CAL (UC Berkeley) cuts 5 intercollegiate teams

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I'm aware of how it works, they shuffled rugby to club sports and then cut two women's sports and two men's sports entirely and about an equal number of male and female athletes. The shuffling was more about Title IX and the others were about money.

And I really have little sympathy for schools who complain about Title IX. I get that football's the money maker, but schools also do fine without it if it's such a "burden." If they'd been funding women's sports in the first place it wouldn't have been an issue. Fielding a women's rugby or even *gasp* football team would honestly solve a lot of their problems and a school that advertised for it might even succeed if they didn't fall into the "make it sexy" trap.

Ultimately college should be about the academics.

Forcing a women's football team into existence is simply paying a "fine" of sorts to bring about another insanely expensive non-revenue sport. There's no mechanism (other teams/conferences, etc.) in most cases to support it anyway - it's throwing good money after bad. (Note that this is why baseball is often on the chopping block - it's only 12ish scholarships, but it's an exceptionally expensive 12 - lots of travel, bats/equipment, facilities management, long season, etc.)

It's clearly important to protect equal opportunity for both genders. It's also clear that revenue sports and non-revenue teams operate under a completely different reality, and likely should be treated differently in nearly every respect.

Football and basketball (for both genders) are big business - to an extent not even imagined when Title IX was designed and implemented. I'm not sure there is a better solution, but it seems like it's worth looking.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Forcing a women's football team into existence is simply paying a "fine" of sorts to bring about another insanely expensive non-revenue sport. There's no mechanism (other teams/conferences, etc.) in most cases to support it anyway - it's throwing good money after bad. (Note that this is why baseball is often on the chopping block - it's only 12ish scholarships, but it's an exceptionally expensive 12 - lots of travel, bats/equipment, facilities management, long season, etc.)

It's clearly important to protect equal opportunity for both genders. It's also clear that revenue sports and non-revenue teams operate under a completely different reality, and likely should be treated differently in nearly every respect.

Football and basketball (for both genders) are big business - to an extent not even imagined when Title IX was designed and implemented. I'm not sure there is a better solution, but it seems like it's worth looking.

I'm not saying forcing it, I'm saying there could actually be interest out there that's not being explored. It's not going to make money though. Particularly since girls seem to be able to play in JFL leagues on occasion, in high school even more rarely and in college? Lets go with basically never.

They shouldn't be big business IMO. College athletes are basically money makers for schools but are prohibited from accepting any money themselves. They're used. And the percentage that play professionally is small. (And women's basketball doesn't bring in near the money men's does. More than other sports, yes, but the fact that it's an issue at all tells us priorities are skewed to shit.)

College is for the academics. Sports are awesome things, extra-cirriculars are awesome things, but when college become all about sports, or sororities, or Chess Club... something's gone wrong. And as a student from a school that didn't have a football team and hasn't for something like 40 years, I think that schools that would like to complain about Title IX can somehow manage to work things out.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I'm not saying forcing it, I'm saying there could actually be interest out there that's not being explored. It's not going to make money though. Particularly since girls seem to be able to play in JFL leagues on occasion, in high school even more rarely and in college? Lets go with basically never.

Right, and I agree that there can be more done to help here. But most schools have a club team, and the interest level doesn't really support a move up (at least not to justify the cost).

Also, I don't believe there are explicit rules against female players - schools have had female kickers, IIRC. Obviously there are de facto barriers for women though (as well as realistic ones - the size disparity at the D1 football level would be pretty unreal).

They shouldn't be big business IMO. College athletes are basically money makers for schools but are prohibited from accepting any money themselves. They're used. And the percentage that play professionally is small. (And women's basketball doesn't bring in near the money men's does. More than other sports, yes, but the fact that it's an issue at all tells us priorities are skewed to shit.)

Yes, college athletes are exploited in revenue sports - they generate more money for the school than their scholarships + perks account for, and I do think athletes should control their likeness and possibly earn money for play (uniformly; not based on performance or booster dollars or whatever).

However, the athletes do receive significant benefits (including lowered admissions standards, access to academic and personal aid, etc.) and the disparity is really a football problem. Big-time football brings a host of positive things to the school - income (most BCS schools pay for their other sports at the football till), prestige (there is a direct correlation between successful teams and increases in applicants), school spirit (= eventual donations), etc. Additionally, universities offer a host of opportunities that go beyond the classroom - football is simply an extension of the same mentality that produces glee clubs, a cappella groups and fraternities.

Since colleges have decided they need to provide an all-encompassing experience for students, it makes sense to maximize the opportunities that come with it - that means making a shitload of money from a quality big-conference football team, too. It's not poor management of priorities - it's smart management of resources (donor dollars are certainly a resource, as are ticket dollars, etc.).

College is for the academics. Sports are awesome things, extra-cirriculars are awesome things, but when college become all about sports, or sororities, or Chess Club... something's gone wrong. And as a student from a school that didn't have a football team and hasn't for something like 40 years, I think that schools that would like to complain about Title IX can somehow manage to work things out.

It's not that colleges are all about sports - it's that college sports are all about the revenue brought in by a select few sports (particularly football).

I don't think the rest of the school is affected by the baseball team being cut - Berkley is still Berkley. And of course the schools can work it out - by cutting baseball.

But if college athletics are essentially funded by football, and football inflates scholarship numbers for men by a huge number (literally 7+ baseball teams), then it might be worth considering how we consider "opportunity" in the context of scholarships in light of return on that investment.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Amicus

Most often, it seems that the funds raised are earmarked to enlarge endowments. Colleges and universities are engaged in a contest of "my endowment is larger than your endowment."

That's what he said.

[Amicus]

Yes, I was being sarcastic