Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City

    Title IX proponents rejoice!

    Title IX, as it has been insanely interpreted, claims more victims:

    Arizona State administrators on Tuesday eliminated three men's sports — wrestling, tennis and swimming — in a move they say will save the university $1 million a year. ...
    Wrestling, tennis and swimming were selected, [athletic director Lisa] Love said, based on their financial impact on the budget, potential for competitive success, regional support and gender equity.
    The decision affects six fulltime coaches and 70 athletes. ...
    http://www.azstarnet.com/sports/238922

    How on earth is this fair? For those that justify Title IX draconian implementation as payback for the discrimination in sports women supposedly endured in years past, savor the retribution.

    Title IX as written is not evil, but as interpreted, it is unfair and causes resentment.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    ← Bay / Valley ↓
    Let me play devil's advocate for a moment (I do think it is unfair FWIW)


    Are tennis, wrestling, and swimming really worth spending $1MM on? I'm guessing the $1MM goes towards things like NCAA fees, scholarship, sending kids to/hosting meets, coaches' salaries, and uniforms. Assuming the 6 coaches get about $50k (I have no idea, just a guess considering the region, sport, and it's a nice round number) that leaves 700k divided among 70 kids, or $10,000 per person per year. Considering that tuition is $5000/year (and I'd guess not all of them had full scholarships, meaning higher portion of the money was spent on equipment/meets/etc), that is a lot of money to spend on a non-revenue athlete.

    Having said that, the article also mentions "ASU's athletics revenue was $53 million in 2007" - they really needed that extra million? Really?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Do those on scholarship already get to stay on scholarship?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Lexington, KY

    Smile Sun Devil's advocate? That's good, hc5!

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueDevilBaby View Post
    Do those on scholarship already get to stay on scholarship?
    I'll bite ... although this topic seems to be more in line with the Public Policy Board.

    To be fair, Title IX was NOT the reason the athletics department had to cut programs. And if you don't believe that public universities are facing severe budgetary crises this year, then I encourage you to read the Chronicle of Higher Education, and examine what's going on in other states. I imagine throaty could comment about Missouri. If you'd like personal experience with fairness and state budget crises, I can PM my situation this year while interviewing in academia. Academic economic realities were not fair to me this year.

    To be fair, Arizona faced an error in its budget projections, in part a result of issues with the housing market and a tax cut (reduced revenue flow to the university). Job freezes and retrenchment are occuring in academia; athletic programs are not immune. According to the link, the UA has somehow managed to run in the black while maintaining a program of 20 varsity sports. I imagine that it's hard to justify to the regents that ASU gets 23 programs while bleeding red. If I were faculty over there, and we were forced to abide with economic reality, but the athletics department was allowed to run comparatively huge deficits in non-revenue sports, I think I'd be annoyed. Likewise, if I were at the UA athletic program, I'd wonder why ASU is allowed to run a deficit.

    Perhaps the Arizona Cardinals no longer providing a revenue stream might also be an issue?

    As for wrestling, the UA still has the program, but lacks other programs that ASU has. At least ASU will honor its commitment to the affected students' scholarships, and will help the students transfer, if they so desire.

    Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't reduce the number of varsity sports to 18 like at many other universities. Now THAT might have been draconian.

    The unfairness issue, as I see it, isn't that programs had to be cut, but rather the selection of the particular sports. I'm surprised not one of the women's sports was cut. Then again, I wonder whether the gender composition of the athletic student body matches in proportion that of the overall student body. In many places, women make up a slightly, but significantly larger percentage of the student body (around 52-55%). What overall percent of ASU athletic opportunities are actually available to women? 30%? 40%? 50%? That, at least, would seem to be needed information to address the fairness issue.

    Cheers,
    Lavabe

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    Quote Originally Posted by Lavabe View Post
    To be fair, Title IX was NOT the reason the athletics department had to cut programs. ... The unfairness issue, as I see it, isn't that programs had to be cut, but rather the selection of the particular sports. I'm surprised not one of the women's sports was cut.
    Thus the "gender equity" portion of the equation.

    A big issue is how the numbers are pushed around. I would gather for budgetary purposes that a portion of the cost of maintaining an Olympic size swimming facility had been apportioned to the men's swim team. I doubt cutting the men's swim team will save those costs, as the pool is still maintained for the women's team. Will the women's team now be charged for the entire cost of the swimming venue? I don't see the savings justifying the cutting of the men's team. Reduce the number of scholarships or grant partial scholarships, but at least allow the kids to compete.

Similar Threads

  1. ACC football title game
    By jimsumner in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-05-2013, 03:00 PM
  2. For Duke to be title contenders?
    By DukeBlood in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-11-2007, 10:09 AM
  3. NBA Title as Player and GM
    By MChambers in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-04-2007, 11:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •