Budget casualty and choice of sports to cut surely influenced by TitleIX.

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/sports/85177.php

sad

I wonder what the rule is for transfers

Read the last line of the article again.

Title IX is not the scapegoat here. 'Mounting costs' are.

ASU was already Title IX compliant and, based on what I've read, gives a disproportionate number of opportunities to women based on their enrollment. They could have easily thrown a women's sport in there and tossed two men's with no trouble.

On a side note, ASU will still be paying a fired FB coach for another two years more money per year than they will be saving with these cuts combined. This is the real story here: throwing millions away on a bad business decision/failure of a FB coach while costing 70+ kids the chance to represent their school in a sport that they were blessed with talent in. These kids chose ASU for ASU; the FB coach chose ASU for the $$$.

[This message has been edited by Look Out Below (edited 5/14/2008 1:18a).]

Hard for us to hurl turds when we give Fran $4.8 million.

wow - hard to believe a huge state funded school in a major city and a big alumni base and a good football team, has budget problems....

great point about if they really want to turn the fiscal position around, stop giving coaches such outrages guaranteed contracts..

title 9 does have some impact on this, because all the sports cut were men's sports to keep women with as many scholies as men, and now they have more...

Usually, athletes are let out of their scholarships and do not have to sit out a year if they choose to transfer

LOB - I agree cost was the primary factor - they had to cut $1.1M. But I think you're dead wrong if you don't think Title IX played a role in choosing which sports were killed.

ASU had 78 athletes in the sports that were cut. Before the cuts, they had 311 male athletes and 222 female athletes. Title IX requires achievement of one of three "prongs" related to gender equity. Maybe ASU was marinally compliant. Or maybe that mismatch was thought to be a potential problem.

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/PaolaBoivin/23503

As an advocate for college tennis this is yet another step toward the extension of the game as we have known it for decades.

The Big 12 currently has seven total men's teams. One in the north and six in the south. The pac 10 is a traditional powerhouse in the sport with the majority of the tennis championship historically coming form there. (UCLA,USC,Stanford) What is next?

Not to be alarmist here but college tennis is a great sport. It is always tough to lose a team.

For those interested Texas plays Florida in the round of 16, Baylor plays Tenn. and OSU plays USC. All on Friday.

rik -

i totally agree with you, especially men's tennis not as much women's tennis bc of BS title 9... its not just mid-major teams that are cutting men's tennis bc of budget problems, but over the past 3-5 years several big name ahtletic departments funded by the state and huge alumni base have cut their men's programs (Kansas, Colorado, and ASU)... all these teams at some point were ranked in the top 20 and now have nothing... very disappointing

Spicewood -- sure Title IX played a role in who got cut, but it is not THE REASON they got cut...If Dirk Koetter did his job, these sports would still be around and we wouldn't even be having this discussion

'Big' sports apologists love to get the dying men's sports supporters to ***** about Title IX being to blame when golden parachutes to bad football coaches, among other things, is a big part of the problem, especially in this case

>>Title IX played a role in who got cut, but it is not THE REASON they got cut<<

Huh?

Contrary to the article, I don't think costs played much of a role in the cuts at all. It was a perceived compliance issue for ASU. The cost stuff is a smokescreen because they know the deserved outcry over this BS will be great.

Fiscal year ended June 2006, ASU had 53 million in revenue (and expenses). Of that revenue, 29 million came from football and men's basketball, and 21 came from what is likely a 12th man foundation type organization. ASU is NOT going to cut sports with operating costs of less than 400K in a budget that big, even salaries (much of which they are on the hook for into the next fiscal year) add another 600K to that. They are spending 38 million on sports related expenses and 15 million on administrative expenses. It wouldn't take a lot of effort to find half a million out of each of those to cut without wacking sports. Better yet, cut a third of the 1.2 amount in admin and sports costs and raise the other 400K through the organization.

>>ASU will still be paying a fired FB coach<<

Much of that is private money not accounted for in these figures.

>>If Dirk Koetter did his job<<

He's not the one who made the decision. I think we can all agree that every AD in the country makes mistakes -- some costly -- but if you've got the formula for picking the right coach, I wish you'd let me in on it. I would gladly give you half of any revenue I earn from that knowledge.

