(06-10-2013 08:10 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Some good numbers. But I don't think you are considering the large increase in the number of NCAA institutions. There has been a mass migration from NAIA as well as a large number of commuter schools starting programs who didn't have programs 30 years ago. In addition, Division II and Division III have instituted minimum sports requirements which required a number of their members to add sports, in part because of their massive growth.

From the report you linked:
Net change in men's teams net change in women's
Div I -317 +740
Div II +385 +965
Div III +561 +1,184

Football impacts that because there are 85 scholarships for men that require (to avoid lawsuits) additional women's scholarships. Division II only allows 36 scholarships over 60 players. Makes it a little easier. So I don't think its the arms race. Its trying to keep football while increasing women's opportunities.

Those figures were comparing 1981-82 to the present.

I couldn't quickly find the number of schools in 1981, but I'm pretty certain division I was around 100 schools fewer. Maybe someone else can find that. According to Wikipedia at present:
Division I 340
Division II 315 (per NCAA-wiki says 312-so at least they are close-couldn't quickly find the official NCAA numbers for the other divisions)
Division III 442

(06-11-2013 08:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Why is there such focus on the expenses of power college programs (outside of the consternation of those outside of the power club)?

Because students and taxpayers help subsidize it, even if they don't participate? Because, in addition to that, one can pay for something they can sometimes never use?

I am actually getting to the point that I am getting fed up with organized sports on the college and pro level, period. I never realized how much time, energy and money we waste on sports until I took a step back and tuned out for awhile. Upon doing so, I rediscovered the world where I can actually DO something instead of just sitting there watching something. I'll probably come back to watch CFB and the NFL, but honestly I don't even bother if I miss a Steelers game. In the past I used to watch the NFL draft to see what the Steelers did and how the Pitt players fared. Now I don't care. I haven't really checked to see if the Steelers signed any draft picks or how they are doing in the OTAs. My life is no worse off without professional sports or collegiate sports. OK, I'm getting off my soap box now.

Anytime I see someone trying to equate pro or college sports to the free market, I laugh to myself. It's not real. The reason why is simple. If it was a free market, anyone can participate. Even in the more difficult industries with high capital start up costs, I can still make a serious attempt to participate in those industries. I can start a car company, an airline, a software business, etc... I cannot - no matter how much I may want to - start a brand new college FB team. I have a very small chance at starting a new NFL franchise IF a majority of the existing owners voted me in to allow me to start a team if the NFL was expanding. But that's the key there about organized sports. It's not free market because anyone cannot decided to start a team. Whether it's college or the pros, the leagues dictate how many teams and where they are from. That's not free. It never will be free.

Having said all that, CFB would be smart to maintain the distinctions it has from the NFL so that it does not become NFL lite in form. However, it should adopt the NFL's financial models in capping salaries and distributing revenue. And therein lies the root of the problem with college athletics. Because what's best for college athletics is not best for the university in most cases. Very few schools can generate enough athletic money to actually fun academic endeavors. I believe OSU, Texas, Michigan and some of the SEC schools can. Almost everyone else cannot. So the only benefit is advertising. But the question becomes, is the benefit of getting exposure on TV worth the cost of maintaining athletics? I'm not so sure it's nearly as big of a deal today as it used to be in the past with the improvement in technology and the access to information we have today.

For example, PSU is in the most lucrative conference the B1G. Pitt has been in the BE for the past 10 years. But despite the major advantages the B1G had over the BE - especially including exposure of sports on TV - Both schools basically improved at the same rates in academic quality and research dollars generated. The quality of Pitt's students have improved regularly during the past 10 years and I don't buy that college sports affected that in any significant way. It's the academic advertising and research publications that has helped a lot more on that front.

(06-11-2013 09:33 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 08:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Why is there such focus on the expenses of power college programs (outside of the consternation of those outside of the power club)?

Because students and taxpayers help subsidize it, even if they don't participate? Because, in addition to that, one can pay for something they can sometimes never use?

