TULANE FOOTBALL DONE?

[MylesKnight]

From WWL.com (AM Radio Station) in New Orleans...


TIME MAY BE UP FOR TULANE FOOTBALL

Time may have expired on the Tulane Football Program. WWL's Buddy D says university officials are preparing to do away with the most expensive sport it has to try and close a huge budget gap.

Buddy D says, "I have a reliable source that says the President of Tulane wants to shut down the football program and that he has enough votes to get that accomplished. Tulane will have a vote scheduled June 10th, but my source says that Scott Cowen has been pushing to get rid of football and he has enough votes to get that accomplished."


This Sucks!! The only positive thing that may come out of this is that by dropping football, TU may save the rest of their Athletic Department at the Division I level. It has been mentioned that one option was to either drop all sports down to the Division III/Non-Scholarship Level, or possibly drop Athletics altogether at the University.

The real disturbing thing is a large percentage of the schools out there that do make $$$ from athletics, namely Football & Men's Basketball, are known cheaters. Take pretty much the entire Southeastern Conference and the old Southwest Conference for example.. At one time nearly the entire SWC was on probation at the same time, and currently what over half of the SEC's twelve universities are either on probation or being investigated for wrongdoing.

Heck even Tulane has had some serious issues with rules violations in the past.. Anyone remember the TU Men's Hoops Program being shut down for a year or two in the late '80's for numerous violations...


FOR RELEASE CONTACT:

January 20, 1987, After 6 p.m. (Central Time) S. David Berst

S. David Berst - Director of Enforcement



Tulane University



Mission, Kansas--It was announced today that the National Collegiate Athletic Association's Committee on Infractions voted to accept the corrective actions taken by Tulane University, which included termination of the men's basketball program for NCAA rule violations found in the program.

The university's report to the NCAA revealed violations in men's basketball that involved improper inducements to prospective student-athletes, excessive recruiting contacts, extra benefits to enrolled student-athletes, improper certification of compliance with NCAA legislation by men's basketball coaching staff members, and use of funds from outside sources to supplement the men's basketball recruiting budget and to provide cash to student-athletes and coaches. In addition, violations of the NCAA's ethical conduct legislation were found by the Committee on Infractions in regard to the former men's head basketball coach and one former assistant basketball coach based on their involvement in several serious violations. The NCAA's report to the university emphasized that the ethical conduct findings were based only on the violations found and not on any lack of candor or cooperation on the part of the former coaches. The two former coaches will be permitted to petition the Committee on Infractions subsequent to August 17, 1989, to have the ethical conduct findings removed from NCAA records.

Subsequent to the university's appearance before the Committee on Infractions, it was determined that another former assistant coach, should be requested to appear before the committee to discuss his possible involvement in the violations. Following the former assistant coach's appearance, the committee determined that there was no sufficient reason to find that he engaged in improper conduct under NCAA rules, and the committee voted to close its consideration of the matter as to him.

The university's corrective actions that were accepted by the NCAA, included: (1) the termination of the men's basketball program and receipt of the resignations of the men's basketball coaching staff; (2) a review of other major sports programs at the university; (3) a requirement for annual audits of the internal accounts of booster organizations; (4) establishment of educational programs concerning drugs and gambling for student-athletes at the university, and (5) implementation of a mandatory drug-testing program for all student-athletes.

[MrBug708]

Tulane is one of the smaller programs that proved it could compete on the big time level

Of course, if it means it screws JP Losman, I might not feel so bad

[Poli]

Truly sad, but it's probably going to happen to more colleges in the future.

[wbatl1]

Yep, if you dont have the boosters and aren't in a big conference, its tough to make ends meet and compete. Sad thing to see, but if it means the other sports stay around, its a good trade for the university

[Fritz]

The problem with football in D1 is you give all those slots and scholarships to players, then you have to match them for (title 9) women's teams.

Even if your football program brings in enough money to cover itself, there is still the women's sports to pay for.

I think we will see more football programs fall unless title 9 is altered.

[Anrhydeddu]

It is still my unrealistic dream to see all college football fall back to the level of the current Ivy Leagues. One down, many more to go.

[Kodos]

Why do you dream of that?

[MylesKnight]

I agree, Title IX is very slowly but surely going to destroy collegiate athletics at a lot of Universities.. What is it going to take for the NCAA to realize this current system isn't working?

