Cleaning out the junk to focus on the key points

You claim Title IX is responsible for falling men's participation rates and I say it is primarily the arms race in revenue sports.

If it were Title IX then expenses on men's sports should shrink as total expenses get re-allocated to women's sports. But in fact, expenses on mens sports have risen dramatically while participation rates have fallen. This fact clearly highlights it is not Title IX driving the reductions in mens minor sports (although it certainly doesn't help) but mens football and basketball taking an increasing share of a growing pie.

You have not addressed the fact that expenditures on mens sports have grown significantly while participation rates have fallen.

The second major area of disagreement is between success at fund-raising versus success in their mission. Raising funds is not the mission of a non-profit.

The closest you come is your assertion it funds scholarships for the general population but you provide no data that any of that money actually gets back to the general student population in terms of increased scholarships. And remember this would be in total. Just like fees, for a select few fees may be reduced but for the whole population of D1A schools student fees have risen much faster than inflation.

Certainly the endowments of schools like the Ivy Leagues and private colleges like the Claremont Colleges would indicate no correlation between football success and general scholarship funding. Do you have any data to support your assertion? Most of the data I have seen is all money raised goes back into bloated football programs.

Lastly even if college were like the NFL and their mission was to earn profits, advocating cost containment is not going to kill the golden goose. It certainly hasn't killed the NFL. In fact, placing an expense cap on revenue sports like football or even all sports will in fact cause them to flourish. Which sport is healthier pro football which has cost containment or pro baseball which doesn't have cost containment?

(06-09-2013 01:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Cleaning out the junk to focus on the key points

You claim Title IX is responsible for falling men's participation rates and I say it is primarily the arms race in revenue sports.

If it were Title IX then expenses on men's sports should shrink as total expenses get re-allocated to women's sports. But in fact, expenses on mens sports have risen dramatically while participation rates have fallen. This fact clearly highlights it is not Title IX driving the reductions in mens minor sports (although it certainly doesn't help) but mens football and basketball taking an increasing share of a growing pie.

You have not addressed the fact that expenditures on mens sports have grown significantly while participation rates have fallen.

The second major area of disagreement is between success at fund-raising versus success in their mission. Raising funds is not the mission of a non-profit.

The closest you come is your assertion it funds scholarships for the general population but you provide no data that any of that money actually gets back to the general student population in terms of increased scholarships. And remember this would be in total. Just like fees, for a select few fees may be reduced but for the whole population of D1A schools student fees have risen much faster than inflation.

Certainly the endowments of schools like the Ivy Leagues and private colleges like the Claremont Colleges would indicate no correlation between football success and general scholarship funding. Do you have any data to support your assertion? Most of the data I have seen is all money raised goes back into bloated football programs.

Lastly even if college were like the NFL and their mission was to earn profits, advocating cost containment is not going to kill the golden goose. It certainly hasn't killed the NFL. In fact, placing an expense cap on revenue sports like football or even all sports will in fact cause them to flourish. Which sport is healthier pro football which has cost containment or pro baseball which doesn't have cost containment?

The cost of everything has risen. Travel is more expensive, equipment is more expensive, land is more expensive, housing is more expensive, food is more expensive, as is just about any other thing you can think of. So of course the cost of athletics has risen as well. It's called inflation...

However, at many universities football pays the bills. Without football, many universities would have no athletic programs at all. The monies generated by football goes to support many athletic programs at almost every major university. The monies used for improving facilities and other associated costs are raised by alumni support organizations...

As for participation rates falling, university populations are getting larger and larger, while the size of the teams stay the same. But I've noticed that more and more universities want to participate in FBS football, causing a dwindling number of FCS programs. So the number of schools that want to participate in football at the highest level isn't falling at all. It's rising. But the schools that can't keep up with the major programs are now complaining about spending, and want to limit the amount of monies spent, hoping it will allow them to remain competitive with the biggest programs. That can't legitimately compete, so they want to level the playing field by handicapping the bigger programs...

(06-09-2013 02:04 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 01:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Cleaning out the junk to focus on the key points

You claim Title IX is responsible for falling men's participation rates and I say it is primarily the arms race in revenue sports.

If it were Title IX then expenses on men's sports should shrink as total expenses get re-allocated to women's sports. But in fact, expenses on mens sports have risen dramatically while participation rates have fallen. This fact clearly highlights it is not Title IX driving the reductions in mens minor sports (although it certainly doesn't help) but mens football and basketball taking an increasing share of a growing pie.

You have not addressed the fact that expenditures on mens sports have grown significantly while participation rates have fallen.

The second major area of disagreement is between success at fund-raising versus success in their mission. Raising funds is not the mission of a non-profit.

