(09-25-2014 10:06 AM)temchugh Wrote:  ... the Rice Athletics budget is roughly $30 million made up of roughly $10 million in revenue from all sources and $20 million in subsidy from the University.

For comparison, Stanford has an $81 million budget (~$17 million in football), a $270 million sports endowment and 36 varsity teams.

(09-25-2014 10:31 AM)temchugh Wrote:  Title IX has had a tremendously positive impact. Universities have been forced to add womens programs. The increased opportunities for women to compete at the university level has had a huge trickle down effect on the quality and quantity of womens sports at the high school, junior high, and rec league level. As a result, our daughters have far more opportunities to obtain the benefits of participating in team sports and individual competitive sports than were available a couple of generations ago.
I'm sure that Title IX is the major reason why the U.S. is dominant in international womens soccer and other womens team sports.
Title IX allows universities to devote more $$ to mens sports than womens sports. It provides some flexibility, but also creates some limits. I'm pretty confident that Rice already spends more in total on men's sports than women's sports. So if folks want to add more men's sports, in my mind, the proper question would be how should we change the current allocation of $$ to men's sports. Or even better, how can we find enough new $$ to add new men's and new women's sports.

Title IX has helped some things but it has hurt others. It is inherently a zero sum game. You can't add something over here without taking something away somewhere else. There is no net gain.

Arguably, the receivers need the money and support more than the givers, who were for the most part already well enough supported that they could afford to give some up. But it's pretty clear that the big losers were men's non-revenue sports, and that the need for money to fund women's sports has contributed significantly to the money-at-all-costs attitude that is generally agreed to be harming, if not ruining, D-1 football and basketball. Additionally, as noted above, a major problem is not Title IX itself, but the regulations imposed pursuant to Title IX by unelected and unaccountable federal bureaucrats.

Title IX has the potential to help women's rugby significantly in the next few years, as being able to convert a sport with 15 players on the field from club to varsity has a significant impact on the Title IX numbers. Several schools have already made the move, and others are considering it. At the national championships last year, we were a club team playing against scholarship players.

(09-25-2014 10:31 AM)temchugh Wrote:  Title IX allows universities to devote more $$ to mens sports than womens sports.

I agree very much with what you said, especially the last line about finding new sources of money to fund new sports.... I think Title IX provides opportunities for women (especially from disadvantaged families) to get college degrees that might not otherwise be available to them....

I find your phrasing here interesting though... Universities ALWAYS spent more money on men's sports because they were generally more popular.... both to spectators and participants. Title IX doesn't so much 'allow' what was already taking place as much as it sets limits on how big the differences can be. The more you spend on men's sports, the more you MUST spend on women's. No, it doesn't have to be equal because the demand and revenues aren't equal, but you must 'meet the need/demand' for women's sports.

Frankly, given the cheer squad, dance team and other similar things that have cropped up on campus somewhat organically, I'd say THOSE represented 'sports' that would be expanded to meet scholarships for men's soccer or Rugby. I'd also look to the intramurals for keys... and while I haven't been there in some time so my perspective is dated, I'd say that crew, badminton, fencing and cycling all were perhaps just as popular on the Rice campus (and within the Rice academic talent pool) with women as softball or lacrosse. Gymnastics and diving might also be (if we had facilities).

I understand this creates situations where, like swimming, we have scholarships for women but not for men in the same sports... but we also have sports for men but not women. At least the men get to play the sport.

(09-25-2014 11:04 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 10:31 AM)temchugh Wrote:  Title IX allows universities to devote more $$ to mens sports than womens sports.

I find your phrasing here interesting though... Universities ALWAYS spent more money on men's sports because they were generally more popular.... both to spectators and participants.

If the primary purpose of university athletics is entertainment, then there is a valid argument for devoting more to certain men's sports. But that would seem to be a poor argument for adding swimming or other men's olympic sports.

Also, I think that the argument about participation has largely proven false. Historically, there was limited opportunity for women in sports and limited participation. People argued about which drove which. But creating the opportunity has driven a big increase in interest and participation. Today, I don't believe that opportunity for women outstrips interest or participation. I don't believe that athletic scholarships are being awarded to mediocre women athletes attracted more by the money than the sport. (And that is what would happen if universities were forced to create more opportunities for women in athletics than there was interest.)