...and the thing is, I bet if you polled every woman invloved in Division I Athletics in some form or another, the vast majority of them would say they aren't in favor of Title IX, or destroying men's programs in order to stay within the requirements of the rule. Football is by far the largest part of the equation because of the amount of scholarships and $$$ involved that must be matched in Women's Sports.. Schools are forced to create what, three, four or five women's sports that do nothing but bleed money in order to stay within Title IX requirements. It's a joke..

I'm all for Women's Athletics but if Title IX is to continue, I'd like to see it do so without football as a part of the equation. Let that be its own seperate entity... please.. If not, Tulane will be nothing more than the beginning of a long list of Division I-A and I-AA schools that were forced to drop Football.

..and the real sad thing is that it's all being done by some Women's Group like Martha Burk's who think all of this is completely rational and the right thing to do..

[Iceberg]

I have been hearing about this for a while. Its really dissapointing for me because I will be attending Tulane next year.

[Anrhydeddu]

Kodos, I dream of that so those playing can still be amatuers instead of minor league professionals. I dream of that so that better priorities can made instead of the dominance college footballs plays in our society and in many universities. I dream of that so we can have far fewer illegal recruiting, kickbacks, gambling, academic cheating and fraud that seems to permutate all of D1. I dream of that so that students, alumnis and fans can cheer solely for the competition and rewards instead of TV ratings and bowl payouts. I dream of that to make going to college, even if you are lucky enough to get an athletic scholarship, meaningful instead of the charades of college football athletes/students. I dream of that so administrators and alumnis can place much more emphasis on academics, departmental programs and student scholarships. Look at the role that football, lacrosse, hockey and basketball plays in schools like Cornell or Princeton or even at a D3 school.

[Fritz]

not about about tulane:

I think that people accpepting (full) scholarships should be required to pay back money if they do not graduate. Somewhere along the way schools stopped caring if their students earned a degree. This is completely counter to their purpose.

[albionmoonlight]

Money, sports, and colleges are all coming together to create problems for a lot of schools down the road.

Taking football out of the title XI equation may be one way to deal with some of the problems.

Another option may be for universities to stop treating football as the sacred cow. When schools begin to cut other men's sports in order to make room for womens sports under title IX, and then blame their choice on title IX, that is not a good system and it is unfair to women's sports.

In general, looking at reforms with the mentality of "we cannot do anything to hurt football. Now let's see what we can do about the various problems in college athletics . . ." is not the best way to look at things, IMO.

If football is getting too expensive for Universities to maintain, perhaps the NCAA could further limit the amount of scholarships that DI schools are allowed to give out? That would be my first instinct--not to attack Title IX.

Oh--and when schools are caught violating rules--punish them HARD. If enough schools have their football/basketball programs lose massive scholarships, etc., ADs will get the message and actually start to pay attention to what their coaches are doing.

[MylesKnight]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight

In general, looking at reforms with the mentality of "we cannot do anything to hurt football. Now let's see what we can do about the various problems in college athletics . . ." is not the best way to look at things, IMO.

If football is getting too expensive for Universities to maintain, perhaps the NCAA could further limit the amount of scholarships that DI schools are allowed to give out? That would be my first instinct--not to attack Title IX.

I agree with your comments entirely.. The problem is that the "Big Dawgs" of College Athletics, aka the BCS Conferences and Schools don't have the financial issues of the other universities and don't need to cut the total number of Football Scholarships in order to make ends meat.

Unfortunately I think the BCS type schools will form their own alliance or Division before they would agree to a cut back in scholarships to make it more fair and financially viable for the rest of the current Division I-A schools... They don't spend all this money on facility upgrades for nothing.. A classic case of the have's and the have not's.

In the end we may end up with three Division I Football levels (A, AA & AAA) or very possibly a move down to I-AA by a large number of current I-A schools for the same scholarship reduction reasons you've stated. But this is a bit of a catch-22 as currently Division I-AA Football is not a money maker either, even for the majority of the elite teams at that level..

So in the end it may come down to an all or nothing scenario for everyone. Either make it work at your school under the current system or get the hell out, so to speak.

Originally posted by albionmoonlight

Oh--and when schools are caught violating rules--punish them HARD. If enough schools have their football/basketball programs lose massive scholarships, etc., ADs will get the message and actually start to pay attention to what their coaches are doing.

Count me among the group of people out there who are definitely in favor of this. Let's take the Michigan Basketball case for example....

A number of former UofM Basketball Players were given cash by a "representative of the University's Athletics Interests" totaling over $600,000. This was by far the largest amount of money involved in a case like this, ever, including the olde "Play for Pay" that was going on at SMU in the early to mid '80's.