And how is this different from what 90% of my income and property taxes go towards that I subsidize and never use? If that's the standard, then why should there be public universities at all since most taxpayers don't end up attending them? On a more micro level, why should have my tuition dollars as a business school student at a public university (which by far trumped any athletic fees) have gone to subsidize liberal arts programs that I never participated in and drew in fewer private donations (where they couldn't possibly support themselves even if they tried, unlike many athletic departments)?

If we want to talk about the broader implications of items being subsidized, then I'm all ears. However, college athletics are a blip on the radar even compared to how much money their own universities subsidize a multitude of programs that few people ever use (much less what taxpayers pay overall). College sports are a highly emotional issue, so we tend to overfocus on the dollar amounts involved. Even the Big Ten and SEC schools right now receive less in conference revenue distributions (which includes TV money, bowl dollars, NCAA Tournament credits, etc.) than what Alex Rodriguez and Kobe Bryant each individually make each year in salary. All in all, taking the equivalent of A-Rod's salary and giving a few hundred kids in an athletic department full academic scholarships with top notch training and facilities that otherwise wouldn't be there seems like a good thing overall to me.

(06-11-2013 09:50 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I am actually getting to the point that I am getting fed up with organized sports on the college and pro level, period. I never realized how much time, energy and money we waste on sports until I took a step back and tuned out for awhile. Upon doing so, I rediscovered the world where I can actually DO something instead of just sitting there watching something. I'll probably come back to watch CFB and the NFL, but honestly I don't even bother if I miss a Steelers game. In the past I used to watch the NFL draft to see what the Steelers did and how the Pitt players fared. Now I don't care. I haven't really checked to see if the Steelers signed any draft picks or how they are doing in the OTAs. My life is no worse off without professional sports or collegiate sports. OK, I'm getting off my soap box now.

Anytime I see someone trying to equate pro or college sports to the free market, I laugh to myself. It's not real. The reason why is simple. If it was a free market, anyone can participate. Even in the more difficult industries with high capital start up costs, I can still make a serious attempt to participate in those industries. I can start a car company, an airline, a software business, etc... I cannot - no matter how much I may want to - start a brand new college FB team. I have a very small chance at starting a new NFL franchise IF a majority of the existing owners voted me in to allow me to start a team if the NFL was expanding. But that's the key there about organized sports. It's not free market because anyone cannot decided to start a team. Whether it's college or the pros, the leagues dictate how many teams and where they are from. That's not free. It never will be free.

Having said all that, CFB would be smart to maintain the distinctions it has from the NFL so that it does not become NFL lite in form. However, it should adopt the NFL's financial models in capping salaries and distributing revenue. And therein lies the root of the problem with college athletics. Because what's best for college athletics is not best for the university in most cases. Very few schools can generate enough athletic money to actually fun academic endeavors. I believe OSU, Texas, Michigan and some of the SEC schools can. Almost everyone else cannot. So the only benefit is advertising. But the question becomes, is the benefit of getting exposure on TV worth the cost of maintaining athletics? I'm not so sure it's nearly as big of a deal today as it used to be in the past with the improvement in technology and the access to information we have today.

For example, PSU is in the most lucrative conference the B1G. Pitt has been in the BE for the past 10 years. But despite the major advantages the B1G had over the BE - especially including exposure of sports on TV - Both schools basically improved at the same rates in academic quality and research dollars generated. The quality of Pitt's students have improved regularly during the past 10 years and I don't buy that college sports affected that in any significant way. It's the academic advertising and research publications that has helped a lot more on that front.

It's an interesting argument, but that's not necessarily true. I could conceivably start up a for-profit online college that has athletic teams, such as Grand Canyon University that will actually be playing NCAA Division I sports next year. Is it easy? No. However, most of us here would probably have a better capability of posting courses online that would gain traction in the marketplace than trying to start up a car company to compete with GM and Toyota or attempting to create competitors to Facebook and Twitter. You could also conceivably start up pro sports leagues that compete with the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL (which people have attempted to do before with varying degrees of success). Once again, that isn't easy, but I don't find trying to start a new airline as easier. Your analogy of the limited access to buy into the NFL is akin to trying to get equity at a private company that hasn't gone public (such as Twitter) - buying within the NFL is limited, but you're not restricted from trying to form your own competing football league at all. The fact that the most powerful entities in pro and college sports are largely entrenched doesn't mean that they're much different than other powerful entities in other industries. Just because it's extremely difficult to create a sports league that's as popular as the NFL doesn't make than any less of a free market than the fact that it's extremely difficult to create a social media network that's as popular as Facebook.

