and there's a bunch.. a BUNCH.. of bullshit associated with it that makes no sense and is outdated. It served its purpose for the most part. But Title IX is not forcing these presidents and AD's to cut men's sports, it's giving them an "out" when they have to explain why they did it when the 800 lb gorilla in the room is men's football.

Ask UB athletes that were cut off at the knees because they continue to spend waste millions on their super-shitty toilet-dwelling football program because they think they're going to someday be "big time". Ask Iowa State baseball players .. Iowa Fucking State - good baseball in the midwest.. as they poured 8 figures into football practice facilities for a squad that generally sucks complete ass.

There are 100s of examples of programs cut while money was being devoured by football. And again - for the most part they can keep feeding the FB program and still fund the other sports simply by removing bloat - scholarships and nonsense paid positions on the staff of those FB teams.
According to Iowa State the football facility was funded privately. Iowa State has 5 men’s sports and 9 women’s. Title IX has nothing to do with finances. Its all about being proportional with opportunities and scholarships. Athletic departments have to increase the number of women’s sports/scholarships to maintain men’s scholarships. I understand your argument that football could simply reduce scholarships and transfer these scholarships to other men’s programs. Why would a reasonable AD do this to a football program like Iowa’s State’s that generates $20 million more than it spends? Why can’t schools develop its own gender equality athletic department with out stupid ass cookie cutter rules from Washington DC. I have said this before but look at the breadth of the Ivy League athletic departments compared to the limited amount of sports offered by ISU. Let schools put together their own programs based on what the schools want. Who cares if football has x number of scholarships as long as the schools are offering a full suite of women’s sports, and providing identical support as men’s sports?
 
1081 - 1100 of 1405 Posts
Top