Now the University's whole argument was that since these rules violations took place sometime ago and no one involved with the Men's Basketball Program at that time is still enrolled at or employed by the school, they shouldn't really be punished.

A rules violation is a rules violation is a rules violation. It doesn't matter if it took place a week ago or five years ago... It took place at this University, under this University's watch, and they should be punished accordingly.

In my opinion, UofM Basketball should've been stripped entirely of it's scholarships for a set amount of years (with current players being given the opportunity to either stay at Michigan and continue playing without a scholarship or transfer and play elsewhere right away with Michigan paying the player's way there or reimbursing his new school for the cost of his scholarship there), and be made ineligible for postseason play and television appearances for a pretty lengthy amount of time..

...and, if during this probationary period, any other rules violations were to occur within the school's Men's Basketball Program, the Program would be eliminated for a set amount of years... Period.

..and don't give me that old argument of the current players being the ones that this really hurts.. Hell if those guys are good enough to be on scholarship at a Big Ten school like Michigan, I'm sure they'd end up on their feet elsewhere.

Make the school compete with a bunch of Walk-Ons in the Big Ten for a few years.. Watch Attendance Shrink... TV Revenues Shrink... Interest Shrink... T-Shirt and Memorbillia Sales Shrink... I think that would get the people who are running thing's attention and force them to be more conscious of what was going on in the future, and make damn sure this wouldn't happen again.

Make an example of them and scare the bejesus out of the rest of the Universities & their Administators. Bring back the stern NCAA Infractions Committee Decisions of the past (see the SMU Football Death Penalty of the late '80's as an example of a proper penalty for a school's wrongdoings).

This will never happen though. Again too much $$ has been invested into these programs and facilities and too much $$ is generated by these programs to let this happen. You'll see State & Federal Government Officials get involved to help save these Universities a$$es if it comes down to it, just as they are trying to do now with the pending ACC Expansion Scenario/Big East Debacle. and once our country's political system gets involved, forget about it..

[Radii]

Really, I don't blame Title IX for this one at all:

To retain Division I status, a football team must have 76.5 scholarship players and can carry 85 active Scholarship players. In Division I-AA, schools have 63 scholarships, usually divided among 85 players.


Honestly, I'd like to see that cut to 70 scholarships for football and use the extra money for the other athletic programs. I'd like to see it at an NCAA level, but really i'd LOVE to see a major school come out and say "we were going to cut our wrestling program for Title IX, but then we realized we could just cut 5 football scholarships and accomplish the same thing. So we did."

Of course, that will never happen, sacred cash cow, etc.

[Fritz]

wasnt there a time when a team would have something like 20 scholarship players?

[MylesKnight]

Schools won't cut back on Football Scholarships because of the possiblity of a less competitive team it creates.

Take the Univerisity of Louisiana-Monroe for instance (formerly known as Northeast Louisiana University).. This school's Football Program is in severe trouble and may be forced out of Division I-A because of the new attendance requirements that will go into effect shortly (15,000 Average Home Attendance per Season.. Actual Butts in Seats, not Paid Attendance).

This school used to draw crowds over 20,000 on a regular basis a few years back while still a member of I-AA.. Why's that? Because they had a successful, winning program. Win and they will come..

Now this past season (2002), ULM drew an average of just over 8,000 per game for Home Games. And why is this? Because they stink, and have stunk since the move up to I-A a few years ago ('96, I believe). And why is that? Well a part of the reason is because the school hasn't used its full allotment of scholarships available (85) since moving up from I-AA. Now there are other reasons as well, but this does play a major part.

Now I know this is only one reason for their lack of success in I-A thus far but as you can see attendance has shrunk considerably in the last 10+ years for ULM.

This is, I believe, a big reason why schools decide to cut out other Men's Sports entirely (Baseball, Wrestling, Swimming, Track & Field, among others) rather than cut Football Scholarships... A competitive Football Program has the ability to increase it's Home Attendance considerably, something that sports such as Wrestling and Swimming wouldn't do regardless how good that individual program happened to be on a National Level.

Unfortunately, again it's all about money and the ability to generate more revenue.


"From NCAA.org"

How is Title IX applied to athletics?

Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics:

1. Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;

2. Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and

3. Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.

[albionmoonlight]

I so agree about Michigan. So they took down some banners? They certainly did not have to give back the intangible advantages that the "fab five" gave them. I love your idea. Don't punish the kids there (let them transfer if they want). Punish the University by making it have a walk on team for five years.

