To state the specifics once again, the percentage test in the Title IX regulations is based on participants, not scholarships. Thus, even if all the male scholarships in the non-revenue sports were eliminated, colleges would still not meet the test. The only way that cutting men's scholarships helps pass the percentage test is if you cut an entire men's sport with it, or if you use the dollars "saved" from the scholarships to keep increasing the annual women's budget to pass the alternate test. But as soon as the college stops increasing the women's budget, it is back to the percentage test.
Ed Koch -----Original Message----- From: Shawn Devereaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 8:34 AM Subject: Re: t-and-f: a Title IX thought >Here's a question... > >Is there even one program (with football) in compliance with Title IX? > >Considering a DI football program gets something like 95 scholarships, you'd >have to literally get rid of all the other men's sports for the women's sports >to come close to the total number of men's scholarships. If to be in compliance >means the school is makes gains towards equality with each review by the NCAA, >then the ultimate goal for football schools would have to be to get rid of all >other men's sports. > > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> << "Don't blame the women for the cutting of men's sports," she said. >> "We're >> not the ones who pay million-dollar salaries to football coaches." >> >> >> Larry Morgan replied: >> >> >My wife and I argue about this topic all of the time and my angle is this: >> If >> >hundreds of college football players earn and draw in these millions of >> >dollars each year through sold out stadiums and bowl games, then there is >> no >> >question as to what a coaches' salary is. >> >> Yep. Until a few years ago, you could have put me in the "they're >> overpaid" camp. >> >> Now, I'm firmly in the "they may be 'overpaid' in some egalitarian, >> societal sense. But to many Universities, given the star structure and >> revenues in College Football, they bring in what they're paid. >> >> Here at University of Texas is a great example. At one point, a few years >> back, UT had *3* Head Coaches on the payroll - Dave McWilliams, hired to a >> long-term deal and then fired ... John Mackovic, hired to a long-term deal >> and then fired ... and Mack Brown, the current coach. >> >> Which sounds insane - but under Mackovic, for example, the program and the >> fan's attitude was stagnating. Creating about 20,000 empty seats a game. >> At about $25 a seat. For 6 home games. >> >> Mack Brown has proved to be a brilliant publicist for the team, along with >> a great recruiter and decent coach. Memorial Stadium is now sold out >> pretty much for the season, they lowered the field and added 4 or 5 rows of >> seats (which is why the new track stadium was built), and the ticket prices >> are up to $30-40. Plus, to get a decent seat requires about a $5K >> contribution on the side to the Athletic Department. And they even have >> sold out luxury boxes. >> >> I wouldn't be surprised if the difference between a successful, popular >> coach at UT and a less dynamic personality isn't worth about $5-6 million >> per year to the Athletic Department at this time. It's not a sport - it's >> an industry. It's showbiz. And much of that money goes to fuel almost all >> the rest of the UT Sports teams - the men's track team at UT has a larger >> budget than many smaller schools entire athletic program. >> >> I don't have any easy answers - but I'll postulate the following, much of >> what I've said before: >> >> a) T&F is dependent on participation numbers for future support. The sad >> fact is that a couple decades of cutbacks in participation for Title IX >> compliance, combined with cuts in scholarship numbers, will be increasingly >> detrimental to collegiate programs in the future. >> >> b) This is exacerbated by large participation of foreign athletes, if those >> athletes return home after their collegiate careers and aren't around to >> contribute money and political influence - or heck, even just show up to >> watch. A program that relies too heavily on foreign athletes for success >> is on shaky ground, as even powerhouse Ranger JC found a few years ago. >> >> c) A frontal assault on Title IX is going to be bloody and drawn out, and >> potentially pyrric. There's too small (or too marginal) a contingency >> being affected, and not much understanding in the general public of the >> ills being caused by current Title IX implementation methodology. >> >> d) A successful change is going to have to come through a rational, >> partnership-based approach with women's athletics. The arguement has to >> be made that diminishing male participation in non-revenue sports - >> swimming, track and field, tennis, etc - is going to soon have negative >> impacts on opportunities for females, as the base of future knowledgable >> fans, officials, and coaches for the HS level is being eroded. Those who >> support Title IX have to be made to see that the death of men's track at >> Tulane may deprive a later generation of girls as well as boys in Louisiana >> of valuable resources. >> >> In other words, you have to convince Title IX supporters that pulling King >> Football out of the equation is needed, because otherwise men and women are >> just going to be bickering over portions of a shrinking pie. It's gotta be >> couched as a "win-win" for men's and women's minor sports, or it's going to >> continue to be a counterproductive stalemate. >> >> Phil > > >_________________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com >
