Discussion in 'College Tennis Talk' started by wanatabe mixer, Nov 29, 2011.
I just wanted to say thanks for this thread. Very interesting stuff. Thank you all. This is one of the reasons to cruise by these boards regularly.
For me, it lead to an instapundit article, then an article on National Assoc of Scholars.
BTW, dennis10is is hilarious.
we need your support!
Hi fellow TalkTennis members.
so i came across this page to help save the men's program at Maryland. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Maryland-Tennis-Bail-Out/239146259496089
please take a look and pass it on!
I wonder what will become of all the players. They will all transfer I guess. And what about Spencer? He has turned the program around quickly, surely there will be a school looking at him, maybe Arizona who has gone down very fast.
It's all over for the Terps.
RIP UMD men's team... i enjoyed watching while the team lasted
i wonder how many people's pension can support 1 Div 1 tennis team?
10+ years ago in California, they were getting life time medical after 5 year employment. can u believe that? LOL.
why would you want to take someones pension and medical benefits to support a D 1 tennis team?? thats just stupid...the way its structured now, college tennis is a waste of money for every school
There are many valid flaws with Title IX. I support the idea behind it, but in reality Title IX is a broken system.
The spirit of the decree was to add women's sports, not cut men's sports. Hundreds of men's wrestling, gymnastics, and tennis teams have been cut from D-I athletics programs around the country in order to allow universities to meet Title IX proportionality requirements, according to 60 Minutes.
The fact of the matter is, athletic participation is far higher for males than females. There are just more men who want to play college sports than women.
In America, it's not about what makes sense. It's about equality. Everything must be politically correct, balanced and equal or it is not right. Logic is not in the equation.
As a former Terp tennis player and student,(undergrad and graduate) it's embarrassing for the school and shameful for the AD. Most insider's know they overextended themselves in football and basketball. For a school comprised of close to 40k students this should not have happened.
It would be interesting to know how many athletic departments survive solely on huge donors, if that dried up many would go to the wall. It is a noble enterprise run by idiots and controlled by overpaid celebrity coaches.
You have some valid points. I can tell you that the boosters (volunteers) are very loyal alumni that spent countless hours fundraising and lending their personal time to the universities. They certainly are not to blame. The front office, I feel sometimes takes their graciousness for granted. The football and basketball programs are compensated several ways outside of donors; merchandising and profit sharing from conference bowl games. It would interesting to see where the $$'s flow and to whom.
Maryland announcing today that they are departing the ACC for the Big 10. All current Big 10 Schools have tennis, I wonder if there is any chance of Maryland bringing it back. Maryland cited budget cuts when they got rid of the program but they're going to spend between 20 & 50 million to leave the ACC. The television revenue from the Big 10 is supposed to exceed the ACC by a large margin so there might be enough excees cash to get things rolling again. I guess we'll wait and see.
I wouldn't count on it, at least anytime soon. It really is just about football and basketball. Shame that Maryland's most sucessful sports program (lacrosse) suffers the most from the move to the B1G.
Not counting on it either. Colorado moved to the PAC-10 and doubt they will change their sport teams lineups by adding any. I hear ya on the fact they would be the only one without. Still can't see it coming back without a specific large donation/endowment to men's tennis to bring it back.
Probably the truth to it here.
Never say never, but I don't predict any additions in the next decade. Maryland is just trying to stay afloat.
I actually think this move really hurts MD recruiting. Tough sell to a mid west kid to go to MD. Not as easy of a commute for family as it was to grab kids out of the Carolina's. I'm speaking mostly to basketball, which is where MD has the most revenue sport success.
During the announcement press conference, Maryland officials did mention reinstating some of the sports that were cut. Not sure if that includes men's tennis. I'm betting it's not high on the list, but who knows?
The cost of travelling to Nebraska and Minnesota etc may make this an issue but then again who knows, college sports have gone mental
With the revenue generating sports - football and basketball - using something like 100 scholarships, that means you have to create teams for scholarships for 100 women and find 100 women to fill them before you can put a single guy on scholarship in another sport. That's why you have situations like the 60 Minutes exposed where colleges are giving scholarships for the women's tennis team to guys who are hitting partners for the gals. They just can't find enough qualified women to fill the spots.
As far revenue generated by the sports, the revenue in vs. the revenue out for most teams may not be positive, but football especially helps a lot in getting large donations to the university as well as name recognition in attracting high quality students. They are also a rallying point for cohesion of the student body and alumni.