>>when golden parachutes to bad football coaches, among other things, is a big part of the problem<<

In reality, its none of the problem. The football team was responsible for 23+ million of revenue, yet only spent 18.6 million. None of the women's sports came close to breaking even. Your statement here seems to assume that football should be more aware of its impact, revenue and expense wise, on other sports. That's absurd. Unless you can show they are paying the ex-coach more than 6+ million a year, your argument is simply wrong.

Even if the payout is on budget, it will be done in short order where these sports cut are permanent.

Think what you want, but this was not a cost related move. It was done for Title 9 purposes, perceived or real.

What we really need to do is to eliminate this piece of legislation. Congress has let the executive branch and the courts turn this in to something it was never meant to be.

I think you're the one that needs to read the article again...It was about costs. Period. Title IX only came into play when determining WHICH sports to cut. To imply anything else is moronic. THEY WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE IX.

Direct quote from the ASU AD:
"These moves are extremely painful," says Love. "We have arrived at the realization that funding a 20 sport program is a better fit for our financial profile and will serve to secure and strengthen our future. It is our responsibility to operate a fiscally prudent varsity athletics program. The costs of doing business are escalating daily and the costs of maintaining excellence even more so."

I see a lot of talk about costs and nothing about Title IX in here...

You are absolutely right about football and basketball paying for itself. Are you suggesting that the only sports that should exist are the ones that pay for themselves? Or better yet, how about you suggest a way for these 'other' sports to become self-sufficient...

You want a formula for paying football coaches? How about performance based salaries instead of handing over the key to the vault just for holding the title of football coach. Head football coaches should have no fear of failure because even if they lose they walk away filthy rich.

LOB - I agree with you they cut the sports to save $1.1M. They were theoretically Title IX compliant but the number of athletes men vs. women was far apart before the cut. Title IX measures equal opportunity by more than just the number of scholarships. ASU could just have easily cut women's swimming or women's tennis instead of the men's programs. They chose not to.

I would not trust the public statements of an AD. It is far easier to cite economics as the sole cause of the cuts. She did not address why three men's programs were cut and zero women's programs.

It is a shame that a university with a 50K enrollment couldn't come up with the money.

As much as I love A&M football and college football in general - it is out of control. The gap between haves and have-nots is growing. Universities that cannot come up with $75M a year will choose to "save" their money to compete in football rather than spread it around to multiple sports.

If I were the czar of the NCAA - I would cut football to 46 (two deep plus two kickers) scholarships and allow fractional scholarships. The whole arms race underway now needs a big cease-fire.

46 is a pretty small roster but generally I agree with you...If the pros can keep a roster of ~55, colleges should also...85 full scholarships for one sport is an absolute ton...1/4 of those kids rarely even play...if the NCAA can institute a travel roster limit of 60 or so, why doesn't it scale down it's scholarship limit to that as well?

>>I think you're the one that needs to read the article again<<

I've read the article. (Newspapers also said Richard Jewell was the Olympic bomber, btw). I've done the analysis. You can think what you want, but I'd bet serious money that if you talked to these people off the record they'd admit costs played a small factor in this. While not a drop in the bucket, making up the shortfall would be relatively easy. This was a title 9 decision.

>>Are you suggesting that the only sports that should exist are the ones that pay for themselves?<<

No. What I'm saying is football made a profit sufficient to cover whatever on-budget amount (very little in my estimation) was being paid to a fired coach. You can't have it both ways: if you are going to complain about football taking up 85 'ships and vast salaries to coaches, but ignore the fact that football makes other sports possible, you're being at best totally inconsistent.

>>How about performance based salaries instead of handing over the key to the vault just for holding the title of football coach. Head football coaches should have no fear of failure because even if they lose they walk away filthy rich.<<

That's a very nice theory that I would be all for if it worked (and I'm sure that more than one AD has had this idea cross his mind), but it ignores reality. Go take a look at any texags sport forum after an Aggie loss, especially a season ending loss. I've questioned whether or not we've got the right staff in softball when we've bowed out of the NCAA tournament, and hell, that's one of our best sports in Aggieland over its history! The bottom line is coaches know they are marked from day one and aren't going to accept a contract that allows the athletic department to pull the rug out from under them when fans get hot about a loss. They want and need some security, and you if you want a top flight coach, you (as AD) give it to him or her or you don't get that person. Then, YOU get fired!

