Large Women's College Rosters

[Unregistered]

But the men's football men's basketball, and men's hockey, even considered singularly, usually bring in more than all women's sports combined

my child benefits from Title 9, but it is a friggin joke....more Oprah-type wussification of America

"wussification of America"??? Wow. With your piercing insight into the socio-political and economic dynamics of college athletics you might be just the right person to be Palin's running mate in 2012.

[Unregistered]

The student debt bubble will be another bubble to burst. Not sure how that will effect title 9 which I agree in concept with, and hope it continues But to ridicule and bash a fiscally conservative mind, , is quite common among liberals and socialists. Keep your head in the sand or play word spin, but many others are starting to question the government spending bubble.

[Unregistered]

How is ensuring opportunities to female student-athletes a wussification of America? If there were more Athletic Directors and college Presidents that did the right thing without having being told to, there would not be a need for the legislation.

And how does what money is brought in have anything to do with whether opportunity should be provided?

Wait, what's that sound I hear...kinda' sounds like knuckles dragging on the ground...

I think that sports that bring in considerable funds and help the schools monetarily should be excluded from Title 9 scrutiny. The fact is that big time schools make lots of cash from basketball, and football while soccer, for men and women, as well as most other sports only costs the school.

Think of it as a business. Do you continue with a product that has minimal appeal or do you fully support the proven choice of most people?

I hate college hoop and football, but they make schools tons of money. Water polo and women's soccer, my favorite, lose money. What if schools opted just to keep sports that were cost-effective? Would that be acceptable?

[Unregistered]

Hey but maybe the spin that conservatives are against women's athletics will get your man some traction. He could use it.

[Unregistered]

"wussification of America"??? Wow. With your piercing insight into the socio-political and economic dynamics of college athletics you might be just the right person to be Palin's running mate in 2012.

Go bake some cookies Tootsie! Too bad you weren't born in Saudi Arabia so you could stroll behind your man.

[Unregistered]

all non revenue supported sports should maybe be club sports.
Both men and women.

[Unregistered]

Go bake some cookies Tootsie! Too bad you weren't born in Saudi Arabia so you could stroll behind your man.

Someone did us all a huge favor by becoming your significant other.

[Unregistered]

I wish colleges would contain their "recruiting travel budgets" and instead use those funds for scholarships for all players on their team. This by nature would bring more recruits to their school. If players knew they would get full ride scholarships if they are rostered, more players would present themselves to the coaches and support their for-profit recruiting camps. And while I don't claim to understand the science behind limiting the number of scholarships for women's sports like soccer (probably to equalize the field for schools that can't afford more) , it seems unfortunate for girls that this limit is placed. At least they have raised it lately for women's soccer to 14, but with rosters like University of FL near 40, the 14 barely goes beyond the starting juniors and seniors. Or you really have to be a national team player to get a shot, and with competition in the US and politics, getting a spot on national team is almost like winning the lottery.

[Unregistered]

all non revenue supported sports should maybe be club sports.
Both men and women.

That would include 40-50% of the top football and basketball programs. According to NCAA, only 50%-60% of FSB football and basketball programs generate more revenue than they cost. http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/...s+and+Expenses

[Unregistered]

But the men's football men's basketball, and men's hockey, even considered singularly, usually bring in more than all women's sports combined

Yes, men's football, basketball and hockey bring in revenue, but most of them, particularly football, also cost a lot more. Most football programs lose money -- and probably a lot more money than a women's soccer program loses.

[Unregistered]

"Large Women's College Rosters"

am 100% for large women on college rosters

[Unregistered]

I wish colleges would contain their "recruiting travel budgets" and instead use those funds for scholarships for all players on their team. This by nature would bring more recruits to their school. If players knew they would get full ride scholarships if they are rostered, more players would present themselves to the coaches and support their for-profit recruiting camps. And while I don't claim to understand the science behind limiting the number of scholarships for women's sports like soccer (probably to equalize the field for schools that can't afford more) , it seems unfortunate for girls that this limit is placed. At least they have raised it lately for women's soccer to 14, but with rosters like University of FL near 40, the 14 barely goes beyond the starting juniors and seniors. Or you really have to be a national team player to get a shot, and with competition in the US and politics, getting a spot on national team is almost like winning the lottery.

a school's travel budget is probably significantly less than even a single full scolarship's accounting cost. Especially at private schools where the "value" of that scholly is assessed at $50K+. Of course this shows one of the silly things about academic athletic financing.

Although we as consumers (parents/players) and the NCAA value that full scholarship based on the price associted with a school's billing amount (say $18K+ for a state school up to almost $70K now for some ultra-expensive privates), the budgeting reality is that the full scholly doesn't actually cost the school that much. Higher educational financing is extremely complex (and a lot like health/care hospital financing and budgeting) and it is fair to say that the only student that costs the school the advertised "sticker" price are those occasional spots in a freshmen class that go unfilled.

As an example, BC has a womens soccer budget that includes approximately $740K for scholarships, but it doesn't really cost BC that much to provide the course space, housing, meals and books for that team. For example the "cost" of books includes a fractional mark-up (or profit) for the school's bookstore, but that is included in the schooly amount. In many cases it is just creative accounting. But, I can promise you that these schools know the "real" cost of these programs, although that number is kept very private.

[Unregistered]

How is ensuring opportunities to female student-athletes a wussification of America? If there were more Athletic Directors and college Presidents that did the right thing without having being told to, there would not be a need for the legislation.

And how does what money is brought in have anything to do with whether opportunity should be provided?

Wait, what's that sound I hear...kinda' sounds like knuckles dragging on the ground...

If you are going to have a discussion regarding the impact of title 9 over the nearly 4 decades it has been around , you need to look at both the consequencess and the unintended consequences.

The only reason it has had an effect is because of the meddling of the Government financially in education. Get government money out, and it would be left to sink or swim. Womens' sports would sink faster than mens. No one should be against advanacement of women's rights and causes, but not at the expense of others. More Women graduate College now than men. More Women get Master's Degrees than men. since 75 % of mothers work, who raises the children? Strangers? Yes, we have millions of Women athletes graduating College, at the expense of less men, educated to enter the work force. 25 % of familes in America are single parent. Other major Industrial nations average 15 %.

See the big picture? is it any wonder why America is in decline? Social engineering always seems fashionable and right at the time it is put into action. With most all social engineering, it takes decades to see what comes out in the wash.

Look, I have a daughter, she played many sports before going to College. She decided that instead of kicking a ball, she would hit the books. Entering society as a College Grad , this now seems to have been the correct choice for her. I just thiink personally that the preoccupation with girl's and women's sports is a large part of the " Race to Nowhere " mentality that our society seems to have currrently embraced. Balance and moderation are keys to success. I just wonder if that is truly the case today.

[Unregistered]

I think that sports that bring in considerable funds and help the schools monetarily should be excluded from Title 9 scrutiny. The fact is that big time schools make lots of cash from basketball, and football while soccer, for men and women, as well as most other sports only costs the school.

Think of it as a business. Do you continue with a product that has minimal appeal or do you fully support the proven choice of most people?

I hate college hoop and football, but they make schools tons of money. Water polo and women's soccer, my favorite, lose money. What if schools opted just to keep sports that were cost-effective? Would that be acceptable?

Care to point to some evidence? For the majority of D1 programs, football programs do NOT generate any significant revenue. Although they bring in a lot of money, they are also very, very expensive to operate.

Take a look at the LSU football facility:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLWagEGQvEE

How much do you think this costs to operate?

[Unregistered]

Exactly. The cost to feed large women soccer players can be embarassing, so schools keep it very quiet. ;)