If you are ever up for NCAA Commish MK, you have my vote.

[CamEdwards]

I like your thoughts Fritz. I've felt that way for several years.

[MylesKnight]

Hey Albion, well coincedentally the current head of the NCAA and myself do share the same first name..

Thank Goodness our similarities end there though... Have you checked out the Grill on the Guy?

[sterlingice]

Argh- I can go off on Title IX for hours but I'll just throw out a couple of preliminary thoughts since I have a self-imposed limit of one rant per 24 hours and I already did that last night in the TV thread:

1. If KU bumped it's football program from it's current status of godawful to just mediocre, KUAC (KU Athletic Corp) would see an increase in hundreds of thousands of dollars. There are only two programs capable of this on any campus: men's basketball and men's football. The only two exceptions in all of college sports are Tennessee and UConn women's basketball. Ask Cal-State Fullerton or LSU or Rice what their premiere baseball programs bring in. How about North Carolina women's soccer?

2. Why is football considered a male program? If Bobby Bowden found a 6'2" 215lb girl who could run a 4.2 40, she'd start at linebacker for the 'Noles, no questions asked.

3. Why is this limited to sports? Why not equal scholarships for the cheerleading squad? I'm sure the privilaged few guys who made the team would be very happy indeed.

4. Hell, why not in the classroom as well? Why isn't the engineering building made up 52/48% female/male. I know, we'd definately "like the scenery" more. Why can an institution have a female-only scholarship and be lauded but having a male-only scholarship would bring NCAA scrutiny for discrimination?

Sure this takes it to its absurd conclusion but that's what Title IX is: absurd.

Also, there is a huge problem with saying "let's just exempt football"- it's a legal admission that it is a money-making entity. This leads to athletes having a legal leg to stand on in an attempt to get paid. Before you start off with the mindless "Damn the man! Student athletes should be paid- after all, the university takes advantage of them", remember this is not just football or basketball but all athletes, 500-600 on any given campus (if you just say "just football and basketball" then it calls into question their amateur status). This costs hundreds of thousands of bucks a year and just leads to the cutting of all non-essential (read: non revenue-generating) sports so we're back to where we started.

Title IX Primer
There are three prongs, as they are called, that make up the test for Title IX and you only have to satisfy one. Many women's groups claim that you don't have to do the popular propotionality route. However, the logic behind the prongs and the illusion of choice is flawed and here is why:

MylesKnight pointed out only one of the prongs: proportionality. If your campus is 50% male/female then you have to have athletic scholarships and cash, in general, doled out to within 1-3% of that (i.e. absolute worst case is that men get ~52% of funding and women get ~48%). Unfortunately, then, men's programs get the short end of the stick because it's stupid to put $50K into a new men's diving program, for instance, which returns 0 income when you can put that into football and probably get a return on that cash (maybe hire a better coach or better facilities to make your program more successful and bring in more fans to games). As an added bonus, you don't add those men's scholarships so you don't have to fund a women's diving program either but you decide to go ahead with the women's diving program. You could give your undersupported non-revenue men's sports a couple more scholarships since football and basketball are already maxed out but instead you just decide to do nothing and it keeps the Title IX cops at bay. Recently, a big deal was made as they tried to change the proporionality percentage to 7% but women's groups threw a hissy fit and it was not changed. Bush really dropped the ball on this one as he tried to get involved but in the end sat on the sidelines and did nothing.

Secondly, is the historical expansion prong: "history of growth and expansion of the underrepresented sex". Untimately, this is not a prong but an extension of the first one. All this prong allows for is the defense that we started out discriminatory so now we're working towards satisfying #1. Brown tried to satisfy this prong in, I believe, the late 80s or early 90s, trying to show they had created opportunities for women (first women's hockey team, for instance). However, they lost the case, essentially being told they were not proportional (in reality, it was a squabble because they cut funding for two women's teams and two men's teams and the women's teams got uppity and took it to the ACLU).

Lastly, there is the interest prong: "accommodation of interest and abilities of all students". The problem with this test is that no one has been able to come up with an accurate test for it, so you really cannot satisfy it without going to court. Of course, then you'd end up in the same boat as Brown, having to satisfy the proportionality prong. Gee- what do you think would happen if schools were allowed to administer a questionaire with enrollment with the question "would you like to participate in college athletics"? I'm guessing the results would be something like 70-30% male vs 30-70% female and the school would be given carte blanche to divide up funds and programs accordingly. However, any suggestion of this has been shot down with threat of legal challenge from women's groups.