(09-25-2014 10:41 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 10:06 AM)temchugh Wrote:  Yes, I was kidding about dropping football. But, the Rice Athletics budget is roughly $30 million made up of roughly $10 million in revenue from all sources and $20 million in subsidy from the University. I'm not actually advocating dropping football, but I strongly suspect that the reduction in expenses would be significantly greater than the loss in revenue.

I understand your point, but it is important to make some distinctions...

11 or 12mm of that subsidy is scholarships, which if they didn't go to educate THESE students, would go to educate OTHER students....

So "Athletics" in its entirety doesn't really cost us very much, especially when you consider how it contributes to our diversity, our student life, our alumni engagement and our exposure.

Athletics contributes to diversity on the jock/nerd spectrum, but otherwise I'm not so sure. An awful lot of athletic scholarships go to middle/upper-middle class kids whose families were able to invest the resources to develop their kids athletic talents. If your diversity goal is anything other than jock/nerd, then you can achieve if more efficiently by focusing directly on that endpoint.

Scholarships absolutely should be calculated into the subsidy. (Karlgard agrees with this.) Each seat taken through an athletic scholarship could be sold for $50K (or given away to achieve some purpose that the University has determined to be worth $50K.)

I not arguing against athletics, I'm just disputing some of the logic used to support it.

(09-25-2014 04:41 PM)temchugh Wrote:  If the primary purpose of university athletics is entertainment, then there is a valid argument for devoting more to certain men's sports. But that would seem to be a poor argument for adding swimming or other men's olympic sports.

Tautology. That isn't the argument for adding Olympic sports... and while entertainment isn't the primary purpose, the more entertaining, the more it serves as outreach and as an opportunity to engage alumni AND the more people will pay to see it. They more they will pay to see it, the more you can spend on it and still represent 'value'. If Rice sees the 'value' of athletics in terms of student atmosphere, diversity, alumni engagement and outreach as being worth $10mm, then the only thing keeping our spending on those sports from being $60mm rather than $30mm is an additional $30mm in revenue from those sports. So long as the actual 'cost' remains at $10mm (or whatever the University thinks we are worth) it shouldn't matter WHAT our budget is.

Quote:Also, I think that the argument about participation has largely proven false. Historically, there was limited opportunity for women in sports and limited participation. People argued about which drove which. But creating the opportunity has driven a big increase in interest and participation. Today, I don't believe that opportunity for women outstrips interest or participation. I don't believe that athletic scholarships are being awarded to mediocre women athletes attracted more by the money than the sport. (And that is what would happen if universities were forced to create more opportunities for women in athletics than there was interest.)

I don't think I could disagree more, assuming I understand your point. If not, I apologize

Interest among people in participating and interest among people in paying to watch it aren't the same thing. I THINK you're referring to the former. The WNBA hasn't 'blossomed' and neither has women's soccer or field hockey as professional ventures. Meanwhile, NBA and NFL franchises are setting records for valuation. Softball has no meaningful women's leagues... but MLB is massive. We can certainly debate 'why', but it isn't Title IX's purpose to 'change' America, but to reflect it.

Sure, if you offer college scholarships for badminton or underwater basket weaving, demand will rise to meet that supply... but that doesn't mean that people will be any more interested in paying to see the matches. Title IX says that you have to meet the demands for women's sports on your campus... it doesn't say you have to create supply to drive the creation of that demand. If softball teams were forming organically on campus and there was even interest among current students to play club softball against other colleges or area teams (like they did back in the early football days) then you could make a title IX argument that Rice wasn't meeting the demands of women on campus. There is certainly interest in intramural softball, but that seems to be as far as it goes at Rice, so far anyway.... and there is little professional or fan interest to say that it would add to our outreach/visibility.

I believe that women are attracted to college athletic scholarships because they offer a free education for participation in a sport where they have interest or skill. There is virtually no professional outlet and certainly not one that typically pays more than a typical Rice degree (there are always exceptions). In general, men are attracted for the same reason, though there is SOME chance of a lucrative professional career in a few sports. This is why Rice should (almost) NEVER lose out on a recruit to anyone else in CUSA... because we offer the same competition AND a far superior degree (after graduation opportunity).