(06-11-2013 08:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  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).

Frank did you read any of the discussion? You may not agree with the arguments but I think the points for why have been explained in the video and further expanded on in the discussion.

(06-11-2013 08:39 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:10 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 02:28 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

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

(06-10-2013 09:58 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  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.

Some good numbers. But I don't think you are considering the large increase in the number of NCAA institutions. There has been a mass migration from NAIA as well as a large number of commuter schools starting programs who didn't have programs 30 years ago. In addition, Division II and Division III have instituted minimum sports requirements which required a number of their members to add sports, in part because of their massive growth.

From the report you linked:
Net change in men's teams net change in women's
Div I -317 +740
Div II +385 +965
Div III +561 +1,184

Football impacts that because there are 85 scholarships for men that require (to avoid lawsuits) additional women's scholarships. Division II only allows 36 scholarships over 60 players. Makes it a little easier. So I don't think its the arms race. Its trying to keep football while increasing women's opportunities.

So you didn't provide the data on growth in institutions. From the data you provide you can't tell if the per school average has moved or not. Your data is inconclusive to your point without a per school average. Remember lots of schools have moved up to D1 also and the total number of teams have dropped. I would also factor out overlap teams like indoor track and cross-country where the same athletes compete just in different seasons but the schools counts it as another participant which is bogus numbers. Volleyball and Sand Volleyball is another funny accounting in terms of participants.

If the D1 per school average (of real teams) has decreased and the D3 per school average has increased then that would exclude the new team requirement and would account to Title IX as a factor. The delta would be the arms race..... Especially since D1 has seen a significant growth in revenue compared to D3 so they should be growing by more teams not less.

(06-11-2013 09:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 09:33 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 08:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Why is there such focus on the expenses of power college programs (outside of the consternation of those outside of the power club)?

Because students and taxpayers help subsidize it, even if they don't participate? Because, in addition to that, one can pay for something they can sometimes never use?

And how is this different from what 90% of my income and property taxes go towards that I subsidize and never use? If that's the standard, then why should there be public universities at all since most taxpayers don't end up attending them? On a more micro level, why should have my tuition dollars as a business school student at a public university (which by far trumped any athletic fees) have gone to subsidize liberal arts programs that I never participated in and drew in fewer private donations (where they couldn't possibly support themselves even if they tried, unlike many athletic departments)?

If we want to talk about the broader implications of items being subsidized, then I'm all ears. However, college athletics are a blip on the radar even compared to how much money their own universities subsidize a multitude of programs that few people ever use (much less what taxpayers pay overall). College sports are a highly emotional issue, so we tend to overfocus on the dollar amounts involved. Even the Big Ten and SEC schools right now receive less in conference revenue distributions (which includes TV money, bowl dollars, NCAA Tournament credits, etc.) than what Alex Rodriguez and Kobe Bryant each individually make each year in salary. All in all, taking the equivalent of A-Rod's salary and giving a few hundred kids in an athletic department full academic scholarships with top notch training and facilities that otherwise wouldn't be there seems like a good thing overall to me.

The point is the mission of college sports, as defined by the NCAA, is supposed to be enabling the participation in athletics. D1 sports is failing miserably in the mission especially when compared to the revenue growth and/or compared to what D3 does.

Some have tried to make the case that academics enables funding for the educational side. While I would agree this was true and effective for the cost in the 70's and 80's and maybe the 90's, no one has provided credible data that it is still true at the cost today. Other's have provided data that it is not effective or makes no difference.

Which means as a non-profit entity delivering on their stated mission D1 sports is a disaster.

