Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mugtang

UNM to reduce sponsored sports?

Recommended Posts

On 4/18/2018 at 3:51 PM, LoboMan59 said:

UNM will cut baseball just I time for BSU to step in to take its place. The only men’s team left at UNM will be football and basketball. Soon, we may be the only school in the country that will have more women’s teams than men’s teams... 

SJSU has 12 women's teams to only 7 men's teams. An 8th (Men's Track & Field) is finally coming back next year after getting the Title IX axe in 1988. 

CnQ2g6-WIAAYxIW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2018 at 1:47 PM, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Although the UC system didn't, the CSU board of trustees immediately caved to the National Orgasm for Women.

They didn’t sue the UC System.  Mostly because they didn’t have people ( I use the term loosely) like Margie Wright and Diane Multinovich in their schools.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Election year. That said, UNM admin and AD has been a dumpster fire as far as transparency goes. New Pres and AD, some of the old guard retiring, interesting to see what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/30/2018 at 11:50 PM, sactowndog said:

They didn’t sue the UC System.  Mostly because they didn’t have people ( I use the term loosely) like Margie Wright and Diane Multinovich in their schools.   

That's not true. NOW inquired at gender equity at the UC schools first.  The reason they got a free ride is they had a plan in place achieve equity over time.  The CSU system was dragging their feet and didn't have clue on how to achieve this so they were slammed.  It's their own fault.

"Everyone wants a hero...And Derek Carr, he's going to be a hero at times."

- Pat Hill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 1IvyDog said:

That's not true. NOW inquired at gender equity at the UC schools first.  The reason they got a free ride is they had a plan in place achieve equity over time.  The CSU system was dragging their feet and didn't have clue on how to achieve this so they were slammed.  It's their own fault.

Partly because people like Wright were extreme in what they wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To heck with the track and field at San José State. The cost of the upgrades required to fit T&F on South Campus are too costly. The only ppl who care abt SJStf are a few nerds on the internet, nobody in SJ gives a GD.

We need to get ppl interested in the present before we can celebrate our history.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't MOST NCAA schools have more womens' sports than mens', if they sponsor football?

The exceptions I can think of are huge P5 schools with plenty of excess cash in the AD's budget. I doubt schools like Michigan, Texas and etc have to have more womens sports than mens', but they can subsidize it more easily.

 

It's awfully hard to keep the Title IX formulas in the green area when you sponsor FB (even at the FCS level) and don't add additional womens' sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Thomas said:

It's awfully hard to keep the Title IX formulas in the green area when you sponsor FB (even at the FCS level) and don't add additional womens' sports.

I never understood why the ratio has to be match the (fluid) M/F enrollment numbers. 

Equal is equal. In theory, every school's "ideal" could/should be a 50/50 Male-to-Female student ratio, so why not have the Title IX requirement reflect that? A school can argue that if, for example, the percentage of Female students is at 60% that the school would like to attract more Male students in order to level, or EQUAL it out, so being forced to keep the Male student-athlete ratio at 40% is detrimental to this University objective of achieving EQUALITY.

In my opinion, the ratio should be a flat 50/50 (with an exception made to the Service Academies).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TheBigAwesome said:

I never understood why the ratio has to be match the (fluid) M/F enrollment numbers. 

Equal is equal. In theory, every school's "ideal" could/should be a 50/50 Male-to-Female student ratio, so why not have the Title IX requirement reflect that? A school can argue that if, for example, the percentage of Female students is at 60% that the school would like to attract Male students to level or EQUAL it out, so being forced to keep the Male student-athlete ratio at 40% is detrimental to this University objective of achieving EQUALITY.

In my opinion, the ratio should be a flat 50/50 (with an exception made to the Service Academies).

Isn’t it based on tax revenue? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheBigAwesome said:

I never understood why the ratio has to be match the (fluid) M/F enrollment numbers. 