The closest you come is your assertion it funds scholarships for the general population but you provide no data that any of that money actually gets back to the general student population in terms of increased scholarships. And remember this would be in total. Just like fees, for a select few fees may be reduced but for the whole population of D1A schools student fees have risen much faster than inflation.

Certainly the endowments of schools like the Ivy Leagues and private colleges like the Claremont Colleges would indicate no correlation between football success and general scholarship funding. Do you have any data to support your assertion? Most of the data I have seen is all money raised goes back into bloated football programs.

Lastly even if college were like the NFL and their mission was to earn profits, advocating cost containment is not going to kill the golden goose. It certainly hasn't killed the NFL. In fact, placing an expense cap on revenue sports like football or even all sports will in fact cause them to flourish. Which sport is healthier pro football which has cost containment or pro baseball which doesn't have cost containment?

The cost of everything has risen. Travel is more expensive, equipment is more expensive, land is more expensive, housing is more expensive, food is more expensive, as is just about any other thing you can think of. So of course the cost of athletics has risen as well. It's called inflation...

However, at many universities football pays the bills. Without football, many universities would have no athletic programs at all. The monies generated by football goes to support many athletic programs at almost every major university. The monies used for improving facilities and other associated costs are raised by alumni support organizations...

As for participation rates falling, university populations are getting larger and larger, while the size of the teams stay the same. But I've noticed that more and more universities want to participate in FBS football, causing a dwindling number of FCS programs. So the number of schools that want to participate in football at the highest level isn't falling at all. It's rising. But the schools that can't keep up with the major programs are now complaining about spending, and want to limit the amount of monies spent, hoping it will allow them to remain competitive with the biggest programs. That can't legitimately compete, so they want to level the playing field by handicapping the bigger programs...

I don't see any of the schools that can't keep up with the P5 complaining about spending. Either they spend or they don't, end of story.

(06-09-2013 06:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 02:04 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 01:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Cleaning out the junk to focus on the key points

You claim Title IX is responsible for falling men's participation rates and I say it is primarily the arms race in revenue sports.

If it were Title IX then expenses on men's sports should shrink as total expenses get re-allocated to women's sports. But in fact, expenses on mens sports have risen dramatically while participation rates have fallen. This fact clearly highlights it is not Title IX driving the reductions in mens minor sports (although it certainly doesn't help) but mens football and basketball taking an increasing share of a growing pie.

You have not addressed the fact that expenditures on mens sports have grown significantly while participation rates have fallen.

The second major area of disagreement is between success at fund-raising versus success in their mission. Raising funds is not the mission of a non-profit.

The closest you come is your assertion it funds scholarships for the general population but you provide no data that any of that money actually gets back to the general student population in terms of increased scholarships. And remember this would be in total. Just like fees, for a select few fees may be reduced but for the whole population of D1A schools student fees have risen much faster than inflation.

Certainly the endowments of schools like the Ivy Leagues and private colleges like the Claremont Colleges would indicate no correlation between football success and general scholarship funding. Do you have any data to support your assertion? Most of the data I have seen is all money raised goes back into bloated football programs.

Lastly even if college were like the NFL and their mission was to earn profits, advocating cost containment is not going to kill the golden goose. It certainly hasn't killed the NFL. In fact, placing an expense cap on revenue sports like football or even all sports will in fact cause them to flourish. Which sport is healthier pro football which has cost containment or pro baseball which doesn't have cost containment?

The cost of everything has risen. Travel is more expensive, equipment is more expensive, land is more expensive, housing is more expensive, food is more expensive, as is just about any other thing you can think of. So of course the cost of athletics has risen as well. It's called inflation...

However, at many universities football pays the bills. Without football, many universities would have no athletic programs at all. The monies generated by football goes to support many athletic programs at almost every major university. The monies used for improving facilities and other associated costs are raised by alumni support organizations...

As for participation rates falling, university populations are getting larger and larger, while the size of the teams stay the same. But I've noticed that more and more universities want to participate in FBS football, causing a dwindling number of FCS programs. So the number of schools that want to participate in football at the highest level isn't falling at all. It's rising. But the schools that can't keep up with the major programs are now complaining about spending, and want to limit the amount of monies spent, hoping it will allow them to remain competitive with the biggest programs. That can't legitimately compete, so they want to level the playing field by handicapping the bigger programs...

I don't see any of the schools that can't keep up with the P5 complaining about spending. Either they spend or they don't, end of story.

Just curious when does it end. Many of the P5 are already in trouble and cutting sports: Cal, Maryland. Does it end when we have 20 schools who all make over 100M because that is what happens in Free markets.

(06-09-2013 01:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Cleaning out the junk to focus on the key points

You claim Title IX is responsible for falling men's participation rates and I say it is primarily the arms race in revenue sports.

