Has anyone read or heard anything about the role that Title IX is playing in the all these discussions for conference realignment?
I'm painting w/ a broad brush here, but it seems that football revenue is generating the biggest push for all of this. That being said, has the elimination of some men's athletic programs at certain schools (Marquette included) hampered the school's "worth" if you will? Of course certain schools are deemed "football" or "basketball" schools but a strong athletic program across the board never hurt.
I know next to nothing about this, but if football television revenue can pay for a football program and the necessary additional scholarships for womans sports why not add football?
Because Title IX has nothing to do with how profitable the individuals sports are. It is essentially a three-prong test.
**Is the male:famale ratio of "participation slots" similar to the student body at large?
**Is the male:female ratio of scholarship dollars similar to the student body at large?
**For every "high quality" facility used for men's sports, is there a similar "high quality" facility for women's sports? For instance, in the case of UW-Madison, the Kohl Center is used for both men's and women's hockey and basketball. Camp Randall is solely used for football. The Fieldhouse (old basketball building) has been rehabbed and is now solely used for women's volleyball.
If the answer is yes to all of the above, an institution is considered Title IX compliant.
If schools are forced to eliminate men's programs to comply with Title IX their hands are forced to eliminate tradition and dilutes athletic programs. Most schools lose money on the majority of their athletic programs. It disappoints me that greed and football are pushing further inequality.
That's an interesting point. I suppose you could say Title IX creates a huge barrier to entry to schools wanting to have a big time football program. Many schools have dropped football as a result, and its basically impossible to get a competitive program up and running. So in reality, it has helped the big schools maintain their monopoly on football and the revenue that comes with it.
Quote from: Blue Horseshoe on June 10, 2010, 09:12:39 AM
If schools are forced to eliminate men's programs to comply with Title IX their hands are forced to eliminate tradition and dilutes athletic programs. Most schools lose money on the majority of their athletic programs. It disappoints me that greed and football are pushing further inequality.
Actually, if anything this will help schools with Title IX issues. The football broadcast money can be used to upgrade women's programs and facilities.
I think this whole thing is bad for athletics across the board. Football is king but this is a bit much. Marquette and other basketball schools (ahem, Kansas) don't deserve second tier treatment because they don't generate as much money from football.
Quote from: Blue Horseshoe on June 10, 2010, 11:33:33 AM
I think this whole thing is bad for athletics across the board. Football is king but this is a bit much. Marquette and other basketball schools (ahem, Kansas) don't deserve second tier treatment because they don't generate as much money from football.
What schools "deserve" is just subjective. The reason that they bring in football money like they do is because a lot of people watch college football. If those schools are the ones driving eyeballs and money to college athletics, you could argue that they "deserve" the money they are getting.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 09, 2010, 04:28:36 PM
Because Title IX has nothing to do with how profitable the individuals sports are. It is essentially a three-prong test.
**Is the male:famale ratio of "participation slots" similar to the student body at large?
**Is the male:female ratio of scholarship dollars similar to the student body at large?
**For every "high quality" facility used for men's sports, is there a similar "high quality" facility for women's sports? For instance, in the case of UW-Madison, the Kohl Center is used for both men's and women's hockey and basketball. Camp Randall is solely used for football. The Fieldhouse (old basketball building) has been rehabbed and is now solely used for women's volleyball.
If the answer is yes to all of the above, an institution is considered Title IX compliant.
As an alum who no longer lives on campus, I say make the sacrifice! Marquette should go all male (that would solve the male:female student body at large ratio problem) and add football. Recruiting may require Marquette simultaneously opening a large female only JC with programs specializing in cosmology.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 10, 2010, 09:40:00 AM
Actually, if anything this will help schools with Title IX issues. The football broadcast money can be used to upgrade women's programs and facilities.
I think Litehouse's point was that although you have the prospect of receiving more revenue down the road to help with the additional costs, the Title IX concerns add significantly to the startup costs of establishing a football program because you would have to fund not just the program but also the increase in women's scholarships and improvement in women's facilities
at the same time.
I have to agree with him that this constitutes a very big "barrier to entry" for schools wanting to begin a Division One football program.
It kind of reminds me of the tobacco company settlements. It was a big expense for the companies up front, but it ultimately allowed them to guarantee they will never have any new competitors so they could continue dominating the market themselves.