SI

[albionmoonlight]

Do college athletics exist mainly to make money or mainly to provide an opportunity for students to engage themselves physically and mentally outside of the classroom?

I think that one's answer to this question has a lot to do with how that person views Title XI as it applies to athletics (it does not, btw, only apply to athletics).

Why do English and Classics departments exist when biochemistry departments (source of grants and patents) and business schools (source of alumni and some external research money for things like marketing) make more money for the university? I would argue that sometimes a university provides some things for its students, not to make money, but because--on some vague level--they believe it is part of their mission as a university.

[John Galt]

Good post by albionmoonlight - I was about to say something similar (but not as well).

I don't have time to go into a full debate, but I think Tulane is a classic example of why Title IX isn't the problem - the problem is that schools believe football is a money maker, but in an effort to compete, it usually ends up being a huge drain. 78% of Division I football programs aren't profitable - this drains women's and men's athletics.

Most of you probably won't like the source, but this report is probably the best out there:

http://www.womenssportsfoundation.or...f_file/914.pdf

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
It is still my unrealistic dream to see all college football fall back to the level of the current Ivy Leagues. One down, many more to go.

You're completely right. Players used to be on scholarship happy with the knowledge they were going to school for free. For many players now, class is just a formality they endure so that they can play college ball in hopes that they are on their way to the pro game. College football is semi-pro, minor-league ball in its current state.


Take me back to the days that Rutgers was the only undefeated football team in the country!



seriously though, I think step 1 would be severe punishment to schools not graduating their players.

[JonInMiddleGA]

"I would argue that sometimes a university provides some things for its students, not to make money, but because--on some vague level--they believe it is part of their mission as a university."

And you're welcome to that argument, as long as you realize that it might be a lovely theory but bears little resemblence to reality at the D1 football powerhouses.

"Higher education" is a business, plain & simple.

[tucker342]

Originally posted by Fritz
not about about tulane:

I think that people accpepting (full) scholarships should be required to pay back money if they do not graduate. Somewhere along the way schools stopped caring if their students earned a degree. This is completely counter to their purpose.

Agree completely

[mckerney]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
seriously though, I think step 1 would be severe punishment to schools not graduating their players.

I think to do this it's needed to change the definitions first. Not to make it easier for schools, but to make maybe use common sense for once (unless we're not allowed to do that anymore). As I understand it, if a player transfers out of the school it's judged just the same as someone that stays four years without ever attending classes, even if they go on to graduate at the top of their class. Also, theres the issue of atheletes leaving early. If someone is able to leave a school after two years and get a job making millions, why is that judged as a bad this. If someone were to leave school after two years and make millions in software engineering, that would be viewed as a good thing for the university, why should sports be any different (though if the athlete is as misinformed as Rick Rickert and believe they can succeed early when they aren't ready, it needs to be reviewed as to what's being taught at the institution).

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
Oh--and when schools are caught violating rules--punish them HARD. If enough schools have their football/basketball programs lose massive scholarships, etc., ADs will get the message and actually start to pay attention to what their coaches are doing.

There are concievably problems that can arise from this. In cases where the rule violations are committed and covered up by the coach, the university AD or president uncovers them, fires the coach and others involved, why should there be massive punisments against the school? In many of those cases the coach just moves on to another school unharmed, while the school is left behind to take the punishment. Why should that be when after they found out something was wrong they did everything they could to take correct the situation. I would, however, agree with this where it was deep seeded corruption throughout the whole school.

[kcchief19]

I will contend that anyone who believes that Title IX is harmful or is a thread to college athletics simply doesn't understand the impact of Title IX and doesn't understand the politics of today's college sports.

The fact that women can play volleyball in college has a far-reaching impact. It means they can/will play volleyball in high school, junior high, elementary school and so forth. It means that girls and young women have the same chance to get out of sports that men have always gotten. I like Title IX because I know that if I ever have a daughter, I won't have to fight to find sports teams for her to play on. It wasn't that long ago that about the only high school girls sport there was was six-on-six basketball -- and that is not a sport.

But before you start blaming women's sports and Title IX for Tulane cutting football, realize this -- Tulane (and other schools, for that matter) is considering dropping football because they are losing money on football. That is, football at the school is not profitable. It's not that football isn't making enough money to pay for the entire athletic department -- it's that football isn't making enough to pay its own way.

