(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.