With the anniversary of Title iX, I was curious how effectively Division 1 colleges as a whole were doing in their mission of participation in sports for today’s youth.

The data shows that College Participation as a Percent of 18-24 year old population peaked in 1996 and has slightly declined since then. Participation for males has declined at a CAGR of 1.2% a year while women have grown at a rate of CAGR of 1.14%. In human terms, this means a loss of 15,290 male participants if participation rates as a percent of the population had stayed at 1996 levels.


Its not a Revenue issue

Athletics have been increasing revenue at amounts significantly above the rate of inflation. For public universities for the time period 2006-2010 you saw the following revenue growth rates

Total Revenue 7.72% CAGR
Generated Revenue 7.47% CAGR
School Funds 7.31% CAGR
Student Fees 9.59% CAGR

With revenues growing at almost 8% in this time period the revenue should allow for a significant increase in participations rates. I don’t have the data from the peak in 1996, but I don’t think the story gets better.

When you look at the details you can see generated revenue exploding among Big 4 conference participants and declining contributions in terms of funds and fees. Revenue is flatter at the other institutions but fees and funds are exploding to keep up with the Generated Revenue growth in the Big 4. This leads to the ironic scenario of these institutions which are often 60% female paying radically increasing fees to fund a minor increase in women’s participation rates.


College sports has a severe cost containment problem and chasing revenue won't solve the problem

This problem is impacting their ability to perform their mission and is causing the imposition of crushing fees on general college students who can least afford it. The Presidential Oversight committee must act on this issue. In looking at professional sports models they need to actively consider the following recommendations

1) Petition Congress for an anti-trust exemption to impose an expense cap on all sports.
An expense cap which should cover all expenses associated with the sport would level the playing field and provide some level of cost containment. Most pro sports have some form of cost containment. College sports needs to also have cost containment.

2) Define Revenue Hurdles to participate in Division 1 sports
Presidents and AD’s should not be able to make the jump to D1 on the backs of their existing students via crushing fees and increases in tuition. If the University cannot meet the TBD generated revenue threshold via donations, licensing and ticket prices then they should not be allowed to compete in D1.

3) Enhanced Revenue sharing among D1 participants
Given the incredible disparity of revenue among D1 schools, enhanced revenue sharing must be included as part of the deal to impose expense caps. With expense caps and revenue sharing, college sports can reinvigorate their mission of enabling the more youth today to benefit from high level competition.

Institutions who choose not to agree to the expense cap / revenue sharing would be allowed to do so but would have to operate as a for profit entity. Ideally the three tiers that exist for Title IX could also be collapsed into a single standard going forward which would also override the CALNOW consent decree and some slight exemptions could be established for football in the calculation of equality to account for its uniqueness in revenue generation.

When it comes to title IX, cheer leading should be counted as a women's sport opportunity.

Sounds like a great deal if you are a mid-major with no hope of ever moving up to a power conference

In one move, you prevent the schools beneath you from moving up and competing with you the way you compete with the schools who are above you and in the next move, you demand wealth redistribution from the power conferences and caps on their spending to "level the field" for the mid-majors and make up for their general lack of fan bases and appeal to the public.

I have no doubt the Flagship public schools who control the power conferences and the NCAA itself would love to hurt their programs in order to help the mid-major schools in their states compete with them even more and will adopt this plan as quickly as they can.

(06-25-2012 05:55 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  When it comes to title IX, cheer leading should be counted as a women's sport opportunity.

I think most college squads are coed so how would that qualify as a women's sport

(06-25-2012 05:48 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  With the anniversary of Title iX, I was curious how effectively Division 1 colleges as a whole were doing in their mission of participation in sports for today’s youth.

The data shows that College Participation as a Percent of 18-24 year old population peaked in 1996 and has slightly declined since then. Participation for males has declined at a CAGR of 1.2% a year while women have grown at a rate of CAGR of 1.14%. In human terms, this means a loss of 15,290 male participants if participation rates as a percent of the population had stayed at 1996 levels.


Its not a Revenue issue

Athletics have been increasing revenue at amounts significantly above the rate of inflation. For public universities for the time period 2006-2010 you saw the following revenue growth rates

Total Revenue 7.72% CAGR
Generated Revenue 7.47% CAGR
School Funds 7.31% CAGR
Student Fees 9.59% CAGR

With revenues growing at almost 8% in this time period the revenue should allow for a significant increase in participations rates. I don’t have the data from the peak in 1996, but I don’t think the story gets better.