I have a number of friends and associates who work in sports information at the college level. I also covered this topic in my past as a reporter. Time and again, these sources have indicated the following items:

-- only an estimated 1/3 of Div. I-A football teams make money

-- only about half of the 300-plus Div. I men's basketball teams make money

-- only about 25 women's basketball programs are profitable

Outside of that, the other sports that make money are few and far between, and they certainly don't make much money. Title IX is a convenient excuse -- the NCAA has used it as a reason for cutting football scholarship, when the reality is that the universities are trying to reduce expenses and create parity. The school's can't afford to give out 120 football schollies any more, and the old scholarship rules simply kept the good teams good and the bad teams bad.

Once you dismiss the myth that men's sports are a cash cow for universities, you get to the truth -- athletics in large part are merely a marketing and public relations tool for universities.

Jon is right -- college athletics are a busy. They are run like a business. Certainly Title IX forced universities to fund women's sports when they would not have otherwise, but that has been good for businesses.

Southwest Missouri State, for example, has had and will always have a hard time succeeding in men's sports on the D-I level. Sure the baseball team score a remarkable upset this weekend to get to the Super Regionals, but aside from a stray Sweet 16 appearance and some success in Div I-AA football a decade ago, the men's teams will never challenge for national titles and bring in a lot of prestige and money.

However, the women's basketball team's two Final Four runs have put the school on the map. They energized the city. The women's team draws more fans to games than the men's team. I worked for a company that donated money to the university specifically due to women's basketball.

Bottom line -- Title IX has been good for a lot of people and is not a threat to men's sports. Relax.

[Tigercat]

First off, this has little to nothing to do with a title 9 conflict at Tulane. The bottom line is, Tulane has little ability to make money off of its athletics program. Why? Because there are hardly any Tulane fans in the New Orleans area. The vast vast vast majority of Tulane students come from out of state. People looking to get a different kind of education in a different kind of atmosphere(either that or sons and daughters of alumni). But when said students become alumni and leave the state, they leave behind them a hole where there should be supporters of Tulane athletics. Tulane draws maybe 18k per football game at best, and thats just not enough to run a Div 1A program in the Superdome of all places. And because they don't make money in football, well then they are already behind the game when it comes to making money in the overall sports program.

FYI, LSU baseball does make money, because they are able to sell 7.2k+ season tickets a year, although they don't make much money, and probably not as much money as say UCON or Tenn womens basketball. It is also possible that Miss St. baseball makes money, although it wouldn't be by much.

As an aside, this is my first post here since being a lurker for many years on FOFC, since I've always visted the board on a regular basis, y'all might be seeing a lot of me in the coming days.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by kcchief19
I will contend that anyone who believes that Title IX is harmful or is a thread to college athletics simply doesn't understand the impact of Title IX and doesn't understand the politics of today's college sports.

Anyone who doesn't think Title IX has an impact needs to talk to the average Division I wrestling coach, if you can find one. After all, this is why this whole mess got revisited in the first place: a lawsuit because all of their programs were being cancelled.

The fact that women can play volleyball in college has a far-reaching impact. It means they can/will play volleyball in high school, junior high, elementary school and so forth. It means that girls and young women have the same chance to get out of sports that men have always gotten. I like Title IX because I know that if I ever have a daughter, I won't have to fight to find sports teams for her to play on. It wasn't that long ago that about the only high school girls sport there was was six-on-six basketball -- and that is not a sport.

Mindless propaganda is good, let's keep it coming. Yes- it is good that women got more opportunities. But to use stuff like "I know if I had a daughter" is not evidence- it's just emotional blackmail dressed up as evidence. That said, to blindly follow Title IX because it gives opportunities to women is to ignore the fact that it *does* cause problems.

But before you start blaming women's sports and Title IX for Tulane cutting football, realize this -- Tulane (and other schools, for that matter) is considering dropping football because they are losing money on football. That is, football at the school is not profitable. It's not that football isn't making enough money to pay for the entire athletic department -- it's that football isn't making enough to pay its own way.

This is true for some schools: it simply isn't profitable. But many more are cancelling it, not because of football's cost but because of the cost of football and the women's sports it is supposed to support. Quite a bit ago this thread became much more than the situation at Tulane.

I have a number of friends and associates who work in sports information at the college level. I also covered this topic in my past as a reporter. Time and again, these sources have indicated the following items:

-- only an estimated 1/3 of Div. I-A football teams make money

-- only about half of the 300-plus Div. I men's basketball teams make money

-- only about 25 women's basketball programs are profitable

Outside of that, the other sports that make money are few and far between, and they certainly don't make much money. Title IX is a convenient excuse -- the NCAA has used it as a reason for cutting football scholarship, when the reality is that the universities are trying to reduce expenses and create parity. The school's can't afford to give out 120 football schollies any more, and the old scholarship rules simply kept the good teams good and the bad teams bad.