If it were Title IX then expenses on men's sports should shrink as total expenses get re-allocated to women's sports. But in fact, expenses on mens sports have risen dramatically while participation rates have fallen. This fact clearly highlights it is not Title IX driving the reductions in mens minor sports (although it certainly doesn't help) but mens football and basketball taking an increasing share of a growing pie.

You have not addressed the fact that expenditures on mens sports have grown significantly while participation rates have fallen.

First, let's just be clear that there is no debate that Title IX has had that effect. Any time this gets discussed in any public forum with experts at the table, the logic of Title IX's imposition on men's sports is a foregone conclusion.

Second, in order to consider the validity of your conclusions, I would need to see your data source for your assertions--what years it looks at, what schools it takes into account, and very importantly, whether the calculation is limited to non-revenue men's sports.

Provide that, and maybe then we have some ground for coming to agreement. (Not holding my breath, but if you come up with it, you'll gain some big-time credibility points.)

(06-09-2013 01:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  The second major area of disagreement is between success at fund-raising versus success in their mission. Raising funds is not the mission of a non-profit.

The closest you come is your assertion it funds scholarships for the general population but you provide no data that any of that money actually gets back to the general student population in terms of increased scholarships. And remember this would be in total. Just like fees, for a select few fees may be reduced but for the whole population of D1A schools student fees have risen much faster than inflation.

Certainly the endowments of schools like the Ivy Leagues and private colleges like the Claremont Colleges would indicate no correlation between football success and general scholarship funding. Do you have any data to support your assertion? Most of the data I have seen is all money raised goes back into bloated football programs.

"Raising funds is not the mission of a non-profit."

My friend, I can only conclude that you must not have ever been employed in any kind of executive position by a non-profit. Is it "the" mission... no. But it is ALWAYS "a" mission. I am telling you this as someone who has about 25 years' worth of getting his paycheck from one non-profit org or another.

Among those positions was one where I oversaw the development office of a college... one where, during my stay, we started a football program. I can tell you first-hand that it was begun partially out of the recognition that having football provides exceptional opportunities for fundraising to occur, most of which would be funds that DIRECTLY impact the "general student population." And actually, I was also at a second institution when that school started a program, though I'd moved to a different kind of position. In both instances, the presidents of both of the schools with which I was associated were not shy to acknowledge that they'd sought the establishment of a football program for the benefit of institutional advancement pursuits.

As stated previously... though notably without any specific attempt at a counterpoint... "it would be an unheard-of thing for an organization, no matter who they are, non-profit or for-profit, to not desire to have greater financial resources to support its endeavors."

You've asked for data... and my response is that that's probably available through a source like The Chronicle of Philanthropy or The Chronicle of Higher Ed... but it's not actually as relevant to the point as it is to simply assert that it is the widespread PERCEPTION of universities' leadership that having football increases capacity to grow in terms of both new student recruitment and private funding. These are the people whose actual jobs depend on them being right about that question... it's not just some random interesting academic inquiry... and the fact is, while some are adding football, and others are trying to elevate their football to ever-higher divisions... there is almost none of them, regardless of division, who have concluded that they'd rather not have football.

That speaks for itself.

(06-09-2013 01:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Lastly even if college were like the NFL and their mission was to earn profits, advocating cost containment is not going to kill the golden goose. It certainly hasn't killed the NFL. In fact, placing an expense cap on revenue sports like football or even all sports will in fact cause them to flourish. Which sport is healthier pro football which has cost containment or pro baseball which doesn't have cost containment?

Ah, but then there's those damn detail devils...

a) There *is* a players salary cap in college football. That is, players are restricted as to what they can earn off the field, and of course, are limited to the benefit of free schooling.

b) There is no other cost containment structure in the NFL beyond the players salary cap.

You want a cap on college coaches' salaries? There is no such thing in the NFL. And again... another point that you've avoided addressing... it's not even possible to impose that on coaches unless they were to have a union and some collective bargaining agreement that would prescribe the parameters.

It's a non-starter because we live in America.

c1) It's mostly pointless to try to derive any solid conclusions when comparing professional sports... baseball, for instance and since you brought it up, simply isn't as popular these days as it once was. Is that completely or even almost completely because there is no salary cap in baseball? Interestingly, I once conducted an online survey and gained about 160 responses from baseball fans from all over the US, and the big-market/small-market issue--a reasonably fair proxy for any discussion of the need for a salary cap--barely registered. That surprised me... and, yes, even disappointed me.

c2) The salary cap itself is only one variable in the equation that has made the NFL the financial success that it has grown to be. And in fact, some have made the case that the bigger deal has been the Jerry Jones effect, limiting the degree to which revenue sharing takes place while allowing teams to control their own merchandising deals locally.

