NationStates Jolt Archive

Butler University has announced they are cutting both men's swimming and lacrosse. These cuts are part of a pattern of men's sports that have been cut by various athletic departments in order to become compliant with Title IX recommendations.

Here is an article about Title IX. It's a little bit older, but still relevant.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1997/03/03-28-97tdc/03-28-97d03-017.htm

There is no doubt that Title IX has done some good, but in the end it is causing more harm than good. More women's sports is definitely a good thing to have, but the fact that men's sports like football provide 100 athletic spots for men and have high budgers shouldn't mean that programs have to cut other sports to even it out.

maybe they should be more rational about football then.

the only way its not right is if there are extremely more men than women at the university.

after all, the point of universtiy athletics should not be to be a farm league for the professionals.

On the contrary, I think Title IX has done what it needs to do in order to make sure women's sports are funded, or even exist.

If anything, look to the swelled budgets and overly large salaries of the men's football and basketball teams for your angst. If there's only so much pie, do you blame the folks trying to get a slice, or the ones who eat over a half of the pie by themselves?

Funding should be proportional to the population at the school in question, as well as a relation to total money taken in by the individual sport.

maybe they should be more rational about football then.

the only way its not right is if there are extremely more men than women at the university.

after all, the point of universtiy athletics should not be to be a farm league for the professionals.

If Division 1 schools were to cut football, they woul have budget issues. If you don't believe me, just look at any Big 10, Big 12, or SEC program. Whenever their football teams do well, they get tens of millions of dollars in alumni donations. Texas saw an increase of over $50 million after winning the National Championship. It's smart for schools to spend a crap load of money on a football program. Same for both men and women's basketball teams. (At Purdue our women's team draws a pretty good crowd)

If Division 1 schools were to cut football, they woul have budget issues. If you don't believe me, just look at any Big 10, Big 12, or SEC program. Whenever their football teams do well, they get tens of millions of dollars in alumni donations. Texas saw an increase of over $50 million after winning the National Championship. It's smart for schools to spend a crap load of money on a football program. Same for both men and women's basketball teams. (At Purdue our women's team draws a pretty good crowd)

At Ohio State we see, yearly, a multi-million dollar profit from NCAA football.

Funding should be proportional to the population at the school in question, as well as a relation to total money taken in by the individual sport.

That last part is key and why Title IX is crap. Title IX should take into consideration the fact that the 2 main revenue sports in most schools should have more funding because they bring so much to a university. Cutting their funding would be detrimental to the school.

At Ohio State we see, yearly, a multi-million dollar profit from NCAA football.

I have no doubt about that. Same at Purdue and we suck.

BTW, congrats on tonight. I just came back from the game. Landry held Oden to 7 points despite the fact that Landry is 5" shorter than him. It didn't stop you guys from winning though. Oden kicked our ass on defense.

That last part is key and why Title IX is crap. Title IX should take into consideration the fact that the 2 main revenue sports in most schools should have more funding because they bring so much to a university. Cutting their funding would be detrimental to the school.
*Psst* Here's the secret though, they're universities. Universities, last I checked, are supposed to be about furthering education and knowledge. Which, sadly enough, MOST big legue men's football and basketball teams seem to do poorly at (look at graduation rates for them).

They may also bring money in, but they eat a lot too and detract from what the university is supposed to be doing in the first place.

I have no doubt about that. Same at Purdue and we suck.

BTW, congrats on tonight. I just came back from the game. Landry held Oden to 7 points despite the fact that Landry is 5" shorter than him. It didn't stop you guys from winning though. Oden kicked our ass on defense.

Oden's great, and I certainly can't wait until he gets his hand back in shape, then he'll be an offense and defense weapon. Killer game though.

*Psst* Here's the secret though, they're universities. Universities, last I checked, are supposed to be about furthering education and knowledge. Which, sadly enough, MOST big legue men's football and basketball teams seem to do poorly at (look at graduation rates for them).

They may also bring money in, but they eat a lot too and detract from what the university is supposed to be doing in the first place.

They aid the University's main job by giving them money so they can upgrade educational facilities. Purdue is having a ton of new construction. (Lawson CS Building, Armstrong Engineering Building, etc.) Those buildings are paid in large part by alumni donations, which BTW come in greater quantities when the football and basketball teams perform well.

*Psst* Here's the secret though, they're universities. Universities, last I checked, are supposed to be about furthering education and knowledge. Which, sadly enough, MOST big legue men's football and basketball teams seem to do poorly at (look at graduation rates for them).

They may also bring money in, but they eat a lot too and detract from what the university is supposed to be doing in the first place.

I mean, Ohio State football takes in a net gain of some four million dollars each year, and even if the players graduate below averate, that extra money can be expended to help benefit the other fifty-thousand odd undergrad and grad students here at OSU.

If Division 1 schools were to cut football, they woul have budget issues. If you don't believe me, just look at any Big 10, Big 12, or SEC program. Whenever their football teams do well, they get tens of millions of dollars in alumni donations. Texas saw an increase of over $50 million after winning the National Championship. It's smart for schools to spend a crap load of money on a football program. Same for both men and women's basketball teams. (At Purdue our women's team draws a pretty good crowd)

tough luck. they made the decision to be the farm league of the nfl and to let the other men's teams go by the wayside.

dont blame women or title IX for that; blame the powers that be.

tough luck. they made the decision to be the farm league of the nfl and to let the other men's teams go by the wayside.

dont blame women or title IX for that; blame the powers that be.