Once you dismiss the myth that men's sports are a cash cow for universities, you get to the truth -- athletics in large part are merely a marketing and public relations tool for universities.

Jon is right -- college athletics are a busy. They are run like a business. Certainly Title IX forced universities to fund women's sports when they would not have otherwise, but that has been good for businesses.

Where to start... hell, I'll just say it: I'm calling shenanigans on your numbers. Ok, here's a link of where I'm getting my numbers from: this is THE OFFICIAL Revenues and Expenses of Divisions I and II Intercollegiate Athletics Programs booklet from the NCAA Website. I am not pulling numbers out of my ass or out of the asses of sports information PR people who have agendas. Link

First off "funding women's sports when they would not have otherwise" has *NOT* been good for business. If this is the case, then why did the average Div IA school lose $3.2M on women's sports whereas men's bring in $4.9M, almost exclusively from Men's Football and Men's Basketball programs (20, 23).

As for the "estimated 1/3 of Div. I-A football teams make money"- wrongo. Look at page 30: In 2001, 79 made money, 32 lost money, and 3 broke even. That's 69% not 33%. The numbers for those institutions are almost the same for men's basketball (this is Div IA football schools, I'm guessing): 75:35:4. Lastly, 6:104:4 for women's basketball. For comparasion, Div IAA is quite the opposite with football only getting 22:81:10, men's basketball 29:77:7 but women's basketball is slightly better at 15:88:10.

Southwest Missouri State, for example, has had and will always have a hard time succeeding in men's sports on the D-I level. Sure the baseball team score a remarkable upset this weekend to get to the Super Regionals, but aside from a stray Sweet 16 appearance and some success in Div I-AA football a decade ago, the men's teams will never challenge for national titles and bring in a lot of prestige and money.

However, the women's basketball team's two Final Four runs have put the school on the map. They energized the city. The women's team draws more fans to games than the men's team. I worked for a company that donated money to the university specifically due to women's basketball.

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. For every school which has found success in an area, I can point to another school like KU here which had to cancel a men's soccer program or cut a men's tennis program *because* of Title IX. Or how the crew team here would keep having meetings in our dorm lobby and never have enough to fill a team because of lack of interest. But this is just anecdotal evidence, so feel free to give it as much weight as the previous paragraphs.

Bottom line -- Title IX has been good for a lot of people and is not a threat to men's sports. Relax.

Title IX has been good for a lot of people but it has taken away from a lot of others. It is a threat to a lot of college athletics, just not the visible big time revenue generating ones.

SI

[Sharpieman]

Who cares about Tulane football in the first place? They suck

[JonInMiddleGA]

from kcchief ...

but that has been good for businesses.

Please explain this one to me, 'cause I can't find much good in Title IX, and what there is sure isn't in the business sense.

It forces universitities to fund money-losing propositions. How on earth is that good for business?

The p.r. benefits of having a women's water polo team surely aren't worth the expense considering how few people know or care that the team exists.

[albionmoonlight]

Why does Title IX have to be good for business. The EPA is not good for business. The EEOC is not good for business. The ADA is not good for business. Sometimes society decides to order priorities in a way that is not good for business. I might be too idealistic, but I have less of a problem when a UNIVERSITY is told to do something that is bad for business than when an entity whose sole purpose in life is to make profit for owners/shareholders is told to do something that is bad for business.

Of course, if Title IX is really bad for business, schools would not participate in it. Title IX only applies to schools that recieve federal funds. If a school believes that the application of Title IX combined with the federal funds that it receives is a net economic loss for the school, then it can simply refuse the funds. No school, of course, does this because the federal government provides more benefits to schools then Title IX could ever take away. In effect, the government is saying that, in exchange for money which you are free to take or not take, you need to provide equal educational opportunites to men and women.

One could argue that under section 5 of the 14th amendment that Congress could pass a Title IX law that is mandatory on all schools and is not tied to the acceptance of federal funds (much like businesses cannot hire based on race whether or not they receive federal funds). Congress did not do that. Congress instead left a choice for the schools. Just because Congress provides enough money to the schools that the choice is obvious does not mean that the taxpayers should not have some say in what happens to our money.

