06-24-2007, 02:30 PM
Interesting segment on Outside the Lines today on Title IX, but also one I'm sure that the ETSU athletic administration was taking notes from.
The segment showed how Rutgers and James Madison were enjoying football success but having to cut non-revenue mens sports- despite being successful.
Myles Brand was on and said that we shouldn't blame Title IX. That the financial pressures that lead to schools dropping sports like men's crew or track was because there was too much spent on football locker rooms and the like, not that we have to make sure there are an equal amount of mens and women's scholarships.
To which I said- POPPYCOCK!
The schools that have these luxurious football facilities Brand is talking about- Florida, Ohio State, etc. have $65 million athletic budgets and are not cutting their track teams.
Actually, that's a lie. Ohio State has a $101,000,000 athletic budget.
Compare that to Rutgers, that desperately wanted to compete in football on that national level. However, their overall athletic budget was $41,000,000.
Hardly chump change, but if the Buckeyes have 60% more of an athletic budget, you can see why they can do things Rutgers can't.
So what Brand is basically saying is that Rutgers should just keep losing in football, or maybe cut that program altogether, instead of unfairly eliminating crew or something so that their university can have the same kind of popular stature Penn State or Notre Dame has.
Of course, this is the logic ETSU used to cut football.
I don't mean to give ETSU a free pass for their ill-fated decision. Yes- I think Title IX is a bad rule- and you can call me a chauvanist if you like- but I do think it's folly to try and put women's golf on the same level as men's basketball- as altruistic as that philosophy may be.
I think Title IX should be done away with.
But it seems as firmly entranced as the DH rule or shootouts in hockey, so if Brand believes in it what has to happen is he has to work on leveling the playing field between Florida and James Madison instead of complaining about the Gators' locker rooms.
What I do think has to happen is ETSU has to take a more proactive stance. Their athletic budget is $6 million. Clearly, they can't compete with that.
So you have to challenge the sports fans of the area. You have to say that rooting for the Vols or Hokies or whoever is selling out your town.
It will be unpopular to some and embraced by others. But you'll have a real rivalry- a real identity- and the idea of "Yeah, why should I give X amount of dollars to Knoxville when I could use that to promote my own region" will take hold to enough people that you'll be able to improve.
Of course, in order to do that, you're going to have to have more to offer than a No. 51 ranking in tennis and No. 13 in golf. You're going to have to actively say you're looking to get into a larger conference.
Really nothing we haven't said before on these boards, but the Outside the Lines segment really brought it to light to me today.
The segment showed how Rutgers and James Madison were enjoying football success but having to cut non-revenue mens sports- despite being successful.
Myles Brand was on and said that we shouldn't blame Title IX. That the financial pressures that lead to schools dropping sports like men's crew or track was because there was too much spent on football locker rooms and the like, not that we have to make sure there are an equal amount of mens and women's scholarships.
To which I said- POPPYCOCK!
The schools that have these luxurious football facilities Brand is talking about- Florida, Ohio State, etc. have $65 million athletic budgets and are not cutting their track teams.
Actually, that's a lie. Ohio State has a $101,000,000 athletic budget.
Compare that to Rutgers, that desperately wanted to compete in football on that national level. However, their overall athletic budget was $41,000,000.
Hardly chump change, but if the Buckeyes have 60% more of an athletic budget, you can see why they can do things Rutgers can't.
So what Brand is basically saying is that Rutgers should just keep losing in football, or maybe cut that program altogether, instead of unfairly eliminating crew or something so that their university can have the same kind of popular stature Penn State or Notre Dame has.
Of course, this is the logic ETSU used to cut football.
I don't mean to give ETSU a free pass for their ill-fated decision. Yes- I think Title IX is a bad rule- and you can call me a chauvanist if you like- but I do think it's folly to try and put women's golf on the same level as men's basketball- as altruistic as that philosophy may be.
I think Title IX should be done away with.
But it seems as firmly entranced as the DH rule or shootouts in hockey, so if Brand believes in it what has to happen is he has to work on leveling the playing field between Florida and James Madison instead of complaining about the Gators' locker rooms.
What I do think has to happen is ETSU has to take a more proactive stance. Their athletic budget is $6 million. Clearly, they can't compete with that.
So you have to challenge the sports fans of the area. You have to say that rooting for the Vols or Hokies or whoever is selling out your town.
It will be unpopular to some and embraced by others. But you'll have a real rivalry- a real identity- and the idea of "Yeah, why should I give X amount of dollars to Knoxville when I could use that to promote my own region" will take hold to enough people that you'll be able to improve.
Of course, in order to do that, you're going to have to have more to offer than a No. 51 ranking in tennis and No. 13 in golf. You're going to have to actively say you're looking to get into a larger conference.
Really nothing we haven't said before on these boards, but the Outside the Lines segment really brought it to light to me today.