That is an incorrect way to put it.

They decided that they the best fundraiser is a good football program.

Just ask anyone who goes to OSU, Texas, or any other Big 10, Big 12, SEC, Pac 10 school. They benefit the school more than you can realize.

I'm not sayiing women's teams shouldn't exist. They deserve funding. The point remains that Title IX should be ammended to exclude the 2 main revenue sports from the list.

They aid the University's main job by giving them money so they can upgrade educational facilities. Purdue is having a ton of new construction. (Lawson CS Building, Armstrong Engineering Building, etc.) Those buildings are paid in large part by alumni donations, which BTW come in greater quantities when the football and basketball teams perform well.
Oh good, but since your lacross team ain't worth much, why blame it on women's sports then?

My main point stands though, football and basketball have gotten out of hand at universities. They may bring in money, but they also cause a lot of problems as well.

Oh good, but since your lacross team ain't worth much, why blame it on women's sports then?

My main point stands though, football and basketball have gotten out of hand at universities. They may bring in money, but they also cause a lot of problems as well.
I haven't seen them cause any issues at all at Purdue. They have done great thinigs for us. Heck, they also attract more students.

I mean, Ohio State football takes in a net gain of some four million dollars each year, and even if the players graduate below averate, that extra money can be expended to help benefit the other fifty-thousand odd undergrad and grad students here at OSU.
Then why not just buy an NFL team and be done with it? It's a sham, and causes problems. HOW many OSU players were in trouble last year? I seem to recall a few newstories about that, even over here in Japan.

I haven't seen them cause any issues at all at Purdue. They have done great thinigs for us. Heck, they also attract more students.
Anyone who goes to a university due to their football team (when not a player)...

I'm not sayiing women's teams shouldn't exist. They deserve funding. The point remains that Title IX should be ammended to exclude the 2 main revenue sports from the list.
Why? They are the ones eating the most pie.

Anyone who goes to a university due to their football team (when not a player)...


Believe it or not, but many people who are on the fence over going to IU or Purdue will pick Purdue because we have a better football team. I personally think it's the wrong reason to pick a school, but hey, it brings more students our way and thus more tuition $$$.

Why? They are the ones eating the most pie.

They are also the ones which fund the budgets for women's sports. If you have no football, then there is virtually no AD budget.

Believe it or not, but many people who are on the fence over going to IU or Purdue will pick Purdue because we have a better football team. I personally think it's the wrong reason to pick a school, but hey, it brings more students our way and thus more tuition $$$.
I know they do. I used to be a campus tourguide for my school and I was asked that question many a times. That's missing the point though.

They are also the ones which fund the budgets for women's sports. If you have no football, then there is virtually no AD budget.
So in other words women's sports should be penalized due to not being able to make money?

Yet, oddly, you want to retain men's sports even though they are also not making money.

So in other words women's sports should be penalized due to not being able to make money?

Yet, oddly, you want to retain men's sports even though they are also not making money.

I am by no means saying they should be penalized. I was just making the point that if you were to penalize football, you would then be punishing women's sports as the total number of athletes that a school would be able to support would be diminished greatly. No football means no funding for the Athletic Department. That affects both men and women.

Then why not just buy an NFL team and be done with it? It's a sham, and causes problems. HOW many OSU players were in trouble last year? I seem to recall a few newstories about that, even over here in Japan.

Only one I know of is Maurice Clarett, and he's been gone for four-odd years.

Why? They are the ones eating the most pie.

Like I said earlier, at OSU football doesn't require a dime from the rest of the pie, and actually makes the pie available for everyone else larger.

Butler University has announced they are cutting both men's swimming and lacrosse. These cuts are part of a pattern of men's sports that have been cut by various athletic departments in order to become compliant with Title IX recommendations.

Here is an article about Title IX. It's a little bit older, but still relevant.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1997/03/03-28-97tdc/03-28-97d03-017.htm

There is no doubt that Title IX has done some good, but in the end it is causing more harm than good. More women's sports is definitely a good thing to have, but the fact that men's sports like football provide 100 athletic spots for men and have high budgers shouldn't mean that programs have to cut other sports to even it out.

Sports is just the high-profile part of Title IX. Get an understanding about what Title IX really covers in toto, and then try to make your case. Basing it on sports just makes you look shallower than you are.

I am by no means saying they should be penalized. I was just making the point that if you were to penalize football, you would then be punishing women's sports as the total number of athletes that a school would be able to support would be diminished greatly. No football means no funding for the Athletic Department. That affects both men and women.
Then ask yourself why is a university supporting athletics in the first place?

Like I said earlier, at OSU football doesn't require a dime from the rest of the pie, and actually makes the pie available for everyone else larger.
Try looking at the budget.

But in any case, should football and basketball be removed, universities would then be free to ignore women's sports. Title IX at least makes sure that there ARE women's sports.