As long as one school does it this way, all schools must follow or risk not being competitive.

If you truly think coaches have no fear of failure because of their salary, then you know absolutely nothing about coaches -- football coaches in particular. Go find John Mackovic and ask him about all this.

You're proving my point for me. When football screws up, it DOESN'T make other sports possible because of how much money is invested in it. That is why you must temper how much you throw at it.

We all want job security. We perform our jobs the best we can and are dealt with based on our performance. Why should coaches be given any more security than the rest of us? They know darn well when they get into this that if they don't win, they will be fired. That comes with the territory. Giving them so much money that whether they win or not is moot is completely fiscally irresponsible. I know they want to win. Of course they do. But the bottom line is if they lose, it doesn't not matter to them financially. Their lives are set.

...and I'd be willing to bet the house that John Mackovic is not living under a bridge somewhere...

[This message has been edited by Look Out Below (edited 5/15/2008 4:04p).]

AgLawyer makes several good points, the best one being that is that if not for football (and basketball at some schools), none of the "minor" sports would exist in the first place...or at least not in a much greater capacity than a club sport.

That said, I have talked to one person off the record. A college buddy of mine who is in administration for the ASU athletic department. ASU was Title IX compliant before the cuts, which means that they could have spared one of the mens teams and cut a women's sport instead...so you're right and you're wrong.

This does absolutely have to do with the budget. That's not even a point you can argue without being totally ignorant of the situation.

It does have a lot to do with Title IX, as the school is mandated to have enough women's scholarships to make up for the football team, and then keep even elsewhere (which is why A&M has women's soccer, v-ball, and equestrian without having a male counterpart).

Where you're right on is that the public outcry over the elimination of a women's sport would have been much greater in this b.s. p.c. world that we live in. They could have cut wrestling, men's swimming, and women's tennis were they not worried about that.



[This message has been edited by Harry Dunne (edited 5/15/2008 8:14p).]

Harry Dunne said:

quote:

---

Well the fact of the matter is that there are 3 times as many male high school athletes as their female counterparts,

---

This is flat out wrong. I believe 2005 data shows that 41% of high school athletes were girls. In 1972 only 1 in 27 girls participated in sports.



If football with its large rosters is set aside the participation is closer to equal.

I happen to agree with the goals of Title IX. All I have to do is compare the opportunities my daughter has with those my wife had.

It does not require strictly equal opportunity or participation. The test for compliance includes the proportion of the student body.

That doesn't mean I agree with all elements of Title IX. I am a big fan of the "lesser" sports - and believe most of them fit in better with the idea of student-athletes.

College football skews everything because of the cost and roster size.

I refuse to accept the idea that sports should only exist if they can pay for themselves.

You're right, I apologize - I was way off with that figure. Female high school athletes comprise a little over 40% of the total. That notwithstanding, again - women's athletics would not exist if not for men's football and basketball.

quote:

---

I refuse to accept the idea that sports should only exist if they can pay for themselves.

---

I agree, but I also refuse to accept the idea that sports that can pay for themselves (and help pay for others) should count against the total for the teams being subsidized. What I mean is that even if it is a financial issue, I don't think it's fair to penalize "minor" men's sports and to indemnify women's sports when cutting budgets.

You're right, the minor sports fit the ideal of a student-athlete much more so than do major football and basketball that have basically become semi-pro...the flip side is that sports like softball get to have great equipment and travel across the country simply because football generates the revenue for them to do so. Without football, even with Title IX you would have volleyball teams wearing the same unis for 3 seasons and traveling by bus to schools within 250 miles of campus (like club teams or high school teams).

If we can agree that football is the main revenue generator, then lets not even count it in the equation. I think it would be more fair to not count the sports that generate enough revenue to sustain themselves against the sum of the scholarships and to let athletic departments split the extra money down the middle for the remaining mens and womens sports.