When you look at the details you can see generated revenue exploding among Big 4 conference participants and declining contributions in terms of funds and fees. Revenue is flatter at the other institutions but fees and funds are exploding to keep up with the Generated Revenue growth in the Big 4. This leads to the ironic scenario of these institutions which are often 60% female paying radically increasing fees to fund a minor increase in women’s participation rates.


College sports has a severe cost containment problem and chasing revenue won't solve the problem

This problem is impacting their ability to perform their mission and is causing the imposition of crushing fees on general college students who can least afford it. The Presidential Oversight committee must act on this issue. In looking at professional sports models they need to actively consider the following recommendations

1) Petition Congress for an anti-trust exemption to impose an expense cap on all sports.
An expense cap which should cover all expenses associated with the sport would level the playing field and provide some level of cost containment. Most pro sports have some form of cost containment. College sports needs to also have cost containment.

2) Define Revenue Hurdles to participate in Division 1 sports
Presidents and AD’s should not be able to make the jump to D1 on the backs of their existing students via crushing fees and increases in tuition. If the University cannot meet the TBD generated revenue threshold via donations, licensing and ticket prices then they should not be allowed to compete in D1.

3) Enhanced Revenue sharing among D1 participants
Given the incredible disparity of revenue among D1 schools, enhanced revenue sharing must be included as part of the deal to impose expense caps. With expense caps and revenue sharing, college sports can reinvigorate their mission of enabling the more youth today to benefit from high level competition.

Institutions who choose not to agree to the expense cap / revenue sharing would be allowed to do so but would have to operate as a for profit entity. Ideally the three tiers that exist for Title IX could also be collapsed into a single standard going forward which would also override the CALNOW consent decree and some slight exemptions could be established for football in the calculation of equality to account for its uniqueness in revenue generation.

revenue sharing? why? if a school has made the commitment to operate at the highest level of college athletics, why should schools that haven't get a piece of the pie?

as much as I like Marshall, I don't think they deserve any money from WVU because WVU has put the time and resources into making its athletic department one of the best in the nation

Marshall hasn't

I doubt you'd find too many UCLA, USC, Cal, or Stanford fans who would support cutting a check to Fresno every year because Fresno hasn't been able to keep up with their schools

Expense caps-I'm as liberal as they come but even I'm not in favor of expense caps in college sports. Once again, the top schools have put the time and resources into building elite programs and if they can raise the funds from whatever sources, including student fees, then more power to them.

Each school raises funds for athletics in different ways. WVU is lucky to have an athletic department that is funded primarily by ticket sales, donations, and media revenue. Other schools aren't and if you're going to limit the ability for schools to raise revenue by anyway they can or allowed to by their governing boards, you're going to increase the number of have-nots in sports. You will create an even greater disparity between the top schools and the bottom schools. In fact, I would guess that you'd see a lot of schools dropping back down to Division 2 since they couldn't keep up and because none of the top schools would ever agree to increased revenue sharing.

(06-25-2012 06:09 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 05:55 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  When it comes to title IX, cheer leading should be counted as a women's sport opportunity.

I think most college squads are coed so how would that qualify as a women's sport

A&M isn't. I guess they would just have to drop their yell leaders under Title IX if it were a sport.

(06-25-2012 05:58 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Sounds like a great deal if you are a mid-major with no hope of ever moving up to a power conference

In one move, you prevent the schools beneath you from moving up and competing with you the way you compete with the schools who are above you and in the next move, you demand wealth redistribution from the power conferences and caps on their spending to "level the field" for the mid-majors and make up for their general lack of fan bases and appeal to the public.

I have no doubt the Flagship public schools who control the power conferences and the NCAA itself would love to hurt their programs in order to help the mid-major schools in their states compete with them even more and will adopt this plan as quickly as they can.

The issue isn't just with the mid majors. Lower end schools Pac-10 schools like Washington State or Oregon State and ACC schools like North Carolina are all seeing thier fees and expenses rise significantly to keep up with the Oregons, Ohio States and Alabama's of the world.

Without cost containment you will continue to see programs getting cut and fee rising.

We don't sponsor cheer to begin with so you can't drop something you don't already sponsor.

