The drama at UAB, and to a lesser extent Uconn (and even Temple) which have made its way into a national conversation about the role of football in a university'students mission illuminates a hard practical reality.
Politics in the gross sense aside, UAB's minor sports coaches have come out in force against shuttering UAB's football program. Notably, it's women's teams coaches are leading the charge. Obviously, eliminating 85 men's scholarships frees UAB up to offset a fair number of women's scholarships. I guess Title IX giveth and Title IX taketh away.
Temple's reduction of its minor sports is an example of a university taking an opposite tack. In a simplified sense, Temple believes a strong football program and a leaner minor sports program will allow it to remain competitive in collegiate athletics, presumably in an on the field sense of the word, and in a financial sense.
The debate at Uconn about its experiment in big time football providing a net benefit to the department as a whole, and in particular, it's basketball program, is certainly a legitimate one. Having to schedule OOC bb games as a practical independent is showing its impact on the fanbase. Whether calling the AAC a trainwreck, a death sentence, or whatever hyperbolic pronouncements a fan utters in attempting to capture the urgency of the situation, a forceful dialog is the end result.
Implicit in these issues, and the theme that binds them, is the overiding sense that the current system is unsustainable. The one common issue is the aggrandizement of the power conferences of both revenue and power. Looking forward, I really feel for the first time that a dominoe is somewhere out there that might hasten the conclusion of this debate. At some point someone on a position to decide these things will say enough is enough. You can't compete in a rigged game. My guess it will be a school like Umass. UAB, less likely. And when it does, it will allow those in a position of power to assess the outcome. And if it is favorable, that's when the dominoes start falling.
The sad thought is, I really see no way that this can be stopped.
If I were a woman in a minor sport, I would want to play for an University that is having their men's basketball and football players paid. Title IX will ensure equity. Now my question is, will having both men's football and basketball being paid equate to more women being paid or more women's sports? I think in either case, more is better.
Baseball and softball are not exactly minor sports. Temple having to cut both of them was the exception to the rule, not the norm.
Temple's belief is certainly not unreasonable, let's see if it can work.
(11-26-2014 10:24 PM)Dasville Wrote: [ -> ]If I were a woman in a minor sport, I would want to play for an University that is having their men's basketball and football players paid. Title IX will ensure equity. Now my question is, will having both men's football and basketball being paid equate to more women being paid or more women's sports? I think in either case, more is better.
The moment men are paid and women not is the moment law suit begin being filed. The same is to be expected from other mens sports.
(11-26-2014 09:57 PM)BE4evah Wrote: [ -> ]I guess Title IX giveth and Title IX taketh away.
Some truth in that, yes.
I understand title nine guaranteeing opportunity .
Making non revenue sports equal to revenue sports is unfair.
I expect some rules changes to make college athletics less costly.
1. Allowing football only conference's
2. Modifying title nine.
3. Reducing the number of sports required.
Before schools drop football they will try making changes.
The greedy NFL lite P5 will experience a backlash from their own administration's.
A wall of text just to say he hates that Uconn left the Big East because of football.
(11-27-2014 09:52 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote: [ -> ]A wall of text just to say he hates that Uconn left the Big East because of football.
I've come to that conclusion too... I think he misses UConn a great deal, TC.
(11-26-2014 09:57 PM)BE4evah Wrote: [ -> ]The drama at UAB, and to a lesser extent Uconn (and even Temple) which have made its way into a national conversation about the role of football in a university'students mission illuminates a hard practical reality.
Politics in the gross sense aside, UAB's minor sports coaches have come out in force against shuttering UAB's football program. Notably, it's women's teams coaches are leading the charge. Obviously, eliminating 85 men's scholarships frees UAB up to offset a fair number of women's scholarships. I guess Title IX giveth and Title IX taketh away.
Temple's reduction of its minor sports is an example of a university taking an opposite tack. In a simplified sense, Temple believes a strong football program and a leaner minor sports program will allow it to remain competitive in collegiate athletics, presumably in an on the field sense of the word, and in a financial sense.
The debate at Uconn about its experiment in big time football providing a net benefit to the department as a whole, and in particular, it's basketball program, is certainly a legitimate one. Having to schedule OOC bb games as a practical independent is showing its impact on the fanbase. Whether calling the AAC a trainwreck, a death sentence, or whatever hyperbolic pronouncements a fan utters in attempting to capture the urgency of the situation, a forceful dialog is the end result.
Implicit in these issues, and the theme that binds them, is the overiding sense that the current system is unsustainable. The one common issue is the aggrandizement of the power conferences of both revenue and power. Looking forward, I really feel for the first time that a dominoe is somewhere out there that might hasten the conclusion of this debate. At some point someone on a position to decide these things will say enough is enough. You can't compete in a rigged game. My guess it will be a school like Umass. UAB, less likely. And when it does, it will allow those in a position of power to assess the outcome. And if it is favorable, that's when the dominoes start falling.
The sad thought is, I really see no way that this can be stopped.
Dude, cut the $hit. There is no debate at UConn, the football team isn't going anywhere.
(11-26-2014 11:01 PM)jdgaucho Wrote: [ -> ]Baseball and softball are not exactly minor sports. Temple having to cut both of them was the exception to the rule, not the norm.
Temple's belief is certainly not unreasonable, let's see if it can work.
We cut baseball and softball because our facilities were very bad, and we were not going to spend the money on those sports to make them competitive. Having spent a lot of time at FSU and ASU, we were wasting our time playing softball and baseball to begin with. It was a good decision.
We cut sports because we're out of Title IX compliance, we sponsored 24 sports (UCF sponsors 15, Cincy 17, UConn 22, ECU 17, Houston 15, Memphis 18, etc.), and our spending per sport was easily last in the conference. Dropping sports allows us to properly fund the rest of the teams and aligns us with the rest of the conference in number and spending.
UAB coach
Joe Schad @schadjoe · 6m 6 minutes ago UAB coach Bill Clark said Sunday he believes the school’s football program is about to shut down. Joe Schad @schadjoe · 5m 5 minutes ago “Unless something changes before the weekend ends,” Clark said. “I think it’s over. I think the odds are very high it ends this week.” Joe Schad @schadjoe · 3m 3 minutes ago “To shut the doors? That’s sad,” Clark said. “I feel for these players. They committed to this school.”
(11-30-2014 01:24 AM)JHG722 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2014 11:01 PM)jdgaucho Wrote: [ -> ]Baseball and softball are not exactly minor sports. Temple having to cut both of them was the exception to the rule, not the norm.
Temple's belief is certainly not unreasonable, let's see if it can work.
We cut baseball and softball because our facilities were very bad, and we were not going to spend the money on those sports to make them competitive. Having spent a lot of time at FSU and ASU, we were wasting our time playing softball and baseball to begin with. It was a good decision.
We cut sports because we're out of Title IX compliance, we sponsored 24 sports (UCF sponsors 15, Cincy 17, UConn 22, ECU 17, Houston 15, Memphis 18, etc.), and our spending per sport was easily last in the conference. Dropping sports allows us to properly fund the rest of the teams and aligns us with the rest of the conference in number and spending.
I agree with your assessment. I was just surprised that baseball/softball were cut and men's soccer was not even on the chopping blocks. Usually the latter is first to go, just like at Towson and Richmond.
If those cuts put you in a better position to fund the other sports and make them more competitive then it was a good thing.
Men's soccer is actually one of our best non-revenue sports, although we had a terrible year. Our recruiting classes have been outstanding the last two years. 2013 class was ranked #20 (UCSB was #17) and 2014 class was ranked #19 (UCSB was #7 and national champion Notre Dame was #20).