(06-09-2013 11:58 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 02:04 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 01:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Cleaning out the junk to focus on the key points

You claim Title IX is responsible for falling men's participation rates and I say it is primarily the arms race in revenue sports.

If it were Title IX then expenses on men's sports should shrink as total expenses get re-allocated to women's sports. But in fact, expenses on mens sports have risen dramatically while participation rates have fallen. This fact clearly highlights it is not Title IX driving the reductions in mens minor sports (although it certainly doesn't help) but mens football and basketball taking an increasing share of a growing pie.

You have not addressed the fact that expenditures on mens sports have grown significantly while participation rates have fallen.

The second major area of disagreement is between success at fund-raising versus success in their mission. Raising funds is not the mission of a non-profit.

The closest you come is your assertion it funds scholarships for the general population but you provide no data that any of that money actually gets back to the general student population in terms of increased scholarships. And remember this would be in total. Just like fees, for a select few fees may be reduced but for the whole population of D1A schools student fees have risen much faster than inflation.

Certainly the endowments of schools like the Ivy Leagues and private colleges like the Claremont Colleges would indicate no correlation between football success and general scholarship funding. Do you have any data to support your assertion? Most of the data I have seen is all money raised goes back into bloated football programs.

Lastly even if college were like the NFL and their mission was to earn profits, advocating cost containment is not going to kill the golden goose. It certainly hasn't killed the NFL. In fact, placing an expense cap on revenue sports like football or even all sports will in fact cause them to flourish. Which sport is healthier pro football which has cost containment or pro baseball which doesn't have cost containment?

The cost of everything has risen. Travel is more expensive, equipment is more expensive, land is more expensive, housing is more expensive, food is more expensive, as is just about any other thing you can think of. So of course the cost of athletics has risen as well. It's called inflation...

However, at many universities football pays the bills. Without football, many universities would have no athletic programs at all. The monies generated by football goes to support many athletic programs at almost every major university. The monies used for improving facilities and other associated costs are raised by alumni support organizations...

As for participation rates falling, university populations are getting larger and larger, while the size of the teams stay the same. But I've noticed that more and more universities want to participate in FBS football, causing a dwindling number of FCS programs. So the number of schools that want to participate in football at the highest level isn't falling at all. It's rising. But the schools that can't keep up with the major programs are now complaining about spending, and want to limit the amount of monies spent, hoping it will allow them to remain competitive with the biggest programs. That can't legitimately compete, so they want to level the playing field by handicapping the bigger programs...

I don't see any of the schools that can't keep up with the P5 complaining about spending. Either they spend or they don't, end of story.

Just curious when does it end. Many of the P5 are already in trouble and cutting sports: Cal, Maryland. Does it end when we have 20 schools who all make over 100M because that is what happens in Free markets.

WVU just added up a new athletic program - golf...

(06-09-2013 11:58 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 02:04 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 01:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Cleaning out the junk to focus on the key points

You claim Title IX is responsible for falling men's participation rates and I say it is primarily the arms race in revenue sports.

If it were Title IX then expenses on men's sports should shrink as total expenses get re-allocated to women's sports. But in fact, expenses on mens sports have risen dramatically while participation rates have fallen. This fact clearly highlights it is not Title IX driving the reductions in mens minor sports (although it certainly doesn't help) but mens football and basketball taking an increasing share of a growing pie.

You have not addressed the fact that expenditures on mens sports have grown significantly while participation rates have fallen.

The second major area of disagreement is between success at fund-raising versus success in their mission. Raising funds is not the mission of a non-profit.

The closest you come is your assertion it funds scholarships for the general population but you provide no data that any of that money actually gets back to the general student population in terms of increased scholarships. And remember this would be in total. Just like fees, for a select few fees may be reduced but for the whole population of D1A schools student fees have risen much faster than inflation.

Certainly the endowments of schools like the Ivy Leagues and private colleges like the Claremont Colleges would indicate no correlation between football success and general scholarship funding. Do you have any data to support your assertion? Most of the data I have seen is all money raised goes back into bloated football programs.

Lastly even if college were like the NFL and their mission was to earn profits, advocating cost containment is not going to kill the golden goose. It certainly hasn't killed the NFL. In fact, placing an expense cap on revenue sports like football or even all sports will in fact cause them to flourish. Which sport is healthier pro football which has cost containment or pro baseball which doesn't have cost containment?

The cost of everything has risen. Travel is more expensive, equipment is more expensive, land is more expensive, housing is more expensive, food is more expensive, as is just about any other thing you can think of. So of course the cost of athletics has risen as well. It's called inflation...