(06-25-2012 06:20 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  revenue sharing? why? if a school has made the commitment to operate at the highest level of college athletics, why should schools that haven't get a piece of the pie?

as much as I like Marshall, I don't think they deserve any money from WVU because WVU has put the time and resources into making its athletic department one of the best in the nation

Marshall hasn't

I doubt you'd find too many UCLA, USC, Cal, or Stanford fans who would support cutting a check to Fresno every year because Fresno hasn't been able to keep up with their schools

Expense caps-I'm as liberal as they come but even I'm not in favor of expense caps in college sports. Once again, the top schools have put the time and resources into building elite programs and if they can raise the funds from whatever sources, including student fees, then more power to them.

Each school raises funds for athletics in different ways. WVU is lucky to have an athletic department that is funded primarily by ticket sales, donations, and media revenue. Other schools aren't and if you're going to limit the ability for schools to raise revenue by anyway they can or allowed to by their governing boards, you're going to increase the number of have-nots in sports. You will create an even greater disparity between the top schools and the bottom schools. In fact, I would guess that you'd see a lot of schools dropping back down to Division 2 since they couldn't keep up and because none of the top schools would ever agree to increased revenue sharing.

For the same reason you have revenue sharing in the NFL and NBA to maintain some competitive balance.

Also for taxpayers and students this is a very bad deal. Yes it is good for students at the University of Missouri but on the whole it is bad for the state as the other schools like SW Missouri State try to keep up. They do so by cutting sports which lessens opportunities for residents of Missori and increasing fees which contributes to the cost of education.

This process doesn't end. We will continue to have less opportunity and higher costs until the point we reach about 20 schools. That won't include any schools in West Virginia by the way.

(06-25-2012 07:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 06:20 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  revenue sharing? why? if a school has made the commitment to operate at the highest level of college athletics, why should schools that haven't get a piece of the pie?

as much as I like Marshall, I don't think they deserve any money from WVU because WVU has put the time and resources into making its athletic department one of the best in the nation

Marshall hasn't

I doubt you'd find too many UCLA, USC, Cal, or Stanford fans who would support cutting a check to Fresno every year because Fresno hasn't been able to keep up with their schools

Expense caps-I'm as liberal as they come but even I'm not in favor of expense caps in college sports. Once again, the top schools have put the time and resources into building elite programs and if they can raise the funds from whatever sources, including student fees, then more power to them.

Each school raises funds for athletics in different ways. WVU is lucky to have an athletic department that is funded primarily by ticket sales, donations, and media revenue. Other schools aren't and if you're going to limit the ability for schools to raise revenue by anyway they can or allowed to by their governing boards, you're going to increase the number of have-nots in sports. You will create an even greater disparity between the top schools and the bottom schools. In fact, I would guess that you'd see a lot of schools dropping back down to Division 2 since they couldn't keep up and because none of the top schools would ever agree to increased revenue sharing.

For the same reason you have revenue sharing in the NFL and NBA to maintain some competitive balance.

Also for taxpayers and students this is a very bad deal. Yes it is good for students at the University of Missouri but on the whole it is bad for the state as the other schools like SW Missouri State try to keep up. They do so by cutting sports which lessens opportunities for residents of Missori and increasing fees which contributes to the cost of education.

This process doesn't end. We will continue to have less opportunity and higher costs until the point we reach about 20 schools. That won't include any schools in West Virginia by the way.

I think you are carrying your thoughts on revenue sharing - or lack of it - to extremes of ridiculous proportions. Try to keep things in perspective...

(06-25-2012 07:15 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 07:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 06:20 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  revenue sharing? why? if a school has made the commitment to operate at the highest level of college athletics, why should schools that haven't get a piece of the pie?

as much as I like Marshall, I don't think they deserve any money from WVU because WVU has put the time and resources into making its athletic department one of the best in the nation

Marshall hasn't

I doubt you'd find too many UCLA, USC, Cal, or Stanford fans who would support cutting a check to Fresno every year because Fresno hasn't been able to keep up with their schools

Expense caps-I'm as liberal as they come but even I'm not in favor of expense caps in college sports. Once again, the top schools have put the time and resources into building elite programs and if they can raise the funds from whatever sources, including student fees, then more power to them.

Each school raises funds for athletics in different ways. WVU is lucky to have an athletic department that is funded primarily by ticket sales, donations, and media revenue. Other schools aren't and if you're going to limit the ability for schools to raise revenue by anyway they can or allowed to by their governing boards, you're going to increase the number of have-nots in sports. You will create an even greater disparity between the top schools and the bottom schools. In fact, I would guess that you'd see a lot of schools dropping back down to Division 2 since they couldn't keep up and because none of the top schools would ever agree to increased revenue sharing.

For the same reason you have revenue sharing in the NFL and NBA to maintain some competitive balance.

