And he's claiming men as the ones being discriminated against! Better yet, he might have a case.

Saw Title IX starting to come up in the other thread about gymnastics, and thought you guys might be interested in reading this.

http://swimcoachtools.com/KansasTitleIXChallenge1.aspx

Looks like he might have a case.

I've always thought that equivalent sports ought to have equivalent scholarships. I think most women's coaches and what not would agree...

Now, they're not going to tell you to bump down the women's scholarships, they'll want to bump up the men's. While that is a little selfishness, I think everyone would have to agree that'd be best for athletes- male or female. The more scholarships, the better.

I think we're to a point where women's sports have a firm place at universities and colleges, that it'd be okay if we started bumping up the men's scholarships in equivalent sports that currently have to go with less scholarships to make up for football.

Edit- I also think we need to take a hard look at the need nowadays to operate more women's programs than men's. Again, I think the women have enough of a foothold that everyone could get along fine if started to shift away from the current Title IX.

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 11/24/2009 1:11p).]

BTW, we are currently at:

Men: 141.2 total

Baseball: 11.7
Basketball: 13
Cross Country/Track and Field: 12.6
Football: 85
Golf: 4.5
Swimming and Diving: 9.9
Tennis: 4.5


Women: 114 total

Basketball: 15
Cross Country/Track and Field: 18
Equestrian: 15
Golf: 6
Soccer: 14
Softball: 12
Swimming and Diving: 14
Tennis: 8
Volleyball: 12

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 11/24/2009 1:21p).]

2011, I was wondering what A&M's breakdown was when I read the article. Any idea about what the student body makeup is? Where does the University publish these official stats, most on the web are outdated...

I feel that the response from Kansas might be to somehow improve opportunities for men without adding more sports (maybe they're not using all scholarships in all sports, I dunno how else they'd prove it, but the article seems to indicate there are other ways).

Wouldn't it be funny if they simply accepted 4% more female applicants than male for the next few years? I'm sure there's a thousand other laws they violate if they do that, but that would be the most awesome response they could have in terms of amusing the general public.

There are a touch more females in the student body than males

I think the Title IX stipulation is more based on participation (which makes things even out, primarily thanks to equestrian) than scholarships, though an excellent point is made about the money being skewed

I think if scholarships are added in certain areas then you will see schools cutting sports -- particularly those with both genders

[This message has been edited by Look Out Below (edited 11/24/2009 2:02p).]

quote:

---

I think if scholarships are added in certain areas then you will see schools cutting sports -- particularly those with both gender

---

Don't quite understand this statement as written. Can you elaborate?

Hardly any athletic depts. can make their budgets...adding scholarships adds a significant amount of money to an already bad bottom line. The only way to make budget and keep the university from being punished from a Title IX standpoint is to cut money-losing sports that field both men's and women's team's.

quote:

---

I think the Title IX stipulation is more based on participation (which makes things even out, primarily thanks to equestrian) than scholarships, though an excellent point is made about the money being skewed

---

Well, yeah. It wants similar participation and accomadation for this participation to the makeup of the student body (Title IX applies to just about anything, not only athletics).

I think A&M is in good standing with Title IX. I'm not saying we aren't. I'm just saying I think women's sports have gained enough of a foothold that it'd be allright if we started to move away from the thought that women's equivalent sports should get more scholarships to make up for football.

I'm sure this is probably overly optimistic, but I'd like to think we could do that without screwing over women's sports.

quote:

---

Hardly any athletic depts. can make their budgets...adding scholarships adds a significant amount of money to an already bad bottom line. The only way to make budget and keep the university from being punished from a Title IX standpoint is to cut money-losing sports that field both men's and women's team's.

---

I always wonder about something when it has to do with adding/cutting sports. Why is it that many, many athletic deparments can sponsor a substantially larger total number of sports than schools with mega athletic budgets? (and with success in many of those sports).

For the most part, this is a regional "problem" found in Texas, the midwest and in regions of the southeast. (Big 12 and SEC for the most part) Why can other regions make it work, but we can't?

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 11/25/2009 12:51a).]

TXaggie2011 - the best example of what you are talking about is Stanford. They field an incredible number of varsity teams.

I think first of all they are committed to doing so.

Second - they are not trying to be a top 10 football team every year.

Their budget is not as large as tu or Ohio State. I think they spend less money on football compared to other nationally known universities. Stanford has many wealthy alumni that help fund some of the lesser sports.