Equal is equal. In theory, every school's "ideal" could/should be a 50/50 Male-to-Female student ratio, so why not have the Title IX requirement reflect that? A school can argue that if, for example, the percentage of Female students is at 60% that the school would like to attract Male students to level or EQUAL it out, so being forced to keep the Male student-athlete ratio at 40% is detrimental to this University objective of achieving EQUALITY.

In my opinion, the ratio should be a flat 50/50 (with an exception made to the Service Academies).

Trouble isn't the raw number of students male/female or athletes male/female as much as it is the huge budget required for Football.

Even if a U's studentbody is 50/50, and student athletes are 50/50, with FB, the budget for the mens' side is way bigger than that for Womens' sports.

Adding more Womens' sports is one of the ways to keep the mens/womens budget situation more at parity.

 

Trouble with Title IX is that there are 4-5 different ways they can assassinate your University, and the budget-equity in athletics one is the hardest to rectify, if the U has Football. Football brings in the big dollars, but it costs a fortune to run, vs the other sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NevadaFan said:

Isn’t it based on tax revenue? 

Is it?

I'm under the impression that in order to be compliant a University's percentage of scholarships given to male/female student-athletes has to match that of the current enrollment statistics. I could be wrong.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Even if a U's studentbody is 50/50, and student athletes are 50/50, with FB, the budget for the mens' side is way bigger than that for Womens' sports.

I get that but it would help. Say, for example, a University (with a 60/40 female-to-male student population ratio) offers 100 Male scholarships it would only need to offer 100 Female scholarships (100/200 = 50%) to be compliant instead of having to offer 150 (100/250 = 40%). Is my understanding of the ratio requirement as it pertains to compliance wrong? I could be wrong here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TheBigAwesome said:

I get that but it would help. Say, for example, a University (with a 60/40 female-to-male student population ratio) offers 100 Male scholarships it would only need to offer 100 Female scholarships (100/200 = 50%) to be compliant instead of having to offer 150 (100/250 = 40%). Is my understanding of the ratio requirement as it pertains to compliance wrong? I could be wrong here.

You're correct, but Universities have to meet several tests, not just that one, to keep the Title IX police at bay.

 

Look, I get that at the time Title IX was passed, womens sports support and sponsoring was abysmal, but I don't think the goal was ever to kill off Mens' sports to achieve some sort of parity.

Wrestling is basically dead nationwide vs 30 years ago, and Title IX is 100% to blame for why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TheBigAwesome said:

I get that but it would help. Say, for example, a University (with a 60/40 female-to-male student population ratio) offers 100 Male scholarships it would only need to offer 100 Female scholarships (100/200 = 50%) to be compliant instead of having to offer 150 (100/250 = 40%). Is my understanding of the ratio requirement as it pertains to compliance wrong? I could be wrong here.

Several MWC schools need to nut-up and add Womens' Rifle as a sponsored sport. 

Come on, this is the WEST, why deny the traditions of our forefathers?

 

Besides, it would freak out the PAC12 schools, who need a good waking-up now and then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Thomas said:

You're correct, but Universities have to meet several tests, not just that one, to keep the Title IX police at bay.

Okay, thanks for verifying that.

I also understand that there are several other requirements but I think adopting my recommendation would be a good start. In the example I gave above, that could potentially save a University from having to offer those 50 additional scholarships, which could mean not adding a sport(s) that would require additional coaches salaries, facilities and associated maintenance, etc. Cost savings across the board.

As you say, there are other factors, so possibly the University would need to offer additional sports anyway, but even then probably not as many as now. Controlling costs should take a higher priority. This cost mitigation, in turn, may be the difference (at some places) between killing the wrestling program or keeping it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any news on sports being actually cut?

CU fans on AllBuffs have been debating about whether to bring back baseball but it appears that the cost of baseball is really going up and it's difficult to see CSU and Wyoming bring back baseball as well.  My guess is that UNM will be looking hard at cutting baseball and I don't think it is a good idea to cut either soccer program at this point in light of the 2026 World Cup announcement.

Just my $0.02.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...