I was at a Big XII school. We had a big meeting on Title IX. It turns out that the only football teams that profit are schools like Texas and Nebraska. So, just a few. Every other team breaks even at best, if they don't lose.
Their only argument, then, is that they pay for themselves. But, honestly, they usually don't generate a profit.
Many don't turn a profit because of the way the football-generated revenues are distributed. Most of the TV revenue, bowl-game revenue, and merchandising are put in a different fund than the football budget because they use that money for the entire university. Notre Dame puts all of its NBC money into its scholarship endowment for example, the athletic program doesn't see any of that. On paper, football might not make money, but in the upper half of D-1A, it is a huge revenue getter for just about every school. If football and basketball weren't profitable ventures for schools, how come so many schools want to make the jump to D-1 so they can share in a piece of the pie?
The NCAA does not have to comply with Title IX so there is no argument whatsoever here. Title IX is part of the Educational Ammendment of 1972. Only SCHOOLS receiving federal funding have to comply with Title IX. Not only is the NCAA not an educational institution, but they also do not receive federal funding. There isn't any discrimination here, but even if there were you should not blame Title IX. Any discrimination here would be the NCAA doing it because it wants to, not because they have to or someone told them to.
Additionally, it is very rare for a football program to be making money. Only the huge football schools such as Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Florida St., etc would you see a profit. Do the math of how much it costs for 85 full scholarships, equipment and uniforms for those 85 plus walk-ons, facilities and facility maintenance(stadium, weight room, etc.), coaching salaries(head coach and however many paid assistants-usually way too many), athletic trainers and training equipment, transportation, accomodation(hotels for the away games, but also the home games-many schools put their kids up in a hotel for home games for minimal distractions), and all other miscellaneous costs including those I forgot to mention. It is just a big myth that football programs make a profit and fund the other programs.
You people also like to exclude the impact that football has on donation levels and general marketing of the school. These AD's aren't putting so much emphasis on football so they have something to do on a saturday morning.
This is also another great example of the societal castration of American males by the feminist movement. The problem isn't the ridiculous implementation of a well-meaning law. No, the problem is that us men are screwing ourselves over with our love for football. We should just let women make all the decisions and everything would work out for the best. I'm such a big dumb animal.
it is nice pancho that you can admit that.
atownrunnin wrote:
On paper, football might not make money, but in the upper half of D-1A, it is a huge revenue getter for just about every school.
The upper half of D-1A is, roughly speaking, about 60 schools. 59 of them have men's outdoor track, and about the only ones that don't have indoor are in places where it's silly to run inside.
It's the lower half of 1-A, and schools that recently moved to 1-AA, that are experiencing the cutbacks in men's track. If your conference doesn't have a national TV contract and an automatic BCS bid, you're in the crosshairs.