However, at many universities football pays the bills. Without football, many universities would have no athletic programs at all. The monies generated by football goes to support many athletic programs at almost every major university. The monies used for improving facilities and other associated costs are raised by alumni support organizations...

As for participation rates falling, university populations are getting larger and larger, while the size of the teams stay the same. But I've noticed that more and more universities want to participate in FBS football, causing a dwindling number of FCS programs. So the number of schools that want to participate in football at the highest level isn't falling at all. It's rising. But the schools that can't keep up with the major programs are now complaining about spending, and want to limit the amount of monies spent, hoping it will allow them to remain competitive with the biggest programs. That can't legitimately compete, so they want to level the playing field by handicapping the bigger programs...

I don't see any of the schools that can't keep up with the P5 complaining about spending. Either they spend or they don't, end of story.

Just curious when does it end. Many of the P5 are already in trouble and cutting sports: Cal, Maryland. Does it end when we have 20 schools who all make over 100M because that is what happens in Free markets.

Could be. It might get more and more elitist.

(06-10-2013 08:25 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 11:58 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 02:04 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 01:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Cleaning out the junk to focus on the key points

You claim Title IX is responsible for falling men's participation rates and I say it is primarily the arms race in revenue sports.

If it were Title IX then expenses on men's sports should shrink as total expenses get re-allocated to women's sports. But in fact, expenses on mens sports have risen dramatically while participation rates have fallen. This fact clearly highlights it is not Title IX driving the reductions in mens minor sports (although it certainly doesn't help) but mens football and basketball taking an increasing share of a growing pie.

You have not addressed the fact that expenditures on mens sports have grown significantly while participation rates have fallen.

The second major area of disagreement is between success at fund-raising versus success in their mission. Raising funds is not the mission of a non-profit.

The closest you come is your assertion it funds scholarships for the general population but you provide no data that any of that money actually gets back to the general student population in terms of increased scholarships. And remember this would be in total. Just like fees, for a select few fees may be reduced but for the whole population of D1A schools student fees have risen much faster than inflation.

Certainly the endowments of schools like the Ivy Leagues and private colleges like the Claremont Colleges would indicate no correlation between football success and general scholarship funding. Do you have any data to support your assertion? Most of the data I have seen is all money raised goes back into bloated football programs.

Lastly even if college were like the NFL and their mission was to earn profits, advocating cost containment is not going to kill the golden goose. It certainly hasn't killed the NFL. In fact, placing an expense cap on revenue sports like football or even all sports will in fact cause them to flourish. Which sport is healthier pro football which has cost containment or pro baseball which doesn't have cost containment?

The cost of everything has risen. Travel is more expensive, equipment is more expensive, land is more expensive, housing is more expensive, food is more expensive, as is just about any other thing you can think of. So of course the cost of athletics has risen as well. It's called inflation...

However, at many universities football pays the bills. Without football, many universities would have no athletic programs at all. The monies generated by football goes to support many athletic programs at almost every major university. The monies used for improving facilities and other associated costs are raised by alumni support organizations...

As for participation rates falling, university populations are getting larger and larger, while the size of the teams stay the same. But I've noticed that more and more universities want to participate in FBS football, causing a dwindling number of FCS programs. So the number of schools that want to participate in football at the highest level isn't falling at all. It's rising. But the schools that can't keep up with the major programs are now complaining about spending, and want to limit the amount of monies spent, hoping it will allow them to remain competitive with the biggest programs. That can't legitimately compete, so they want to level the playing field by handicapping the bigger programs...

I don't see any of the schools that can't keep up with the P5 complaining about spending. Either they spend or they don't, end of story.

Just curious when does it end. Many of the P5 are already in trouble and cutting sports: Cal, Maryland. Does it end when we have 20 schools who all make over 100M because that is what happens in Free markets.

WVU just added up a new athletic program - golf...

I'm surprised WVU didn't already have golf.

Only in college can one build an 80-100K seat stadium and restrict its usage to six or seven Saturdays in the late summer and fall months, or a 15-20K basketball arena that has exclusive use just for a basketball team.

...and what does it say when the pros use college facilities during practice months?

Title IX my butt. This is an arm's race.

(06-10-2013 09:58 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:25 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 11:58 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 02:04 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The cost of everything has risen. Travel is more expensive, equipment is more expensive, land is more expensive, housing is more expensive, food is more expensive, as is just about any other thing you can think of. So of course the cost of athletics has risen as well. It's called inflation...

However, at many universities football pays the bills. Without football, many universities would have no athletic programs at all. The monies generated by football goes to support many athletic programs at almost every major university. The monies used for improving facilities and other associated costs are raised by alumni support organizations...