Also for taxpayers and students this is a very bad deal. Yes it is good for students at the University of Missouri but on the whole it is bad for the state as the other schools like SW Missouri State try to keep up. They do so by cutting sports which lessens opportunities for residents of Missori and increasing fees which contributes to the cost of education.

This process doesn't end. We will continue to have less opportunity and higher costs until the point we reach about 20 schools. That won't include any schools in West Virginia by the way.

I think you are carrying your thoughts on revenue sharing - or lack of it - to extremes of ridiculous proportions. Try to keep things in perspective...

Have you looked at the data? About 20 schools have Generated Revenue is excess of $90M. The rest are keeping up by raising school funding and student fees at near double digit rates annually.

This model isn't a sustainable model for those schools.

(06-25-2012 07:38 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 07:15 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 07:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 06:20 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  revenue sharing? why? if a school has made the commitment to operate at the highest level of college athletics, why should schools that haven't get a piece of the pie?

as much as I like Marshall, I don't think they deserve any money from WVU because WVU has put the time and resources into making its athletic department one of the best in the nation

Marshall hasn't

I doubt you'd find too many UCLA, USC, Cal, or Stanford fans who would support cutting a check to Fresno every year because Fresno hasn't been able to keep up with their schools

Expense caps-I'm as liberal as they come but even I'm not in favor of expense caps in college sports. Once again, the top schools have put the time and resources into building elite programs and if they can raise the funds from whatever sources, including student fees, then more power to them.

Each school raises funds for athletics in different ways. WVU is lucky to have an athletic department that is funded primarily by ticket sales, donations, and media revenue. Other schools aren't and if you're going to limit the ability for schools to raise revenue by anyway they can or allowed to by their governing boards, you're going to increase the number of have-nots in sports. You will create an even greater disparity between the top schools and the bottom schools. In fact, I would guess that you'd see a lot of schools dropping back down to Division 2 since they couldn't keep up and because none of the top schools would ever agree to increased revenue sharing.

For the same reason you have revenue sharing in the NFL and NBA to maintain some competitive balance.

Also for taxpayers and students this is a very bad deal. Yes it is good for students at the University of Missouri but on the whole it is bad for the state as the other schools like SW Missouri State try to keep up. They do so by cutting sports which lessens opportunities for residents of Missori and increasing fees which contributes to the cost of education.

This process doesn't end. We will continue to have less opportunity and higher costs until the point we reach about 20 schools. That won't include any schools in West Virginia by the way.

I think you are carrying your thoughts on revenue sharing - or lack of it - to extremes of ridiculous proportions. Try to keep things in perspective...

Have you looked at the data? About 20 schools have Generated Revenue is excess of $90M. The rest are keeping up by raising school funding and student fees at near double digit rates annually.

This model isn't a sustainable model for those schools.

Then they'll fall behind. Sucks for them.

/crocadile tears

While I can see the point of (and agree with) the notion of ensuring equality of gender access in sports where there is a reasonable alternative for both men and women, I still think that football is an exception that should be treated differently under Title IX. While opponents of this view would contest that assertion largely on the notion that due to its large roster size football is providing 85 opportunities that aren't offered to women, football has a unique place in the collegiate sports world.

While many may not like it, as many have said sports can be the "front porch" of a university, and a major part of its "curb appeal". A successful football team is a major source of alumni pride, and boosts overall visibility, recruiting, and revenue. So while it's true that the 85 players on a football team's roster have been given an opportunity, they're also making a significant contribution to the university's overall health. Yes, in some places basketball can also provide a similar boost, but ultimately as we've seen in the whole realignment realm football's value is paramount. Even at schools where the football team isn't successful on the level of an Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, etc, football is a valuable social and economic part of the university.

The request to exempt football from Title IX calculations isn't a callous misogynistic ploy by good ole' boys who want to keep women barefoot, pregnant, and out of college classrooms and/or playing fields, but a reasonable recognition of football's unique place in collegiate athletics. Attempting to bring about equality without such an exemption has lead to increased costs to subsidize what are often underutilized and under-supported women's programs, while often simultaneously dropping men's programs which may also be a net revenue drain, but which come closer to the break-even point. Ironically, it's participants in those dropped sports who often take better advantage of their access to higher education than the players whose activities fill the athletic departments' coffers.

(06-25-2012 10:49 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  While I can see the point of (and agree with) the notion of ensuring equality of gender access in sports where there is a reasonable alternative for both men and women, I still think that football is an exception that should be treated differently under Title IX. While opponents of this view would contest that assertion largely on the notion that due to its large roster size football is providing 85 opportunities that aren't offered to women, football has a unique place in the collegiate sports world.

