<p>In another thread I mentioned that Title 9 had brought about the demise of some football programs (actually I referred to it as Title IV ooops...had tonsilitis the day we covered Roman numerals in 3rd grade) Anyway, I was rightfully corrected re the Roman numeral and questioned about the whole Title Nine leading to a loss of football programs at some schools and I wanted to supply the following link. I am NOT trying to start a Title IX argument.My Ds are athletes and I am grateful. But what I said is true...some schools esp in CA have lost their fball programs because the cost of adding women's teams to balance the numbers of male and female athletes and become compliant has been prohibitive.</p>
<p>No school in the country "lost" its football program because of Title IX. Some schools simply decided that the value of football programs was so low (relative to other possible choices of what to do with their money) that it wasn't worth investing enough in women's sports in order to keep them. </p>
<p>They could have made other choices.</p>
<p>I agree with Mini</p>
<p>The number of schools that discontinue their football is so low. If you really want to look at how Title IX has affected sports look at the number of programs lost in swimming,wrestling,gymnastics, etc. Football is one of the last sports to be lost due to Title IX,</p>
<p>mini and tom...you are right there are always choices.</p>
<p>You bet football gets expensive when all the suburban high schools insist on artificial turf and night lighting, etc. etc. I wish they'd drop it!</p>
<p>Hey guys, I want to clarify the original context of my comment. It was in the "silly questions on college tours" thread where a girl had looked at a football stadium and asked if there was football at that school. I had defended her saying that I knew that there were schools who had made the choice to drop their football programs in order to comply w/ title nine. I provided the UCD article as support. I did not want to start a debate. I am the mom of male and female athletes...son plays football, daughters have certainly benefitted from Title 9.</p>
<p>I know Vanderbilt dropped Men's Soccer to add Womens bowling...</p>
<p>And then the Womens bowling team won the national championship...</p>
<p>Weenie, at our HS football pays the bills for all of the other sports. Even basketball makes barely enough gate to cover officials and no other sport comes close. I guess it varies from place to place but we'd have no sports at our high school w/o football.</p>
<p>Our FB team makes money for every other sport to do stuff. Our Wrestling and Lacrosse have to be completely self funded as they don't.</p>
<p>FB is a + in the money department, not a minus.</p>
<p>Not at Rice! I wish Rice would drop its football program, since it is a big money loser, has little support from students, and it competes in a league that doesn't fit it at all. (Rice has 2900 undergrads, and it plays UT Austin, which has almost 40,000 undergrads!)</p>
<p>I think it's deceiving sometimes about how much money football brings in at our High School. Our football team stinks and hasn't won more then a couple of games a season since we moved here almost 10 years ago. The games, however, are very well attended because 1) not much else to do in our small town on a Friday night 2) parents of the football team, band parents and cheerleaders come to watch their kids. If my son played in the band at a soccer or field hockey game I would pay admission and watch that. If the band parents didn't come, that would be at least 40 people less in the stands. Take away the cheerleaders and that's about 15 less people.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, our football team hogs the stadium and our soccer team (which has gone on to states the last few years) often plays in an open field where no admission is charged. If the other teams could use the stadium more often and charge admission they too could make more money.</p>
<p>Football is a money maker at some schools, but loses money at most colleges. That's why it's been discontinued at a number of universities. It's a tremendously expensive program to operate. For less expensive sports I am a fan (in principle, anyway) of club sports - teams organized by students for the opportunity of participating against similar teams from nearby colleges. The whole NCAA system of University funded and orchestrated sports is more than a little off-putting to me, particularly in the sports where colleges serve as little more than underfunded minor leagues for professional sports leagues (baseball, basketball, football, hockey.)</p>
<p>Title IX doesn't prevent anyone from forming a club team in any sport, male or female.</p>
<p>Problem with football and Title 9 is that football coaches pack their teams and have many players sitting on the bench who never play. Then the wrestlers and other programs are cancelled.</p>
<p>Personally, I think Football is the most uniting of sports. It includes cheerleaders, bands and great school spirit. I've never been to a soccer game with musicians and dancers.</p>
<p>If a school has a Division 1 or 2 team they usually prohibit club sports. You will loose your Division 1 membership if there are not enough attendents. Schools don't want spectators watching club sports. But, if instead of no team in a sport, a different thing.</p>
<p>histormom: "Weenie, at our HS football pays the bills for all of the other sports."</p>
<p>Well you are lucky. Ours is paid for by an endless stream of school tax referendums.</p>
<p>The football team at our hs is also a money maker. I'm sure some of the infrastructure- the facilities, field, bathrooms, etc. were paid for by the general fund. But then again, the stadium is used for track, PE classes, soccer, and all kinds of other events. </p>
<p>The concession stand proceeds go directly to the music program. Without that, the music program would be up a creek without a paddle. </p>
<p>Friday night games are a unifying activity for all students and families.</p>
<p>Football rosters are huge. But there is also a safety issue- you need to cycle kids in and out of the game or there would be a lot more injuries. And usually players will come in at early grades and for the first year or two they don't play, because they aren't ready yet. Again, it's a safety issue- they need to learn the game, learn how to hit and be hit, learn how to watch each others back. Otherwise someone is going to get hurt.</p>
<p>.............If a school has a Division 1 or 2 team they usually prohibit club sports...........</p>
<p>I would question and disagree with this statement - all D`1 schools we have looked at have many club sports. Can you specify these D1-2 schools that prohibit club sports MerryMom</p>
<p>At the same time, many schools have ADDED women's crew in order to balance out football.</p>
<p>The only other unfortunate loss that comes to mind as far as Title IX is Yale wrestling...</p>
<p>Football is and can be a huge drain on a university's financial resources. With rosters of over 100 kids for ONE team with multiple coaches for each sub team (special teams, offense, defense, etc) it is a Title IX NIGHTMARE. </p>
<p>Most schools however have managed to avoid losing football though.</p>
<p>Why is everyone talking about their HS football teams. College football teams are a whole 'nother ballgame. They give scholarships to players and have much larger stadiums that they need to fill to bring in the same amount of revenue.</p>
<p>kathiep-
If you were not in PA I would have thought you lived in our little town. I could have written the same message.(Except that there is no charge at our football games.)
My boys were soccer players, but both played in the band at football games. We once had cheerleaders voluntarily come out to cheer for the soccer team, the week after they had beaten the perennial league champs for the first and only time.)</p>