The reason I mention dance and cheer and badminton as obvious options is ONLY because those are all sports where students have already shown interest on campus... Enough to field teams with regularity despite little or no University support... meaning they have demonstrated demand.... and they have fairly limited expenses (other than scholarships which we already award) relative to most other sports... PLUS, they probably fit our academic demographics pretty well. Personally, I'd like for us to expand some of our other women's sports where we can (track and field/swimming/diving) rather than invest in softball (which I believe would cost a lot due to the space requirements). Cheer could lead to gymnastics and diving. I just don't know enough about the on campus interest in LAX or field hockey... but because there isn't much interest BEYOND the campus, the impetus would have to come from within... and because it is an expense and not a revenue generator, the demand would have to come from the students, and not supply from the athletic department.


FTR... please don't think I'm arguing with you. I think we agree on what SHOULD happen... We may just disagree on how much of it would be in response to Title IX.

(09-25-2014 10:41 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 10:06 AM)temchugh Wrote:  Yes, I was kidding about dropping football. But, the Rice Athletics budget is roughly $30 million made up of roughly $10 million in revenue from all sources and $20 million in subsidy from the University. I'm not actually advocating dropping football, but I strongly suspect that the reduction in expenses would be significantly greater than the loss in revenue.

I understand your point, but it is important to make some distinctions...

11 or 12mm of that subsidy is scholarships, which if they didn't go to educate THESE students, would go to educate OTHER students....

So "Athletics" in its entirety doesn't really cost us very much, especially when you consider how it contributes to our diversity, our student life, our alumni engagement and our exposure.

This is an excellent point that I've never heard before.

(09-25-2014 05:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't think I could disagree more, assuming I understand your point. If not, I apologize

I'll try to simplify my point.

I don't believe that more people want to watch men's swimming than women's swimming and I don't think that there is a meaning difference in interest among boys and girls in competitive swimming. Thus, I don't think that the arguments made against gender equity in college athletics (related to revenue, fan interest, participation, etc) can be used to support adding men's swimming.

I realize that no one is arguing that men's swimming should replace women's swimming. However, I read some of the earlier comments to suggest that requirements for gender equity are a barrier to adding men's swimming and therefore it would be a good thing to relax those equity requirements.

Also, I have no particular interest in swimming. You could swap swimming for any other olympic sport and the argument would be the same.

Hambone - I do think we basically agree on the big picture.

About club softball, I remember going to a Rice at A&M club softball game at a Bryan public park in 1976. This was before either school had athletic scholarships for women. I would like to see Rice get a scholarship woman's softball team like most other schools around here have. Softball attracts more spectators than swimming.

(09-25-2014 05:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 04:41 PM)temchugh Wrote:  If the primary purpose of university athletics is entertainment, then there is a valid argument for devoting more to certain men's sports. But that would seem to be a poor argument for adding swimming or other men's olympic sports.

Tautology. That isn't the argument for adding Olympic sports... and while entertainment isn't the primary purpose, the more entertaining, the more it serves as outreach and as an opportunity to engage alumni AND the more people will pay to see it. They more they will pay to see it, the more you can spend on it and still represent 'value'. If Rice sees the 'value' of athletics in terms of student atmosphere, diversity, alumni engagement and outreach as being worth $10mm, then the only thing keeping our spending on those sports from being $60mm rather than $30mm is an additional $30mm in revenue from those sports. So long as the actual 'cost' remains at $10mm (or whatever the University thinks we are worth) it shouldn't matter WHAT our budget is.

Quote:Also, I think that the argument about participation has largely proven false. Historically, there was limited opportunity for women in sports and limited participation. People argued about which drove which. But creating the opportunity has driven a big increase in interest and participation. Today, I don't believe that opportunity for women outstrips interest or participation. I don't believe that athletic scholarships are being awarded to mediocre women athletes attracted more by the money than the sport. (And that is what would happen if universities were forced to create more opportunities for women in athletics than there was interest.)

I don't think I could disagree more, assuming I understand your point. If not, I apologize

Interest among people in participating and interest among people in paying to watch it aren't the same thing. I THINK you're referring to the former. The WNBA hasn't 'blossomed' and neither has women's soccer or field hockey as professional ventures. Meanwhile, NBA and NFL franchises are setting records for valuation. Softball has no meaningful women's leagues... but MLB is massive. We can certainly debate 'why', but it isn't Title IX's purpose to 'change' America, but to reflect it.