I believe college football, as much as I like it, is spending obscene amounts of money. I think they could take 40 scholarships away from football and the game would not change. The teams could give out fractional scholarships just like almost every other sport. Just as many fans would go to games. Just as many kids would want to play college football. It would give the university 40 more scholarships to use on other sports - especially men's sports.



[This message has been edited by SpicewoodAg (edited 11/25/2009 9:38a).]

Yeah, considering a relatively low cost of living/low cost of scholarships/high attendance in most sports. Many of the mega programs are places like California (much higher cost of living), and the Big Ten (much higher tuition costs). Perhaps it's cheaper for those schools to travel because there's a lot of D-1 schools in a very small area? Sure, there's a bunch in Texas, but even those are far away.

For a project in a management class we looked at how far the Big Ten schools were from Missouri vs. Big 12, and the result was that they were significantly more clustered, even if you consider Penn State. There's probably a lot more schools out there that fall into the busride/same day travel rules in those areas (Big Ten/California).

I'm right there with you Spicewood. If the NFL can function through a 16-game season with a 53-man roster against the biggest, strongest, most violent athletes in the world, why can't we offer the same number of scholarships? It would make the playing field more level and the game more competitive and you'd find out who the good coaches truly are...and we'd still have PLENTY of kids walking on to make the team ~80 people still. Hell you could even up it to 60 scholarships and you still fix all your Title IX issues.

I definitely agree that football could do with fewer scholarship players. Do they even travel with all of their scholarship players?

The resistance that you'll always see with cutting back on football is that if they're the ones making all of the money, how is it fair to take away the money from them?

While I agree with that in principle, in reality, the football program needs the other sports. It just does. I would never support a football program, even at my beloved alma mater, if they were not willing to support the other programs.

I think it could even be good for the sport if you further limited scholarships. It would further enhance parity, like was seen when they first limited scholarships, and schools couldn't recruit all-americans to sit on the 4th string anymore. I think it's interesting that in football, players don't seem to be as willing to give up scholarships if their parents can afford their education. I know in other sports it's done (not enough to be often, but more often than infrequently) by athletes who would rather the team give the scholarship to other players. What if the distribution of athletic scholarships added a need-based component? Not to the extent of financial aid, but maybe to the point where if your parents are pulling down 6 figures a year, you're limited to a 50% scholarship. Then you could save money for the athletics programs but still achieve the goal, which is to give athletes, who otherwise would not go to college, the opportunity to get an education.

quote:

---

TXaggie2011 - the best example of what you are talking about is Stanford. They field an incredible number of varsity teams.

I think first of all they are committed to doing so.

Second - they are not trying to be a top 10 football team every year.

Their budget is not as large as tu or Ohio State. I think they spend less money on football compared to other nationally known universities. Stanford has many wealthy alumni that help fund some of the lesser sports.

---

Ohio State is actually another one of the schools I was thinking of...they sponsor 35+ varsity sports up in Columbus.

Blu - I'm pretty sure the travel roster is 60...meaning 25 kids on full scholarship don't even make the trip...and that's assuming all 60 are on scholarship (which is rarely the case)

Right. Which means they could do just fine if you cut a whoooolle lotta scholarships, because if they really needed those players, then they'd probably take them to away games.

There's no way you could cut that many scholarships and not have big repercussions. For one, I'd guess 2/3's of the scholarship football players wouldn't meet the minimum entrance requirements at many big time programs. Try taking those scholarships away and and wait for certain special interest groups to cry foul.

Second, and the biggest issue, a FACT that I point out several times a year, is the attrition rate in football. HALF of any signing class will not contribute much if any. So, half of the scholarships given out will end up getting injured, transferring, not panning out, etc. So, you really want 45 scholarship players at any one point knowing that 1/2 will get hurt, or end up not contributing? You think that won't affect college football?

The problem & solution lies in the fact that football probably funds 75% of most major athletic budgets & SHOULD be treated/excluded as such. Something along the lines of maybe football scholarships being counted as 50% of other sports so as to account for those football scholarship funding the other sports.

[This message has been edited by Syd_X_Barrett (edited 11/25/2009 2:08p).]

'For one, I'd guess 2/3's of the scholarship football players wouldn't meet the minimum entrance requirements at many big time programs.'

Wrong. Many of the big-time programs aren't that hard to get into (Half the SEC anyone?) and some of those that are harder have ways around it.


'Try taking those scholarships away and and wait for certain special interest groups to cry foul.'