As for participation rates falling, university populations are getting larger and larger, while the size of the teams stay the same. But I've noticed that more and more universities want to participate in FBS football, causing a dwindling number of FCS programs. So the number of schools that want to participate in football at the highest level isn't falling at all. It's rising. But the schools that can't keep up with the major programs are now complaining about spending, and want to limit the amount of monies spent, hoping it will allow them to remain competitive with the biggest programs. That can't legitimately compete, so they want to level the playing field by handicapping the bigger programs...

I don't see any of the schools that can't keep up with the P5 complaining about spending. Either they spend or they don't, end of story.

Just curious when does it end. Many of the P5 are already in trouble and cutting sports: Cal, Maryland. Does it end when we have 20 schools who all make over 100M because that is what happens in Free markets.

WVU just added up a new athletic program - golf...

I'm surprised WVU didn't already have golf.

WVU's golf program was discontinued due to Title IX in 1982 Many in the alumni base wanted WVU to restart the men's track program, which was discontinued due to Title IX as well, but golf was selected for resurrection instead of track, due to the lower overall cost of a golf program...

(06-10-2013 01:30 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 09:58 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:25 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 11:58 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I don't see any of the schools that can't keep up with the P5 complaining about spending. Either they spend or they don't, end of story.

Just curious when does it end. Many of the P5 are already in trouble and cutting sports: Cal, Maryland. Does it end when we have 20 schools who all make over 100M because that is what happens in Free markets.

WVU just added up a new athletic program - golf...

I'm surprised WVU didn't already have golf.

WVU's golf program was discontinued due to Title IX in 1982 Many in the alumni base wanted WVU to restart the men's track program, which was discontinued due to Title IX as well, but golf was selected for resurrection instead of track, due to the lower overall cost of a golf program...

I see. We lost a very good men's gymnastics program due to Title IX. They shoulda kept the gymnastics and cut basketball.

(06-10-2013 01:10 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 01:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Cleaning out the junk to focus on the key points

You claim Title IX is responsible for falling men's participation rates and I say it is primarily the arms race in revenue sports.

If it were Title IX then expenses on men's sports should shrink as total expenses get re-allocated to women's sports. But in fact, expenses on mens sports have risen dramatically while participation rates have fallen. This fact clearly highlights it is not Title IX driving the reductions in mens minor sports (although it certainly doesn't help) but mens football and basketball taking an increasing share of a growing pie.

You have not addressed the fact that expenditures on mens sports have grown significantly while participation rates have fallen.

First, let's just be clear that there is no debate that Title IX has had that effect. Any time this gets discussed in any public forum with experts at the table, the logic of Title IX's imposition on men's sports is a foregone conclusion.

Second, in order to consider the validity of your conclusions, I would need to see your data source for your assertions--what years it looks at, what schools it takes into account, and very importantly, whether the calculation is limited to non-revenue men's sports.

Provide that, and maybe then we have some ground for coming to agreement. (Not holding my breath, but if you come up with it, you'll gain some big-time credibility points.)

so one item at a time as I have work to do.....

here is the link on participation rates
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productd...PR2013.pdf

Here is the link on Revenue
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/co...54955804/1

Let me summarize the data for you.....

Total D1 Revenue in just the last 5 years has increased at a rate of 7.72% CAGR

Student fees have increased at a rate of 9.59% CAGR

For D1 Total male participation rates from 1981-82 to 2011-12 has risen for all men .66% CAGR. If I correct for Cross Country/Indoor Track which use the same athletes as Outdoor Track and remove Football and basketball men's participation has grown .3% CAGR

Compare this with D3 which has the same Title IX requirements but is not suffering form the same arm race in football and basketball.
Growth in total male participation rates has been for the same time period equals 1.94% CAGR and the adjusted participation rate is 1.78%. Almost 6 times the CAGR of the D1 rate.

So for D1 they are growing revenue at a tremendous rate 7.72%. Very little of that is going to increase men's participation rates which are growing at .3% versus 1.78% for D3 which has much less revenue growth and the same Title IX constraints.

At top of that they are increasing student fees at a rate of 9.59% a year which probably far exceeds any non-sports scholarships they provide via football funding.

Thank you for being honest enough to not attempt math-quackery.

So, contrary to the assertion that men's athletics participation is decreasing, you found that it's essentially static, at less than a 1% change in participation (?).

Seems we can set that discussion aside then. The claim was bogus.

D3? Think this through. D3 isn't relevant b/c it doesn't provide any apples-to-apples perspective... when D3 schools add 10 new participation opportunities, that's naturally going to represent a stunningly higher ratio than D1 simply because those 10 new slots represent a greater percentage of what had been available previously. Think of it in terms of stocks... D1 would represent your large caps, D3 your small caps... in a bull market, the small caps conventionally speaking will experience greater gains simply because their baselines were smaller and they had greater room to grow.