Sure, if you offer college scholarships for badminton or underwater basket weaving, demand will rise to meet that supply... but that doesn't mean that people will be any more interested in paying to see the matches. Title IX says that you have to meet the demands for women's sports on your campus... it doesn't say you have to create supply to drive the creation of that demand. If softball teams were forming organically on campus and there was even interest among current students to play club softball against other colleges or area teams (like they did back in the early football days) then you could make a title IX argument that Rice wasn't meeting the demands of women on campus. There is certainly interest in intramural softball, but that seems to be as far as it goes at Rice, so far anyway.... and there is little professional or fan interest to say that it would add to our outreach/visibility.

I believe that women are attracted to college athletic scholarships because they offer a free education for participation in a sport where they have interest or skill. There is virtually no professional outlet and certainly not one that typically pays more than a typical Rice degree (there are always exceptions). In general, men are attracted for the same reason, though there is SOME chance of a lucrative professional career in a few sports. This is why Rice should (almost) NEVER lose out on a recruit to anyone else in CUSA... because we offer the same competition AND a far superior degree (after graduation opportunity).

The reason I mention dance and cheer and badminton as obvious options is ONLY because those are all sports where students have already shown interest on campus... Enough to field teams with regularity despite little or no University support... meaning they have demonstrated demand.... and they have fairly limited expenses (other than scholarships which we already award) relative to most other sports... PLUS, they probably fit our academic demographics pretty well. Personally, I'd like for us to expand some of our other women's sports where we can (track and field/swimming/diving) rather than invest in softball (which I believe would cost a lot due to the space requirements). Cheer could lead to gymnastics and diving. I just don't know enough about the on campus interest in LAX or field hockey... but because there isn't much interest BEYOND the campus, the impetus would have to come from within... and because it is an expense and not a revenue generator, the demand would have to come from the students, and not supply from the athletic department.


FTR... please don't think I'm arguing with you. I think we agree on what SHOULD happen... We may just disagree on how much of it would be in response to Title IX.

(09-25-2014 06:20 PM)temchugh Wrote:  I'll try to simplify my point.

I don't believe that more people want to watch men's swimming than women's swimming and I don't think that there is a meaning difference in interest among boys and girls in competitive swimming. Thus, I don't think that the arguments made against gender equity in college athletics (related to revenue, fan interest, participation, etc) can be used to support adding men's swimming.

I realize that no one is arguing that men's swimming should replace women's swimming. However, I read some of the earlier comments to suggest that requirements for gender equity are a barrier to adding men's swimming and therefore it would be a good thing to relax those equity requirements.

Also, I have no particular interest in swimming. You could swap swimming for any other olympic sport and the argument would be the same.

Hambone - I do think we basically agree on the big picture.

Thanks for the clarification... sorry for misunderstanding. I don't generally disagree.

I think the general argument is that we are 'barely' qualifying under title IX as it is, so if we add ANY men's sport, no matter HOW popular or fair, we would have to add at least one women's sport to remain in compliance. The reason popularity matters for women's sports but not men's is that if you aren't somewhere close to 'equal' (which we aren't) then 'meeting the demand for women's sports on campus' is the other way to qualify. So the question is, what women's sports are popular on campus right now?

(09-25-2014 06:42 PM)75src Wrote:  About club softball, I remember going to a Rice at A&M club softball game at a Bryan public park in 1976. This was before either school had athletic scholarships for women. I would like to see Rice get a scholarship woman's softball team like most other schools around here have. Softball attracts more spectators than swimming.

Space is the issue there. Where would we put the field? Given the space requirements, it would have to attract a LOT of spectators. I suspect that the admin quietly discouraged club softball since then in favor of soccer because we could use the track infield. I agree it is generally more popular, but is it popular enough to justify the space? I don't know. The best field sport would be one that used an existing space, but in a different season/schedule (volleyball)... or used a facility that the students would also enjoy when the team wasn't using it (swimming)

(09-25-2014 06:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So the question is, what women's sports are popular on campus right now?

I hope the new tennis facility brings crowds and awareness to the Women's matches. They are top 25, back2back conference champs, and have a great future with the recruiting they are doing. The crowds could be better, though. I just don't think people realize the gem that it is, and how fun it can be to attend.

I hope the men can catch up soon.

(09-23-2014 10:06 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  [quote='Woodlands Owl' pid='11157541' dateline='1411484417']
Are they going to start charging for tennis matches now?

There have always been tickets required for some matches -- not all, but some. And it's always been worth the price!

I hope to see you at the GRB.
[/quote

Both the parking and the matches should be subsidized at
Rice University until the Mens Tennis program regains its strength. Won't see you at the GRB until the athletic department takes notice...