<p>Help me understand what the big deal is if the US isn’t tops in (insert Olympic sport of your choice).</p>
<p>If FB is so profitable imagine how much more cost efficient it would be with a 20% reduction in staff. Unless of course you think the crowds roll in to see the 4th string QB or the 4 stockpiled freshmen lineman that will never play but are on the roster in case one grows into a lucky find.</p>
<p>I think cutting to 70 will spread the talent make an opportunity for better games and really give a true talent evaluator and coach a chance to win at most schools.
hop.scout- the NCAA can change the limit anytime the schools want them to do so.</p>
<p>@barrk123 There is no gender division in Olympic and most other horse racing, there are a few women-only events, but except from that men and women compete on an equal basis.</p>
<p>I don’t understand how it can be a bad thing for mens sports to suffer in favour of equality, which in my opinion is much more important than the rise of a sport.</p>
<p>[Washington</a> cuts swimming programs - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2009-05-01-2084162447_x.htm]Washington”>http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2009-05-01-2084162447_x.htm)</p>
<p>[WMGF</a> Photos](<a href=“http://www.wmgf.us/Fundraising.html]WMGF”>http://www.wmgf.us/Fundraising.html)</p>
<p>In 2009 The University of Washington cut the men’s and women’s swim programs. They didn’t have an adequate facility and no money to build one, particularly in the economy at that time. They are managing to completely rebuild the football stadium as we speak, though. Granted, the money pool is different because boosters will pay for a new stadium but a new pool was likely a tougher sell. My point being, though, cutting men’s swimming was not title IX related it was a matter of financial priorities.</p>
<p>The University of Washington does have a men’s gymnastics team which appears to give scholarships from a private foundation scholarship fund as does the newly minted national champions the U of W men’s crew. And for the record - men’s crew was always a non-scholarship sport and over time a private foundation was set up to fund some non NCAA scholarships. The addition of women’s crew as a scholarship sport did not take away from the men’s program.</p>
<p>Read andrew zimbalist’s Unpaid Professionals for an in-depth analysis of the money behind D1 football and men’s basketball. Very, very few of these programs actually operate in the black, let alone provide revenue for any other sports.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some of that is due to some very crafty budget arrangements. At my alma mater, the “director of event management” was paid for straight out of the football budget although he worked all sports. The stadium maintenance and operation costs came out of the football budget although it was used by numerous sports.</p>
<p>[College</a> Wrestling by Division](<a href=“College Wrestling by Division”>College Wrestling by Division)</p>
<p>OK, with a bit more time to check I looked up the wrestling programs at all levels. There may not be many scholarships, but I’m not seeing a shortage of opportunities to wrestle collegiately or to become that HS teacher/wrestling coach/mentor of young men that was referenced in the article.</p>
<p>Mom2CollegeKids --Very thorough analysis of so-called “profits” in intercollegiate sports:
<a href=“http://college.holycross.edu/RePEc/spe/MathesonOConnor_CollegeAccounting.pdf[/url]”>http://college.holycross.edu/RePEc/spe/MathesonOConnor_CollegeAccounting.pdf</a></p>
<p>From the abstract: "a majority of athletic departments rely heavily on direct and
indirect subsidization of their programs by the student body, the institution itself, and state governments in order to balance their books. Without such funding, less than a third of BCS athletic departments and no non-BCS departments are in the black. </p>
<p>Second, athletic programs rely heavily on contributions to balance their books. Donations to athletic departments may serve as a substitute for donations to the rest of the university, lowering giving to other programs. </p>
<p>Third, football and men’s basketball programs are generally highly profitable at BCS schools, but below this top tier, fewer than 10% of football programs and 15% of men’s basketball programs show a profit by any reasonable accounting measures. "</p>
<p>Football budgets have become bloated to an extreme, and to the detriment of other aspects of colleges. A recent article in USA Today says that college football coach salaries at major institutions have just increased an average of 35% in ONE year.<br>
<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2012-01-16/College-football-coaches-compenstion/52602734/1[/url]”>http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2012-01-16/College-football-coaches-compenstion/52602734/1</a></p>
<p>This is an arms race, and somebody needs to be the grown-up who steps in and says, enough.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How’s that any different than any other department or organization on campus? Do you think the rec center “makes a profit?” What about the dance department? The theatre? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or you can look at it another way. The donations to the athletic department cuts back on the amount that the university has to come up with to fund the department.</p>
<p>[College</a> to Eliminate Music, Reinstate Football | Daily Gazette](<a href=“daily.swarthmore.edu domain has changed”>daily.swarthmore.edu domain has changed)</p>
<p>And honestly, he noted, it doesnt help recruiting efforts when were on a list of the worst football teams of all time.</p>
<p>In the press release, the administration stated that despite its entertainment value, music is not academically relevant in this period. The press release also concluded that music often had values that were not in accordance with the colleges Quaker values.</p>
<p>A significant portion of the money saved from the cut will go toward reinstating Swarthmores football program, which was eliminated in 2000. President Block announced that aggressive recruitment practices will begin next year while walk on tryouts will be held next month. </p>
<p>He also noted that alumni donations will increase dramatically with the emergence of a strong football program. Alumni Relations Director Ann Katrina reported I have already gotten dozens of calls from football alumni pledging money.</p>
<p>^^^ Umm… did you bother to check the date on that article?</p>
<p>What Bay said, and I say that as a former employee of the Office for Civil Rights that investigated over 20 Title IX athletics cases at the high school and college level. Title IX is a convenient excuse by universities to cut back men’s sports.</p>
<p>^^^Yes, did you?</p>
<p>It is only one of multiple articles from many years on the subject of football and Swarthmore - and there are other articles with different viewpoints, including the topic more specific to this discussion (though not thread topic, which has gone off course) of football and other sports.</p>
<p>Well, since Swarthmore still has a music department (check their web site), and doesn’t have a football team (check their web site), and the date on the article was March 31 (the day before April 1, when it likely would have been in print), well…</p>
<p>Draw your own conclusions.</p>
<p>I mean, seriously:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL, notrichenough!</p>
<p>That article was from 2009 and I remember them cutting the football team earlier. It seems like they cut and add programs regularly, as I’ve perused articles back in to the early 90’s on the topic.</p>
<p>Personally, I would be more inclined to send my kids to a school with music and soccer - more their interests.</p>
<p>
It’s easy to tell groups to just spend twice as much money, when it’s not your money.</p>
<p>notrichenough,
I don’t know whether you are being facetious or you truly don’t get it. Title IX doesn’t tell anyone to spend any money. All it does is tell colleges to stop discriminating against women.</p>
<p>It forces schools to have womans sports that they do not need, such as horse riding, womans hockey etc. Sports no one cares about or will ever watch yet are included to keep # of sports for woman and men equal.</p>
<p>barrk123:</p>
<p>Did you not watch the USA women’s hockey team rock everyone’s world at the Olympics last time? Our family was glued to those games on TV. Again I use the example of the university closest to my home . . . The University of Washington added women’s soccer, rowing and fastpitch softball teams in the early 90s. Rowing and softball went on to win national championships and help stock the national teams - and can I say “Hope Solo”. Hello! When I attended UW in the late 80s women’s soccer was not even an NCAA sport and now they are producing world champions - how is that bad? How can you imply that nobody knows or cares?</p>
<p>This is news? As another poster pointed out ours is a country whose government has never directly supported its Olympic athletes. Our “model” is a farm system, where the training that athletes receive in the NCAA prepares them for the Olympic teams. Given the current economic climate colleges are having to cut sports programs and yes, that means that in these programs fewer athletes are being trained for the Olympics. I don’t know why this surprises anyone.</p>