(FWIW, Bob Jones University was willing to give up 501(c)(3) status (a huge tax advantage because it lets people get a deduction for contributing to your school) in order to keep its ban on interracial dating. Some schools are willing to stand up to the fed for what they believe).

Originally posted by sterlingice
For every school which has found success in an area, I can point to another school like KU here which had to cancel a men's soccer program or cut a men's tennis program *because* of Title IX.

I would argue that Title IX is being used as a scapegoat here. The schools have lots of choices: they can make more women's athletic programs; they can cut the great god of football; they can refuse federal money; they can cut men's sports.

A university should at least have the gumption to admit that--faced with the above choices--they chose to cut men's tennis. Instead, they act like the President of the USA himself came down with Martha Burke and forced them to cut men's tennis and can't we all please write a letter to our congressman?

In the end--schools that receive federal money are obligated to provide the same educational opportunites for men as they are for women. I think this is a good policy, and I think that most people agree with that. Does the fact that DI football at some schools is a huge business mean that Title IX should be tweaked in the area of athletics? Perhaps--I'm willing to listen to suggestions. However, when a university turns Title IX (an overall good program) into a scapegoat and enemy when the university decides that football is more important that women's sports and men's non-football sports is not the way to enter into a constructive debate.

[MylesKnight]

...Back to the Main Topic at hand, Tulane University Football, here's a article from yesterday's New Orleans Times-Picyaune, detailing the situation..

Here's the Article

Apparently, a decision regarding TU's Football Future will be made this coming Tuesday. If the Green Wave Football Program is shut down, this certainly will play some kind of part in what happens with the whole Conference Reshuffling issue that will more than likely begin very shortly, when the Domino Effect of Miami & Co.'s move to the Big East trickles down to Tulane's Current Home, Conference-USA, and its options..

[QuikSand]

I don't see anything about Tulane football that merits CAPITAL LETTERING under any circumstance.

[MylesKnight]

QuikSand, oh how quickly we seem to have forgotten TU's 12-0 season and Top 10 National Ranking of just a handful of years ago.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
I would argue that Title IX is being used as a scapegoat here. The schools have lots of choices: they can make more women's athletic programs; they can cut the great god of football; they can refuse federal money; they can cut men's sports.

A university should at least have the gumption to admit that--faced with the above choices--they chose to cut men's tennis. Instead, they act like the President of the USA himself came down with Martha Burke and forced them to cut men's tennis and can't we all please write a letter to our congressman?

In the end--schools that receive federal money are obligated to provide the same educational opportunites for men as they are for women. I think this is a good policy, and I think that most people agree with that. Does the fact that DI football at some schools is a huge business mean that Title IX should be tweaked in the area of athletics? Perhaps--I'm willing to listen to suggestions. However, when a university turns Title IX (an overall good program) into a scapegoat and enemy when the university decides that football is more important that women's sports and men's non-football sports is not the way to enter into a constructive debate.

This is the same mantra that has been preached by Title IX appologists for years: "they should spend their money better". You try to dismiss this as just bad judgement on the university and that Title IX is a choice they made.

You cannot honestly tell me that refusing Title IX and thus public funding is a valid way to run a Division IA university. You are saying that a university should refuse money for the institution because of athletics. That sounds all well and good if you're a really rich private school, but that's not feasable for a university.

You choose to attack football calling it "big business". If no division IA football and basketball existed (i.e. the "evil" revenue generating sports), women's programs around the country would be all but gone because there would be no revenue to support any sports. Sports would go back to club level as opposed to the near minor-league status they hold now. The ironic part of this situation is that this would lead to a more realistic picture of satisfying interests as sports would once again be dominated by males because there is more interest there.

In the end--schools that receive federal money are obligated to provide the same educational opportunites for men as they are for women. I think this is a good policy, and I think that most people agree with that.

No matter how you slice it- this always comes down to fairness vs equality. You cannot choose one or the other just because it suits your purposes in one case and doesn't in another:

If you want equality and a 50/50 split of all, then I want 50% of those roaming the engineering halls being women because it certainly would make class more enjoyable and getting a job easier because there just aren't as many women as interested or as qualified. You cannot debate this fact: if this were the case, then 50% of the engineering school *would* be women right now because there are no artificial entry barriers for them: it's 90-10 based on interest.

If you want fairness, then you should provide opportunities based on interests. If women wanted sports teams as much as guys did, then why is the interest that much higher in guys teams? Go to a 70-30 or 60-40 split which is more representative of interests.

SI