Most college presidents are no dummies and they know that the positive aspects of football and sometimes even basketball far outweigh the costs when all factors are taken into account.
Many professors don't like having sports teams because they only take into account the costs. However, many would not have jobs except for the other money that indirectly comes into the university from the existence of the sports teams.
I like their lax program, but as far as most successful recently, that would be field hockey (champs in 05, 06, 08, 10, 11, final four this year - and most years).
This is not accurate information from what I've been told over the years. Title 9 rules are rather nebulous when it comes to specifics, and one of those areas is scholarship allotment. Very few of the FBS schools that get 85 football scholarships actually give an equal amount of athletic scholarships to men and women covering all sports. Title 9 is about equal opportunity, and that doesn't necessarily equate to equal athletic scholarships across gender.
Didn't get to see the 60 Minutes piece, so not sure if they are also claiming that the number of scholarships needs to be equal, but if you look at some of the mid major type FBS schools you'll see that they don't even sponsor enough women's teams to even equal just football in terms of the amount of scholarships available per sport.
The nuts and bolts of Title 9 is that you need to offer equal opportunity to women athletes as men. Therefore, it doesn't necessarily need to be a 50/50 split. It does need to accurately reflect the demographics of your student body.
So, a school like Ga Tech which is 2/3 male will not need to offer 50% of the scholarships to women. A school like Savannah College of Art and Design that is 3/4 female, would need to offer more than 50% to women.
Football does suck up 85 scholarships. Most schools have to make up that difference. That is why it is very common to sponsor varsity women's volleyball, crew, tennis, soccer, equestrian etc and not have a male counter sport.
In my opinion Title 9 is responsible for the termination of 100 men's college tennis teams. Football with 85 scholarships is the problem. Funding the 85 matching scholarships for women have strained university budgets beyond the breaking point. As a result men's tennis, wrestling and gymnastics have been eliminated at many colleges.
The law itself does not demand exactly the same number of women's and men's scholarships. However, the government in practice keeps very close tabs on this and if they are not equal, the school will likely face a lawsuit where they will have to prove that they are giving equal opportunity. They likely could win the case if they have a lopsided breakdown in the student body or other such legitimate reason, but why would they risk it? Besides, since around 60% of college students are women, the government may start suing to get a higher proportion of sports scholarships to women than men.
So we can't survive without football money, but because of their 85 scholarships, men's tennis gets botted to the curb. Title 9 is a no-win situation for men's tennis.
its ironic too because in the last 10yrs or so maryland tennis has shot up the rankings. i think last time we were at around 57 in the nation
Correct, it's a shame. And it's also the reason men's tennis gets 4.5 scholarships and women's gets 8.
However, if there was no title 9 you can rest assured that many schools would sponsor just football and men's basketball.
Of course, they could reinstate the team and just not have it be a scholarship program. You would have players come in and pay their own way or be able to qualify for scholarshiping thru academic means or grants. You know, the old fashioned way...it's not un-heard of...with hard work and the BIG10+ budget and some creativity they should be able to compete after a little while with MOST teams.
Truthfully, this just comes down to your administrators and how they interpret the NCAA. We had great ones then had crazies. At a school that was 70% male (D3, non-scholarship), in the end we had to have everything totally equal...every opportunity...practice players...everything...ground us to a halt. Much of the NCAA rules come down to interpretation...they say very clearly..."we want you to have the leeway at your institution to make decisions. If you have questions or concerns, come to us. If there are problems or if things get reported to us...then we will come to you".
Yes, I think this would be a great idea. They wouldn't compete well with those that give scholarships for tennis, but since there are getting to be so few of them, they could essentially have two divisions - one with and one without scholarships. There are still significant costs in terms of travel, facilities, coaches, etc. that the school would have to pony up for. Still, lots of kids would still jump at the chance to play high-level college tennis, and if the coaching were good and other conditions were right, might choose to even go there over a place where they could get a partial scholarship - and tennis has the advantage over some sports in that the kids are often very good academically.
This is exactly the problem. Anyone that views Title 9 as the problem is not looking at the big picture. It's all about football in the NCAA, and football is monopolizing the majority of men's scholarships.
In this day and age it would be totally unacceptable to give men dozens and dozens of scholarships and women just a handful. Since Title 9 won't be changing, the question becomes how to increase the demand for tennis. Not an easy thing as interest in the sport has declined over the past few decades.
Right, and ultimately it comes down to the NCAA and institution not getting sued for discrimination. The NCAA establishes a framework of female entitlement that the institution can use in their defense. Then the school must justify which sports to sponsor and to what level to fund individual programs.