While many may not like it, as many have said sports can be the "front porch" of a university, and a major part of its "curb appeal". A successful football team is a major source of alumni pride, and boosts overall visibility, recruiting, and revenue. So while it's true that the 85 players on a football team's roster have been given an opportunity, they're also making a significant contribution to the university's overall health. Yes, in some places basketball can also provide a similar boost, but ultimately as we've seen in the whole realignment realm football's value is paramount. Even at schools where the football team isn't successful on the level of an Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, etc, football is a valuable social and economic part of the university.

The request to exempt football from Title IX calculations isn't a callous misogynistic ploy by good ole' boys who want to keep women barefoot, pregnant, and out of college classrooms and/or playing fields, but a reasonable recognition of football's unique place in collegiate athletics. Attempting to bring about equality without such an exemption has lead to increased costs to subsidize what are often underutilized and under-supported women's programs, while often simultaneously dropping men's programs which may also be a net revenue drain, but which come closer to the break-even point. Ironically, it's participants in those dropped sports who often take better advantage of their access to higher education than the players whose activities fill the athletic departments' coffers.

so wrestling makes more money than softball or women's tennis?

if a school has 85 football scholarships, or whatever the maximum number is, how much would it hurt to kick some of those scholarships over to say wrestling

does a school need all 85 scholarships for football or can it survive with say 75 or 80

RE: Football scholarship limits:
* High schools in NC and SC don't carry 85 players (more like 50)
* NFL teams (with bigger players and more games) only need 53
* So why in the world do college teams need 85?

Effects of large roster size on college football
* player costs are higher by about 35% versus 55 players
* competition is reduced because power schools can stockpile talent
* more players who could be playing for another team are kept on the bench

Unless you are one of those power football schools, ALL of the above are bad.

(06-25-2012 05:55 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  When it comes to title IX, cheer leading should be counted as a women's sport opportunity.

Cheerleading and Dance squads should both be. It takes years of practice to be good at either of these.

(06-26-2012 05:19 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 05:55 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  When it comes to title IX, cheer leading should be counted as a women's sport opportunity.

Cheerleading and Dance squads should both be. It takes years of practice to be good at either of these.

espn putting it on tv does not make it a sport. before you can award scholarships that count toward title 9 it has to be a sport and there has to be some sort of structure in place.

(06-25-2012 07:38 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Have you looked at the data? About 20 schools have Generated Revenue is excess of $90M. The rest are keeping up by raising school funding and student fees at near double digit rates annually.

This model isn't a sustainable model for those schools.

So you want the other 320 Div I schools to robbed those that are rich (20 schools)?

You should go into politics...if you believe crap like that.

PS. Can Div II, Div III & NAIA schools also rob the rich 20 too?

(06-26-2012 04:32 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  RE: Football scholarship limits:
* High schools in NC and SC don't carry 85 players (more like 50)
* NFL teams (with bigger players and more games) only need 53
* So why in the world do college teams need 85?

Effects of large roster size on college football
* player costs are higher by about 35% versus 55 players
* competition is reduced because power schools can stockpile talent
* more players who could be playing for another team are kept on the bench

Unless you are one of those power football schools, ALL of the above are bad.

The idea of reducing the number of football scholarships has merit. For the sake of argument, if the number of scholarships were reduced to 75, that would allow schools to eliminate one women's sport as well. For a private school like Syracuse, the total reduction in scholarships would be 20 (10 football plus 10 women's scholarship) x $50,000/scholarship = $1 million/year. You would also have a six figure savings from reduced coaching and travel expenses from eliminating a sport. All of this money could be redistributed to the football program in the form of additional recruiting budget or more competitive salaries to attract or retain better coaches. Plus, we'd have access to talent that is currently sitting on the bench at higher profile programs. This would have a very significant impact on competitive balance in college football.

(06-26-2012 05:40 AM)bladhmadh Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 05:19 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 05:55 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  When it comes to title IX, cheer leading should be counted as a women's sport opportunity.

Cheerleading and Dance squads should both be. It takes years of practice to be good at either of these.

espn putting it on tv does not make it a sport. before you can award scholarships that count toward title 9 it has to be a sport and there has to be some sort of structure in place.

They have coaches, practices, weight coaches, competitions, and uniforms and they are already being payed for by the athletic departments.

They are legitimate opportunities to participate in sports at college.