(06-11-2013 10:12 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It's an interesting argument, but that's not necessarily true. I could conceivably start up a for-profit online college that has athletic teams, such as Grand Canyon University that will actually be playing NCAA Division I sports next year. Is it easy? No. However, most of us here would probably have a better capability of posting courses online that would gain traction in the marketplace than trying to start up a car company to compete with GM and Toyota or attempting to create competitors to Facebook and Twitter. You could also conceivably start up pro sports leagues that compete with the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL (which people have attempted to do before with varying degrees of success). Once again, that isn't easy, but I don't find trying to start a new airline as easier. Your analogy of the limited access to buy into the NFL is akin to trying to get equity at a private company that hasn't gone public (such as Twitter) - buying within the NFL is limited, but you're not restricted from trying to form your own competing football league at all. The fact that the most powerful entities in pro and college sports are largely entrenched doesn't mean that they're much different than other powerful entities in other industries. Just because it's extremely difficult to create a sports league that's as popular as the NFL doesn't make than any less of a free market than the fact that it's extremely difficult to create a social media network that's as popular as Facebook.

Your point is irrelevant to the discussion of whether as a non-profit they are meeting their professed mission or any other kind of appropriate mission for a non-profit.

The fact that none of the for profit schools have teams might also be telling.

(06-11-2013 09:50 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I am actually getting to the point that I am getting fed up with organized sports on the college and pro level, period. I never realized how much time, energy and money we waste on sports until I took a step back and tuned out for awhile. Upon doing so, I rediscovered the world where I can actually DO something instead of just sitting there watching something. I'll probably come back to watch CFB and the NFL, but honestly I don't even bother if I miss a Steelers game. In the past I used to watch the NFL draft to see what the Steelers did and how the Pitt players fared. Now I don't care. I haven't really checked to see if the Steelers signed any draft picks or how they are doing in the OTAs. My life is no worse off without professional sports or collegiate sports. OK, I'm getting off my soap box now.

Anytime I see someone trying to equate pro or college sports to the free market, I laugh to myself. It's not real. The reason why is simple. If it was a free market, anyone can participate. Even in the more difficult industries with high capital start up costs, I can still make a serious attempt to participate in those industries. I can start a car company, an airline, a software business, etc... I cannot - no matter how much I may want to - start a brand new college FB team. I have a very small chance at starting a new NFL franchise IF a majority of the existing owners voted me in to allow me to start a team if the NFL was expanding. But that's the key there about organized sports. It's not free market because anyone cannot decided to start a team. Whether it's college or the pros, the leagues dictate how many teams and where they are from. That's not free. It never will be free.

Having said all that, CFB would be smart to maintain the distinctions it has from the NFL so that it does not become NFL lite in form. However, it should adopt the NFL's financial models in capping salaries and distributing revenue. And therein lies the root of the problem with college athletics. Because what's best for college athletics is not best for the university in most cases. Very few schools can generate enough athletic money to actually fun academic endeavors. I believe OSU, Texas, Michigan and some of the SEC schools can. Almost everyone else cannot. So the only benefit is advertising. But the question becomes, is the benefit of getting exposure on TV worth the cost of maintaining athletics? I'm not so sure it's nearly as big of a deal today as it used to be in the past with the improvement in technology and the access to information we have today.

For example, PSU is in the most lucrative conference the B1G. Pitt has been in the BE for the past 10 years. But despite the major advantages the B1G had over the BE - especially including exposure of sports on TV - Both schools basically improved at the same rates in academic quality and research dollars generated. The quality of Pitt's students have improved regularly during the past 10 years and I don't buy that college sports affected that in any significant way. It's the academic advertising and research publications that has helped a lot more on that front.

Ask Preston Tucker how easy it is to start up a car company, especially when you add technology that the major car companies can't compete with, without major expenses and retooling...

(06-11-2013 11:02 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  The point is the mission of college sports, as defined by the NCAA, is supposed to be enabling the participation in athletics. D1 sports is failing miserably in the mission especially when compared to the revenue growth and/or compared to what D3 does.

Some have tried to make the case that academics enables funding for the educational side. While I would agree this was true and effective for the cost in the 70's and 80's and maybe the 90's, no one has provided credible data that it is still true at the cost today. Other's have provided data that it is not effective or makes no difference.

Which means as a non-profit entity delivering on their stated mission D1 sports is a disaster.