They had 12 years to get educated. If they don't, that's their fault and not anyone else's. Society is partially to blame for deifying these children by never holding them accountable but ultimately the responsibility is on them.


'Second, and the biggest issue, a FACT that I point out several times a year, is the attrition rate in football. HALF of any signing class will not contribute much if any. So, half of the scholarships given out will end up getting injured, transferring, not panning out, etc.'

While because of sheer numbers and violence of the sport this may happen slightly more in football, you might be surprised how much this happens in other sports as well. A lot of the not panning out happens because of the last point before this -- letting people in who shouldn't be there. And then there is the fairly new APR rule the NCAA put in a few years ago that scholarships get taken away if you don't keep your kids eligible/graduating. All sports that have kids leave prematurely in great numbers for any reason get punished form a scholarship standpoint.

'So, you really want 45 scholarship players at any one point knowing that 1/2 will get hurt, or end up not contributing? You think that won't affect college football?'

Sounds like the college coaches needs to do a better job of keeping folks healthy. Again, the pros can do it with a 53 man roster and a bare bones practice squad.

[This message has been edited by Look Out Below (edited 11/25/2009 3:47p).]

I don't really by the "1/2 will not end up contributing" story as a good reason. Those half would be much more likely to end up contributing if there were 20 fewer scholarships. If you gave the tennis team 18 scholarships, I bet that less than half of them would end up contributing as well...

quote:

---

HALF of any signing class will not contribute much if any. So, half of the scholarships given out will end up getting injured, transferring, not panning out, etc

---

This is exactly why it is waste to give a full scholarship to these players. If there were half as many the schools would be less generous with scholarships to kids not able to pass freshman kinesiology.

Give them all a half scholarship.

The bigger picture - the REALLY BIG picture is that universities are institutions of learning. College football and basketball operate largely against the purpose of a college.

If these changes were applied uniformly by the NCAA - I think it would work. But no school or conference would ever handicap itself unless everyone were treated identically.

quote:

---

Sounds like the college coaches needs to do a better job of keeping folks healthy. Again, the pros can do it with a 53 man roster and a bare bones practice squad.

---

...and an unlimited supply of people banging down the door to get signed in case someone gets injured, 24 hours a day.

I bet most pro teams have at least 75 players active at some point during the year.

But the question is do the guys who are equivalent of practice squad guys need a full scholarship? Even 75 that you claim an NFL team will have active is 10 less than there are D-1 scholarships.

The other alternative could be to eliminate redshirting and give players the incentive to graduate in 4 years, rather than using a scholarship for a 5th year and costing the University a lot of money. Perhaps in redshirted/5th years, they could limit the amount of $ a player gets to tuition, or to 50% of a full scholarship, or something.

Those guys banging the door down are the college equivalent of walk-ons

If our football team, at what oughta be one of the top 2 football programs in the state of TEXAS (which, btw, Rivals had as the number 1 state for HS football based on a fairly objective bracket-style playoff) can't go better than 6-6 with 85 scholarships, then they don't deserve them all.

[/F*** t.u.]

quote:

---

The other alternative could be to eliminate redshirting and give players the incentive to graduate in 4 years, rather than using a scholarship for a 5th year and costing the University a lot of money.

---

That's not really costing anyone any money. It's just putting 4 football players through college every 20 years instead of 5.

I guess you can say that's "costing money", but I think that's hardly a worry for universities.



Also, football is a money maker and, whether misguided or not, an academic recruiting tool for universities, attached athletic departments, etc... that it is in their best interest that the football product is at the highest level it can possibly be...and the redshirt aspect helps.

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 11/28/2009 3:36a).]

Title IX would be a perfectly reasonable rule, if football were simply left out of the equation. Somebody has to pay the freight and nobody can afford to kill the cash cow.

quote:

---

Title IX would be a perfectly reasonable rule, if football were simply left out of the equation. Somebody has to pay the freight and nobody can afford to kill the cash cow.

---

Football isn't a cash cow, but a big loser unless you're only talking about FBS schools (and even not all of them make money every year).

Anyways, I do think the participation numbers in football need to be taken into account. What I personally would like to see is some of the stigma that you need to pump up/cut back women's/men's scholarships start to go away.

quote:

---

TXaggie2011 - the best example of what you are talking about is Stanford. They field an incredible number of varsity teams.

I think first of all they are committed to doing so.

Second - they are not trying to be a top 10 football team every year.

---

that would be because most all of Stanford's athletic scholarships are endowed.

Even they are having financial issues...they cut staff earlier this year as well...