PJHawk
Well-Known Member
Not really - Big Ten schools receive around $7 million to $8 million from the BTN, The University of Iowa’s FY 2011 athletic budget revenue projection is $65.6 million.
Not really - Big Ten schools receive around $7 million to $8 million from the BTN, The University of Iowa’s FY 2011 athletic budget revenue projection is $65.6 million.
BigD
Well-Known Member
+1
NewMexHawk
Well-Known Member
Perhaps to "even" things up a little, women's bb coaches should be under the same pressure as the two men's primary sports as far as filling the arena and earning money. Right now women's sports coaches are under NO pressure to bring in more money. Women bb teams stand there with their hands out wanting more and more and the entire time complain about how they are not treated as well. Women's bb coaches should be put under the same pressure as men's coaches to fill arena and earn money.
Of course if the athletic departments were required to do that, virtually all other sports would be crippled. The only difference is that I don't believe the other "men's sports" complain like the women do but we are talking genes here aren't we.
Of course if the athletic departments were required to do that, virtually all other sports would be crippled. The only difference is that I don't believe the other "men's sports" complain like the women do but we are talking genes here aren't we.
MultipleDundieAwardWinner
Banned
Honestly, can you anti-Title IX roll out any more ridiculous apples to oranges comparisons? This argument is so asinine that I barely know how to respond without viciously assaulting your character.
Why do you fools think the only thing athletics are supposed to contribute to a school is money? This discussion is about so much more than money, but that is all you want to talk about.
racerhawk
Well-Known Member
Great post.
knighthawk13
Well-Known Member
New Mex, that is why the other coaches don't make millions of dollars. Football and basketball is asked to carry the load, but the staffs are very well compensated for the pressure cooker they are in.
I'm not sure where I come down on this issue. I don't think it's a simple one, but everything is about money. At least with departments like History and English one can argue that the greater benefit to society in the future makes the investment worth it. Can anyone honestly argue that an investment in sports that lose money provides a greater benefit to society?
I don't think this is as simple as some have made it sound, but I also don't think it's as simple as you've implied here. There's a clear advantage to funding English departments. Exactly what benefits to society do these money-losing sports provide?
I'm sure there are some benefits. Teamwork, for example. However, we can teach that using far less money than it takes to run an athletic program that loses money. So the question really is this: what benefits do these money-losing programs provide society and are there cheaper, more efficient ways to accomplish the same thing?
tm3308
Well-Known Member
For the record, I DON'T agree with that line of thinking. I was just playing devil's advocate there.
I actually do enjoy several of the non-revenue sports. I haven't been to a field hockey game yet (mostly because the field is WAY out in the sticks), but I plan to this year. I've been to a few swimming and diving meets, and those can be pretty exciting. I've only gone to two softball games (Both against Wisconsin, because a friend of mine is Wisky's #1 pitcher. Otherwise I probably wouldn't have gone.); I've just never really cared that much for softball.
Wrestling is a non-revenue sport for nearly every university, as well. Ours is pretty well-off, but that doesn't mean that most programs are. It wouldn't say a whole lot to win a national championship if there were only 6 programs left in the nation, would it?
Are we seriously talking about cutting track and field, too? Give me a break.
And for me, women's basketball is BY FAR my favorite college sport to watch outside of football and men's basketball. Honestly, in 2009-2010, I had more fun watching Bluder's Bunch than watch Lick's Hawks.
silvanthalas
Well-Known Member
Title IX is an issue for many universities because of the requirements involved. And in the end, universities are hard pressed to find sports for women to make up an equal number of scholarships as for men's sports.
Take lacrosse. There are I believe 62 schools that have D1 lacrosse. There are currently 91 D1 women's teams. Men's teams tend to have some 40-50 players, and I'm guessing women's are pretty similar.
When Michigan goes D1 in 2013, they will be the first BCS school to make the jump since Notre Dame in 1981.
Baseball/softball is played by both sexes. Lacrosse is. Gymnastics is. Hockey is.
Football isn't.
And that pretty much tells you all you need to know about the effect of Title IX.
Take lacrosse. There are I believe 62 schools that have D1 lacrosse. There are currently 91 D1 women's teams. Men's teams tend to have some 40-50 players, and I'm guessing women's are pretty similar.
When Michigan goes D1 in 2013, they will be the first BCS school to make the jump since Notre Dame in 1981.
Baseball/softball is played by both sexes. Lacrosse is. Gymnastics is. Hockey is.
Football isn't.
And that pretty much tells you all you need to know about the effect of Title IX.
Last edited:
O
OO44
Guest
Field Hockey is the second biggest sport at Iowa in terms of number of scholarships. All the women are from out of state. There is ZERO ticket revenue.