Look - if you're telling me that the NCAA is a two-faced, hypocritical organization with respect to dealing with academics and athletic revenue, then I'm in 100% agreement. You'll get no argument from me there.

However, let's also be practical with the "mission statement": Division I sports are (and should be) a completely different animal than the lower levels of sports participation. There are legitimate reasons (whether you believe the intent is that they are with respect to further the "mission" or nefariously doing it for profit) why the expenditures for all Division I sports (not just football and men's basketball) are going to require much more compared to Divisions II and III. There's a monumental talent gap between Division I and the lower divisions, and that requires better facilities, coaching and training (all of which cost a lot of money) in the same manner that a top notch engineering program is going to need facilities and research labs in a way that liberal arts programs don't. I don't think that sheer participation in and of itself is a good measurement at all in terms of measuring the mission - Division I provides the best college athletes across all sports out there and they're going to require a whole lot more investment by comparison. There is a significant subset of Division I athletes that are actually preparing for athletics as a career (and not just football and basketball players, but those in Olympic sports), so to use participation numbers alone is faulty (IMHO). Look at the which colleges sent the most athletes to last year's Olympics:

http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/nerdschol...-athletes/

Of that top 20, the only 2 non-power conference schools on that list are Princeton and SMU (both still Division I schools). You have to account for the resources that top-flight athletes in Division I require compared to Division II and III athletes that don't need much more than what club-level teams have in terms of facilities and training.

Track and swimming alone skew those statistics, as the contingencies are among the largest represented in the games. Funny enough...aren't those the ones who get into the crosshairs of getting cut first?

As for the cost discussion where it concerns funding and subsidization...it's all about access. If I'm a student at a school and I can't enter a basketball court because its usage is restricted for the hoops team, that's my problem.

PSU's former hoops coach made some comment a few months back about PSU not having a supportive administration for basketball. His complaint? Not having on-demand access to Bryce Jordan Center. He literally complained that because of a concert, his team was bumped into another facility (I know which one, and it's not one just any student can walk into), among the hundreds of courts on campus, no less. PSU is by no means a top hoops program...but I took what he inferred about facility exclusivity to be a huge red flag. As in, this is the standard at top basketball programs.

(06-10-2013 08:10 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(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:  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.

No I think it was Title IX, mostly. NIU was hardly even in the arms race back in the mid-80s (and the facilities were proof of that). Right after they put in Title IX NIU cancelled gymnastics. And even if they spend more on football or basketball, those 2 sports are the only ones that generate significant revenue.

(06-11-2013 12:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 11:02 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  The point is the mission of college sports, as defined by the NCAA, is supposed to be enabling the participation in athletics. D1 sports is failing miserably in the mission especially when compared to the revenue growth and/or compared to what D3 does.

Some have tried to make the case that academics enables funding for the educational side. While I would agree this was true and effective for the cost in the 70's and 80's and maybe the 90's, no one has provided credible data that it is still true at the cost today. Other's have provided data that it is not effective or makes no difference.

Which means as a non-profit entity delivering on their stated mission D1 sports is a disaster.

Look - if you're telling me that the NCAA is a two-faced, hypocritical organization with respect to dealing with academics and athletic revenue, then I'm in 100% agreement. You'll get no argument from me there.

However, let's also be practical with the "mission statement": Division I sports are (and should be) a completely different animal than the lower levels of sports participation. There are legitimate reasons (whether you believe the intent is that they are with respect to further the "mission" or nefariously doing it for profit) why the expenditures for all Division I sports (not just football and men's basketball) are going to require much more compared to Divisions II and III. There's a monumental talent gap between Division I and the lower divisions, and that requires better facilities, coaching and training (all of which cost a lot of money) in the same manner that a top notch engineering program is going to need facilities and research labs in a way that liberal arts programs don't. I don't think that sheer participation in and of itself is a good measurement at all in terms of measuring the mission - Division I provides the best college athletes across all sports out there and they're going to require a whole lot more investment by comparison. There is a significant subset of Division I athletes that are actually preparing for athletics as a career (and not just football and basketball players, but those in Olympic sports), so to use participation numbers alone is faulty (IMHO). Look at the which colleges sent the most athletes to last year's Olympics:

http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/nerdschol...-athletes/

Of that top 20, the only 2 non-power conference schools on that list are Princeton and SMU (both still Division I schools). You have to account for the resources that top-flight athletes in Division I require compared to Division II and III athletes that don't need much more than what club-level teams have in terms of facilities and training.