Backing up to the bigger picture, then, you'd suggested earlier that football and basketball were claiming greater pieces of a "growing pie."

Let's say for the sake of argument that that's correct. It might be.

Claiming greater pieces of of a growing pie is okay by me, that is, as long as those sports are indeed generating increasing amounts of overall funding and support, whether directly or indirectly, for the college to expand and grow... whether men's sports or women's sports or overall enrollment or support for new and innovative programming or scholarships or whatever. And yes, that second part... indirect funding... is, of course, the tricky part to assess. Who can make an accurate assessment of just how important it was to the persuasion of T Boone's buddy to give to OK State that T Boone and the OK State pres made him feel important at an OSU football game, right? But we come back to this undeniable point... if university presidents (whose jobs are on the line according to their ability to advance their universities) thought football was, indeed, holding them back, we ought to see at least some movement to retrench from the sport... but we see practically none of that anywhere... so we're left to conclude that it is strongly believed that it helps more than it hinders.

(06-10-2013 04:11 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Thank you for being honest enough to not attempt math-quackery.

So, contrary to the assertion that men's athletics participation is decreasing, you found that it's essentially static, at less than a 1% change in participation (?).

Seems we can set that discussion aside then. The claim was bogus.

D3? Think this through. D3 isn't relevant b/c it doesn't provide any apples-to-apples perspective... when D3 schools add 10 new participation opportunities, that's naturally going to represent a stunningly higher ratio than D1 simply because those 10 new slots represent a greater percentage of what had been available previously. Think of it in terms of stocks... D1 would represent your large caps, D3 your small caps... in a bull market, the small caps conventionally speaking will experience greater gains simply because their baselines were smaller and they had greater room to grow.

Backing up to the bigger picture, then, you'd suggested earlier that football and basketball were claiming greater pieces of a "growing pie."

Let's say for the sake of argument that that's correct. It might be.

Claiming greater pieces of of a growing pie is okay by me, that is, as long as those sports are indeed generating increasing amounts of overall funding and support, whether directly or indirectly, for the college to expand and grow... whether men's sports or women's sports or overall enrollment or support for new and innovative programming or scholarships or whatever. And yes, that second part... indirect funding... is, of course, the tricky part to assess. Who can make an accurate assessment of just how important it was to the persuasion of T Boone's buddy to give to OK State that T Boone and the OK State pres made him feel important at an OSU football game, right? But we come back to this undeniable point... if university presidents (whose jobs are on the line according to their ability to advance their universities) thought football was, indeed, holding them back, we ought to see at least some movement to retrench from the sport... but we see practically none of that anywhere... so we're left to conclude that it is strongly believed that it helps more than it hinders.

It is not bogus. It would be a slight increase if the population was static. The population is not static, it is growing and the participation rate is flat. I looked for population data for 1981 and 2012 data on 18-24 year olds but could not find it easily. It is roughly around 1.5% CAGR. That means as a percentage of the population the options/participation rate for men's sports in D1 are falling while revenue is skyrocketing. Since you like financial analogies it would be the equivalent of investing in a CD paying .3% while inflation is 3% and thinking you are getting ahead when in reality you are falling behind by an order of magnitude every year.

You clearly didn't look at the data as the number of participants in D3 are more than in D1 for every sport but Football. So your basically full of it. Title IX can't explain the 6X delta in CAGR.... Basically D3 is flat if you estimate population growth while D1 is falling.

If the revenue resulted in more participation in football and basketball than I would agree that getting more of the pie if fine but that isn't really the case either. So clearly the arms race is counter to the stated NCAA mission of increasing participation rates....

Your whole argument rests on the unsubstantiated belief that some benefit of football to overall revenue generation on the academic side. This belief has not shown to be true and plenty people believed the world was flat. Others have provided data that in fact it detracts from fund raising on that side by sucking the air out of the room.

I have shown the data when will you.

Your bias here is incredible.

(06-10-2013 02:28 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 01:30 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 09:58 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:25 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 11:58 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Just curious when does it end. Many of the P5 are already in trouble and cutting sports: Cal, Maryland. Does it end when we have 20 schools who all make over 100M because that is what happens in Free markets.

WVU just added up a new athletic program - golf...

I'm surprised WVU didn't already have golf.

WVU's golf program was discontinued due to Title IX in 1982 Many in the alumni base wanted WVU to restart the men's track program, which was discontinued due to Title IX as well, but golf was selected for resurrection instead of track, due to the lower overall cost of a golf program...