The thing is, women's sports will, other than rare instances like UT or UConn basketball, not be revenue-generating sports. You can make equal opportunity for women but you still can't make fans care - not even female fans! If the 41% chunk of female high school participants grew up into women that cared about sports, supported their alma maters women's programs, and attended women's pro sporting events then the WUSA wouldn't have folded, the WNBA wouldn't need to be subsidized by the NBA, and there would be a much greater attendance at women's NCAA sporting events.


[This message has been edited by Harry Dunne (edited 5/15/2008 8:34p).]

There are teams at Texas A&M that travel MUCH further than 250 miles by bus even now with football and a huge budget...

You're right, I misread it.


[This message has been edited by PSully97 (edited 5/16/2008 1:45p).]

Whatever the arguments for/against Title IX, it's a QUOTA SYSTEM that results in cutting men's sports. When is the last time you heard of a women's sport being cut? I'd be interested to learn if there has --

Women's Archery at Texas A&M, 2005

...and Sully, not so sure you read my last post right...

[This message has been edited by Look Out Below (edited 5/16/2008 12:17a).]

Harry Dunne - I agree football probably needs to be set aside. For universities with big $$, the 85 scholarships used by football make Title IX a big factor. These schools probably can afford to have more men's sports, but won't because it will throw them out of Title IX compliance. Not counting 85 scholarships might allow Texas, A&M, and others to field more men's teams.

But don't forget that more football teams lose money than make money across the spectrum of colleges.

I still believe that college football and basketball are too big. I can't do much about it except not contribute to it.

>>This does absolutely have to do with the budget.<<

OK, I'll take your word for it. But you do realize this means ASU needs more competent people running their department. I've developed some AD contacts for years and I could probably recommend to the ASU regents a better AD choice than what they've got if they are cutting sports rather than making more sensible decisions elsewhere.

Dropping sports should be the LAST thing ever considered.

>>When football screws up, it DOESN'T make other sports possible because of how much money is invested in it. That is why you must temper how much you throw at it.<<

Your statement is absurd because it assumes football has a duty first to other sports and second to football. That's just wrong. If you "temper" how much you throw at football you are risking not making the revenue to fund the other sports.

Further, you act like this stuff goes on only in football. Know how much LSU paid Pokey Chatman, their former women's coach, when they fired her for sexual misconduct? $160 thousand. Compared to women's hoops revenue, even at LSU, that's as much or more, relatively speaking, as we are talking about for ASU football.

>>But don't forget that more football teams lose money than make money<<

I haven't looked at anywhere near all the data, plus, I'm somewhat skeptical of the accounting practices, but taking the reports at face value, Baylor and Rice both make money in football (or did last fiscal year) and SMU breaks even (you can cover their losses with the money you spent to buy coffee this morning on the way to work). I think what we've heard for years about "most" schools may be a myth or may no longer be true.

I use the three examples because if they can make money, most D-IA teams can as well. North Texas lost a bunch and I'd suspect that low tier conference schools like that probably do lose some.

quote:

---

But you do realize this means ASU needs more competent people running their department.

---

Amen brother...but what athletic deparment doesn't?!?!

"ASU needs more competent people running their department."

Bingo!

"Dropping sports should be the LAST thing ever considered."

Bingo again!

'If you "temper" how much you throw at football you are risking not making the revenue to fund the other sports.'

But if you throw TOO much money at it, which is what's happening more and more, you cannot pay for the other sports. ASU spends 18 mil on football. That is a LOT of jack. You shave 1 mil off that and no one is dropping anything. I think it's EASILY possible to run a big-time DI football program on 17 million dollars...and I would bet 80% of the rest of the DI schools are likely doing that already...

'Further, you act like this stuff goes on only in football. Know how much LSU paid Pokey Chatman, their former women's coach, when they fired her for sexual misconduct? $160 thousand. Compared to women's hoops revenue, even at LSU, that's as much or more, relatively speaking, as we are talking about for ASU football.'

Of course I know it doesn't just go on in football but that's where easily the largest hemorrhage of money is occurring on a national scale...

...and as far as Chatman goes there are two reasons I can see why they washed their hands of that 1) black female coach at a visibly black school (particularly athletically) and 2) the homosexual factor...160,000 is a small price to pay to keep the ACLU, Jesse Jackson, the gay rights advocates and the like out of Baton Rouge...it sucks for LSU but it keeps that place from becoming a joke/three-ring circus