I understand the difference having been a D3 athlete and having 2 children who are D1 athletes one of which plays for the US National team. The mission of both organizations is the same: participation. The NCAA does an annual study (biased) on participation rates to justify the existence of college sports. The level of competition and the priority of the athletics differs between them: At D3 (and the Ivy Leagues) it is an avocation, at D1 it is a job.

I never suggested the expense cap should be the same across D1 and D3. I only suggested that, especially at D1, they should have an expense cap if they want to maintain any credibility about delivering on their mission of athletic participation. The expense cap will not kill college football and in fact may save it in the minds of many fans while are disgusted by current behavior.

It will certainly save men's minor sports which are in relative decline in terms of participants and teams at the D1 level.

(06-11-2013 01:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:10 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 02:28 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

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

(06-10-2013 09:58 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  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.

No I think it was Title IX, mostly. NIU was hardly even in the arms race back in the mid-80s (and the facilities were proof of that). Right after they put in Title IX NIU cancelled gymnastics. And even if they spend more on football or basketball, those 2 sports are the only ones that generate significant revenue.

When football expenditures are going up at a faster rate than football revenue which has been the case where do you think they get the money?

(06-11-2013 12:50 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Track and swimming alone skew those statistics, as the contingencies are among the largest represented in the games. Funny enough...aren't those the ones who get into the crosshairs of getting cut first?

As for the cost discussion where it concerns funding and subsidization...it's all about access. If I'm a student at a school and I can't enter a basketball court because its usage is restricted for the hoops team, that's my problem.

PSU's former hoops coach made some comment a few months back about PSU not having a supportive administration for basketball. His complaint? Not having on-demand access to Bryce Jordan Center. He literally complained that because of a concert, his team was bumped into another facility (I know which one, and it's not one just any student can walk into), among the hundreds of courts on campus, no less. PSU is by no means a top hoops program...but I took what he inferred about facility exclusivity to be a huge red flag. As in, this is the standard at top basketball programs.

Good point... UCLA despite putting huge numbers of swimmers in the Olympics no longer has a men's swimming program.

Water polo helps he Pac-12 schools also as they are two rosters almost completely made up of California Pac-12 athletes.

(06-11-2013 01:25 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 01:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:10 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 02:28 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

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

No I think it was Title IX, mostly. NIU was hardly even in the arms race back in the mid-80s (and the facilities were proof of that). Right after they put in Title IX NIU cancelled gymnastics. And even if they spend more on football or basketball, those 2 sports are the only ones that generate significant revenue.

When football expenditures are going up at a faster rate than football revenue which has been the case where do you think they get the money?

The vast majority of the bigger schools get the extra money from booster donations...

(06-11-2013 01:46 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 01:25 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 01:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:10 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 02:28 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  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.

No I think it was Title IX, mostly. NIU was hardly even in the arms race back in the mid-80s (and the facilities were proof of that). Right after they put in Title IX NIU cancelled gymnastics. And even if they spend more on football or basketball, those 2 sports are the only ones that generate significant revenue.

When football expenditures are going up at a faster rate than football revenue which has been the case where do you think they get the money?

The vast majority of the bigger schools get the extra money from booster donations...

I was including booster donations in revenue.

(06-11-2013 01:25 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 01:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:10 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 02:28 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

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

No I think it was Title IX, mostly. NIU was hardly even in the arms race back in the mid-80s (and the facilities were proof of that). Right after they put in Title IX NIU cancelled gymnastics. And even if they spend more on football or basketball, those 2 sports are the only ones that generate significant revenue.

When football expenditures are going up at a faster rate than football revenue which has been the case where do you think they get the money?

It isn't from cutting programs. We haven't cut any programs since then, and I'd have to assume that the situation with football expenditures vs. revenue has been an ongoing thing.