I see. We lost a very good men's gymnastics program due to Title IX. They shoulda kept the gymnastics and cut basketball.

Clearly you guys don't get the point. Originally, I blamed all the losses of men's programs on Title IX, but the fact is as much of the blame if not more lies at the feet of the arm's race in football and basketball.

Sac, I'll get back to you, but like you evidently, have a job that sometimes actually requires some of my time... I do appreciate the effort to drag some numbers into the discussion.

(06-10-2013 01:10 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  My friend, I can only conclude that you must not have ever been employed in any kind of executive position by a non-profit. Is it "the" mission... no. But it is ALWAYS "a" mission. I am telling you this as someone who has about 25 years' worth of getting his paycheck from one non-profit org or another.

Among those positions was one where I oversaw the development office of a college... one where, during my stay, we started a football program. I can tell you first-hand that it was begun partially out of the recognition that having football provides exceptional opportunities for fundraising to occur, most of which would be funds that DIRECTLY impact the "general student population." And actually, I was also at a second institution when that school started a program, though I'd moved to a different kind of position. In both instances, the presidents of both of the schools with which I was associated were not shy to acknowledge that they'd sought the establishment of a football program for the benefit of institutional advancement pursuits.

As stated previously... though notably without any specific attempt at a counterpoint... "it would be an unheard-of thing for an organization, no matter who they are, non-profit or for-profit, to not desire to have greater financial resources to support its endeavors."

I know plenty about non-profits. Yes every non-profit desires more resources to meet their stated objective. However their stated objective is by definition not profit. Revenue is a means an not an end for a non-profit. I have already shown that it doesn't help meet the stated "ends" of athletic competition. It is failing miserably.

(06-10-2013 01:10 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  You've asked for data... and my response is that that's probably available through a source like The Chronicle of Philanthropy or The Chronicle of Higher Ed... but it's not actually as relevant to the point as it is to simply assert that it is the widespread PERCEPTION of universities' leadership that having football increases capacity to grow in terms of both new student recruitment and private funding. These are the people whose actual jobs depend on them being right about that question... it's not just some random interesting academic inquiry...

What speaks for itself is you still cannot provide any data that shows this is still true. The world is littered with people who lost in the market/etc. because their perception stayed the same while reality shifted underneath them. The perception you state was established in the 60's, 70's and 80's before the dramatic escalation in costs. It is not true in total at any price. You show no data that the perception is still true and we haven't reached a tipping point.

(06-10-2013 01:10 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Ah, but then there's those damn detail devils...

a) There *is* a players salary cap in college football. That is, players are restricted as to what they can earn off the field, and of course, are limited to the benefit of free schooling.

b) There is no other cost containment structure in the NFL beyond the players salary cap.

You want a cap on college coaches' salaries? There is no such thing in the NFL. And again... another point that you've avoided addressing... it's not even possible to impose that on coaches unless they were to have a union and some collective bargaining agreement that would prescribe the parameters.

It's a non-starter because we live in America.

First off, I said a cap on all Expenses for Football not coach's salaries per say so conceivably the AD could decide do I need the training table, a 9th combination of uniforms or to pay my coach another 100K.

Second, America has provided anti-trust exemptions previously and it could be provided for college sports if deemed important. So even if the coaches wanted to file a anti-trust lawsuit they would be prevented and they would be free to create their own union.

(06-10-2013 08:11 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Sac, I'll get back to you, but like you evidently, have a job that sometimes actually requires some of my time... I do appreciate the effort to drag some numbers into the discussion.

Yeah I hear you...... fortunately for me the company email went down today so I have a little more time. No hurry.

College is for football. Academics are just something you tolerate in between football games. (kidding)

Why is there such focus on the expenses of power college programs (outside of the consternation of those outside of the power club)? Why would there be an expense cap imposed when literally no other non-profits in this country are subject to such caps? And yes, there are some massive non-profits that are explicitly revenue hungry, such as hospitals. Not even a massive government program like ObamaCare (regardless of what you personally think of it) caps the salaries of hospital CEOs that can absolutely make as much or more than college coaches (hospital CEOs in large metro areas generally make at least $1 million per year and major medical center leaders are compensated much more than that). What is the point of a proposed expense cap regulation in college sports other than making the power conference schools come down to the level of non-power schools? Why is excellence and making money inherently a bad thing?

The one inherent inequity in college sports has nothing to do with coaches or the gap between the power conferences or the non-power conferences, but rather the fact that players aren't getting paid what the fair market value for their services are worth. The players should be sharing in all of that revenue that they're creating. In essence, what we really need is deregulation in college sports on that issue if you want to address "fairness" (as opposed to simply punishing successful schools and revenue generators by attempting to cap expenses and reduce revenue).