<p>So boys are not applying to colleges in the same numbers as women; they are not doing as well as women (see previous thread on boys crisis). What to do about it? One answer: start a football team.</p>
<p>NYT: Small Colleges, Short of Men, Embrace Football.</p>
<p>I was just reading that article. The logic seems off to me. The President of the college said they had the money to hire big name profs or build a new building, but the football brings in more male students. She must be in survival mode.</p>
<p>Bringing them in as football scholar athletes at what cost? Maybe she needs to read some student news from other campuses.</p>
<p>The article said that its been a big source of revenue. The stadium was paid for a by a local sponsor and the players pay full tuition as its Div. 3....but to me it shows that the priorities of the particular college arent exactly academic.</p>
<p>Which college was it? Even D3 football is pretty expensive to run and the players might not get athletic scholies but they will probably eat up some of the financial aid pie at a greater rate than average.</p>
<p>Im also somewhat dumbfounded by this how exactly does D3 football increase revenues? Even if somebody pays for the stadium, running a program has to be a big expense, not to mention such things as increased insurance premiums.</p>
<p>I didn't read the article, but if your objective is to increase revenue and attract men, a more effective alternative would be to open a strip club.</p>
<p>That also would address Title IX concerns as it would create opportunities for women as well (Exotic Dance major).</p>
<p>NJres:</p>
<p>Do we really want to go down this road? See what happened at Duke? ;)</p>
<p>That is the greatest idea I have ever heard.</p>
<p>I went ahead and read the article and it's actually a pretty balanced piece on the pros and cons of introducing football at small D3 schools. I still have a hard time believing that it can be such a great revenue enhancer, but I do agree with the comments regarding campus morale and making a school more popular with male applicants, even nonathletes. I know that my non-athlete son, much to my surprise, prefers schools that have football programs.</p>
<p>I hate to say it but when I was looking at colleges, years ago, I would not have gone to one without a well supported football team. It adds a lot to the campus atmosphere. In a small town the college game really becomes a huge social event and a way to bring the students together.</p>
<p>AS to the boy crisis One thing I notice is that many of the boys, my son's friends and relatives, are going to trade schools and getting good jobs in Tech Support, Auto mechanics, Carpentry, etc. With the construction boom it is pretty easy for these guys to make a decent living right out of a one or two year trade program right now. Many who were thinking about college are doing pretty well as an electrician frankly. The trades are desperately short of help right now.</p>
<p>I had one tell me ... let them try to outsource me. He was in an apprentice program to be a plumber.</p>
<p>Hazmat, you're pointer to revenue streams is useful for D1 schools, but I'm pretty sure that the D3 numbers would be significantly different -- particularly the student aid numbers. Even the smallest of the D1 schools (Wake Forest or Vandy, maybe) is going to have a far different profile than Shenandoah or Seton Hill.</p>
<p>my only point is that there are many more items than financial aid. You can look up money losses and travel........if D1 cannot make then D3 isn't going to either. The amazing part to my mind is that few, I repeat few: make money.</p>
<p>Travel: <a href="http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/expense_stat/show_field_rank%5B/url%5D">http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/expense_stat/show_field_rank</a></p>
<p>Football expense to revenue
<a href="http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/expense_stat/show_field_rank%5B/url%5D">http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/expense_stat/show_field_rank</a></p>
<p>"I had one tell me ... let them try to outsource me. He was in an apprentice program to be a plumber."</p>
<p>drizzit, don't you love that attitude? I think trade schools are a fantastic option. Smart, mechanically inclined kids quickly make six figures in my area. Cops & firemen, too, are doing the 20 and out careeer plan and cashing in quite impressivley in their second careers. (Although I think it is rather uncommon for cops or firemen to join the force with no college under their belts.) I know a few cops who picked up finance MBAs at night and are now being sought after by firms searching out terrorist money-laundering plots. </p>
<p>College is not for everyone.</p>
<p>Don't you think that engineering and business schools would do the trick?</p>
<p>Well, as the mom of a son who dropped varsity football at the high school level mainly to "go where the girls are," i.e., drama, I am not entirely convinced that schools with large female populations don't already have something to attract males. And, NJRes, you crack me up. Strip dancing major indeed. :)</p>
<p>If football is such a big money maker for the school, why are extra fees generally tacked onto the tuition to support the football program? When my sister was at UC Boulder, I looked at this as her having to pay extra to import rapists to campus.</p>
<p>Obviously many football programs have a positive effect on the campuses and the students. But some schools simply can't be trusted to run their programs ethically and safely. </p>
<p>Here in Louisiana, a local regional U. brought back football after a 20 year or so hiatus, in the hopes that alumni donations would come pouring in. I don't know if they've gotten the money they expected, but the university has since settled at least one lawsuit and is facing some others, because of the lengths university officials were allegedly willing to go to, to see the program succeed.</p>
<p>Among the things that high ranking university officials have admitted to under oath:</p>
<p>Stating that past student elected homecoming courts (for basketball) were now "too dark" (racially). Changing policies to ensure that an all-white court was trotted out on the field for the first football homecoming. Eliminating the position of the dean of students who refused to make the changes.</p>
<p>Even worse, it's been alleged that in order to protect their then million dollar investment in football, U. officials violated federal laws regarding sexual assault on campus rather than risk alienating fraternity members whose support of the program was thought to be vital.</p>
<p>Among the things that high-ranking University officials admitted to under oath:</p>
<p>After two freshman girls reported to the local police that they had been drugged and molested at a fraternity party, they were escorted by members of that fraternity to the police station to drop the charges. The university was legally obligated to inform the girls that they still had the right to seek disciplinary action through the school, but a vice president ordered the employee responsible for making this notification to withhold the information from the girls, even though the employee (a nationally recognized authority on the Clery act) informed him it was against federal law not to tell them.</p>
<p>Allegations of sexual assault were not reported to the campus as required by the Clery act. (That means, among other things, that you as a parent touring the school, would be seeing falsified and sanitized statistics when you asked about assaults on campus).</p>
<p>Allegations of sexual assault against the members of a particular fraternity were referred to the fraternity advisor, himself a member, for "investigation." </p>
<p>A videotaped statement that victims made during an "investigation" was mysteriously erased.</p>
<p>After complaints of sexual assault were made against members of a fraternity that already was on no-party restrictions, the fraternity held a party with alcohol. How was this flagrant rule-breaking handled by the university? Top officials decided that since the "no party" rule wasn't "working", they would just allow the frat to start having parties again. </p>
<p>Sadly, because the university was hushing up incidents instead of reporting them as required, most of this didn't come out until another young woman (who had confided to friends that she had been drugged and gang-raped at a fraternity party) committed suicide. University officials were aware that she had told her friends about being raped, and withheld from her the interventions mandated by federal law when officials suspect sexual assault.</p>
<p>Her parents are currently suing, and last I heard, the department of justice was investigating the alleged violations of federal law. The university already paid a settlement in the discrimination case (that involved getting rid of the woman who refused to racially gerrymander the homecoming court).</p>
<p>If they get enough alumni donations to cover the lawsuits and the legal expenses and any fines from the feds, the U. will still see football as a good investment. </p>
<p>What was really amazing, when the U. president was asked under oath how many rapes were reported on campus in the last year, he said he had no idea. He went on to add, "It's not like I keep a tally." (Federal law requires schools to keep just this tally). </p>
<p>I'll admit that this particular U. is probably a very egregious example. But the trouble is, you just don't know how many more are out there, doing exactly the same kinds of things, and you haven't heard about it.</p>
<p>(If anyone wants to read the 200+ pages of eye-opening depositions, pm me for a contact).</p>