It all boils down to avoiding getting sued over a federal law. Many ways to skin the cats.
I know DIII athletes who were given what were ostensibly academic scholarships, but once they quit the team, the scholarships went away. Schools can and do cheat.
Then the male athletes should have sued the school. It can be done, and they likely would have won. I went to a school that required all US males who had not served in the military to take ROTC for two years. Someone finally sued on the basis of sex discrimination, and won. I'm all for title IX, but it should work both ways.
If football is generating revenue, then it should not be included in the scholarship equality count. That is what makes things unfair and gives title 9 a bad name.
We do need to figure out how to help tennis grow, and I think high school tennis is one vehicle that could change the game.
Tennis in its popularity, although, has never been bigger. The sport has not declined over the last few decades but actually has the fifth largest tv audience in the US and fourth in the world of all sports. It is growing strongly, but we do need to give it a stronger foothold in the US.
I could not disagree more. That is the basis for many types of gender discrimination. It's a terrible, terrible idea that, luckily, would never be taken seriously.
There would not be a defined category under our laws called "men's scholarships" if not for Title IX. We had more men's tennis teams many decades ago when football was limited to 120 scholarships than we have today when football is limited to 85 scholarships. The difference between then and now? Title IX.
Was this a public school or a private school?
Public, Colorado School of Mines. Actually, you could get out of the second year, and the first year was kind of fun. It was taught by Majors from the Army Corps of Engineers, one semester was bridge building (basic engineering), and the other semester was bridge demolition (where to put the C4).
Yes, but the point is that they currently choose to use the vast majority of men's scholarships for football.
Needless to say, I am a big fan of Title 9. I realize that many people aren't but that's not a concern of mine as there is no danger of it changing.
Title 9 has been fantastic for women's sports. As in most cases, things have swung too far to the extent that it is now biased against men's athletics. So, the guidelines should be tweaked a bit. Not being able to fill spots on women's college teams and then cutting men's programs sounds good to you?
The problem with Title IX is in how it's applied. Instead of schools adding sports for women, it's more likely you see schools reducing sports for men. I went to a school that was 52% female, so we had to keep funding some really bad women's teams (e.g. usually less then 5 wins in a season) just to keep our numbers up.
One thing I am in support of to even things out a bit for the men is to recognize cheerleading and dance teams as varsity sports. They are part of the athletic budget and look at their roster sizes. Unfortunately the courts have not agreed. In 2009 Quinnipiac College cut a few sport teams incl. women' volleyball in a budget balancing move. The women's volleyball team sued the school claiming it no longer complied with Title IX. The school claimed they were still in compliance with Title IX by including cheerleading in the headcount.
The point is that you are putting the cart before the horse. Only because of Title IX is there a problem with the number of "men's scholarships" or football scholarships, so it is misleading to say that the cause of programs such as tennis being cut is football. The root cause is Title IX.
It's a good idea but it has its flaws. Any time you put in a new system, after a while flaws and problems float to the top. It's pretty clear that some changes need to be made to it. Have there been any since it first came out? Or are the NCAA and other head honchos too bull-headed to admit it and work them out?
If a sport can fully pay for itself, how is that gender discrimination? If a women's sport can sell tickets and create a profit, that sport wouldn't be considered in the scholarship equality count either. This would have absolutely nothing to do with equal rights, just balanced budgets.
True. It's clearly a "distribute the wealth" (from football) model at the DI level. However, many of the minor sports are sustained by student fees and boosters. The financial models across athetic departments and how the non-revenue sports is different from institution to institution.
Wow, have you ever even read cases where Title 9 was applied?
I'd be very interested to see any actual data that supports this claim. According to the NCAA,
1981-82: Total Men's Tennis Teams (d1, d2, d3): 690. Number of participants: 7,340.
2011-12: Total Men's Tennis Teams(d1, d2, d3): 765. Number of participants: 8,177.
(The numbers of teams and participants for d1 ONLY is very slightly lower in 11-12 than it was in 81-82.)
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/PR2013.pdf, pp. 168-69.
That's like saying the root cause of unemployment is women filling jobs that men could have. There are plenty of companies that wouldn't hire women if they thought it wouldn't result in a lawsuit.
Title 9 is absolutely necessary because plenty of people still use flawed logic to justify discrimination-
- "football shouldn't count because it makes money"
- "We had more men's tennis teams many decades ago when football was limited to 120 scholarships than we have today when football is limited to 85 scholarships. The difference between then and now? Title IX"
Separate names with a comma.