Oso planning to go pro
Shoothoops did Archery
That they would have to pay back, unlike an athletic scholarship.
Like what? If the money is there why take it away from a future student who is good at Tennis or Track? So you admit they are not really cutting the budget, they're just cutting a program because it does not bring value to Marquette and now they can offer financial aid to 48 other students who will have to pay it back.
TAMUI do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.
You understand that universities have more than one budget right?
I'd guess these sports aren't very competitive and are losing the school money.
Max allowed scholarships per NCAA D1:Men's tennis - 4.5Women's tennis - ~8Men's T&F - 12.6Women's T&F - 18Men's soccer - 9Women's soccer - 14Baseball - 11.7Softball - 12
...and you are telling me that MU could not find cost cutting measures somewhere else without harming students access to an education? The price of an Marquette education is all too high as it is, then they do this.
So title IX is not equal per sport.
Nothing in Title IX requires a school to have an equal number of men's and women's scholarship for each sport. If it did, we would have D1 women's football and Marquette would be out of compliance for not having men's volleyball.
So you are saying a student who can get a scholarship playing tennis or track and field at another school will take an alternative scholarship to attend Marquette that does not take their sport seriously? I don't think so.
I thought there had to be an equal number for men and women scholarships. So which mens sport make up the difference at Marquette. According to this if a school does not have a D1 football team Title IX really screws the men as the women are allowed more scholarships then men.https://www.athleticscholarships.net/division-1-colleges-schools.htm
Very few people get full rides from track or tennis. For most the effect will be minimal.
Can someone explain what makes a sport D1? I thought part of it was offering athletic scholarships?If that isn't a requirement, why didn't Marquette just make wrestling non-scholarship instead of ending the program in the early 2000s?Could the Marquette club swimming and diving or club men's volleyball be D1 non-scholarship programs?
You thought incorrectly and no it doesn't screw men. Marquette's gender ratio is 56% women, 44% men. There should be more opportunities available for women than men at Marquette because there are more women in need of opportunity.
Could they have kept wrestling? Can they take up men's volleyball or swimming and diving? They answer to all of those is yes. But unless there is a clear recruitment strategy around those, they may end up just being money losers for the University.
So Marquette accepts more women because there are more available scholarships to offer? Are you saying Marquette can have more women on athletic scholarships than men?
I don't disagree with anything you're saying in your post...but I think that it's pretty clear that virtually all sports other than Football and MBB are money losers for the University (and even a lot of those two outside the P6). I suspect that the number of non-FB/MBB programs that actually earn money for a University are very few and far between.
I'm going to disagree with you slightly on this. If participation in a sport is the difference between attending Marquette or another school, having a coach show a place for them might be enough to get them to choose Marquette. Especially in individualized sports like Track and Field / Cross Country. It's hard to measure sure, but there are about 80-90 track athletes at MU that are currently dividing about 30 scholarships. How many of that other 50-60 of FTE would have come to Marquette at all without a track & field program?
I think that's fair. But, I also think that if those 80-90 track athletes choose to not attend Marquette, they likely will be replaced by 80-90 other students. If we want to surmise that they will be replaced by 80-90 track athletes, then that likely would be a cost savings for the University in terms of scholarship expenses (and almost certainly a savings for the Athletics Department). If the program is cut entirely and they are replaced by 80-90 non-athletes, there will be a scholarship-based cost savings for the University and an additional cost savings in terms of the other costs of the program (e.g., salaries, equipment, travel, etc.). I suspect that on average, universities spend considerably less money on non-athletes than on athletes.I think that where this kind of thing (i.e., using sports to drive admissions) really comes into play is in lower divisions. I think Mount Union in Ohio is a good example. They have 200+ kids on their football roster. That's damn near 10% of their total enrollment. If those kids suddenly stopped attending Mount Union their total enrollment likely would dip. I don't think Marquette's total enrollment would be affected if 80-90 track athletes chose not to attend. If they keep the track program, they'll probably get 80-90 track athletes who, as a group, are somewhat less talented than the prior 80-90. If they cut the program entirely, they'd probably get 80-90 other students.