No more head count sports in NCAA Power 4

Why- wrote:

I don’t care about judicial activism in this case. When barely sub 5 females get good $ to mid majors or small $ to good power 5 but 4:10 males get no walk on opportunities, something needs to be done.

flyingfrog wrote:

RossiCheated wrote:

I think that we could see a real rise in the quality and depth of Division II teams in the next few years. Then a trickle down to Division III.

Sadly, I think we will also see fewer American athletes on the top Division I teams.

Need to increase scholarships to tennis track and xc so foreign athletes have somewhere to hone their skills.

800 dude wrote:

Title IX itself just says you can't discriminate on the basis of sex in higher education.

The problem is that executive agencies have interpreted that language to (basically) require headcount parity for sports. There are technically other ways to avoid an enforcement action, but schools don't want to take a chance. They also don't want to face private lawsuits. Schools aren't getting rid of men's programs because of Title IX. They're keeping women's programs to avoid getting sued. A lot of these schools would probably be happy to just have the revenue sports and leave everyone else to play club.

1978 wrote:

800 dude wrote:

Title IX itself just says you can't discriminate on the basis of sex in higher education.

The problem is that executive agencies have interpreted that language to (basically) require headcount parity for sports. There are technically other ways to avoid an enforcement action, but schools don't want to take a chance. They also don't want to face private lawsuits. Schools aren't getting rid of men's programs because of Title IX. They're keeping women's programs to avoid getting sued. A lot of these schools would probably be happy to just have the revenue sports and leave everyone else to play club.

But if a school adds 20 more football scholarships, then the choice is between adding 20 new women's scholarships, or cutting 20 men's slots from other sports. 3 guesses which...

FormerStopwatch wrote:

I would argue that we aren’t sending anyone in the javelin or hammer because very few highschool kids do those events.

If you look at the Olympic field, I bet a lot of those throwers came to the NCAA on scholarship

800 dude wrote:

Title IX itself just says you can't discriminate on the basis of sex in higher education.

The problem is that executive agencies have interpreted that language to (basically) require headcount parity for sports. There are technically other ways to avoid an enforcement action, but schools don't want to take a chance. They also don't want to face private lawsuits. Schools aren't getting rid of men's programs because of Title IX. They're keeping women's programs to avoid getting sued. A lot of these schools would probably be happy to just have the revenue sports and leave everyone else to play club.

EndGamez wrote:

I used to coach at a few different DI’s and it takes about 1 million to endow a scholarship at a state school (1 million at 4.5% return covers the 45k cost of the scholarship)

So schools that can provide all of these scholarships will. Most of DI is barely surviving anyway and if you are at a small player in the power 4 GOOD LUCK!!!

Think of an Oklahoma. Big successful athletic department. They care about softball, baseball, and football. They need to find 50 million to cover that?

Did you disappear them? wrote:

CO Coach wrote:

We're already seeing this in men's track and field. Look no further than the fact that the US is sending 0 men to the 2024 Olympics in the Javelin and Hammer throw. 12.6 scholarships for XC and Track on the men's side has already been slowly killing men's track and field in the US.

Are you confessing to offing Daniel Haugh, Rudy Winkler and Curtis Thompson?

CO Coach wrote:

Did you disappear them? wrote:

Are you confessing to offing Daniel Haugh, Rudy Winkler and Curtis Thompson?

Woops, my bad, I should have double checked before I spouted off. But still 2 hammer throwers and 1 javelin thrower is not great for the 3rd largest country in the world that typically wins the most track and field medals.

zhbgdf wrote:

EndGamez wrote:

I used to coach at a few different DI’s and it takes about 1 million to endow a scholarship at a state school (1 million at 4.5% return covers the 45k cost of the scholarship)

So schools that can provide all of these scholarships will. Most of DI is barely surviving anyway and if you are at a small player in the power 4 GOOD LUCK!!!

Think of an Oklahoma. Big successful athletic department. They care about softball, baseball, and football. They need to find 50 million to cover that?

Is there really a "cost" though? Isn't it simply shifting money from one pocket to another? The R&B I can see a cost but if Calc has one more kid and accounting class has 2 more, what actual "cost" is that?