GV 2 Whistle, ACLU Stepping in

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by KCRC

This USA Today article from 2008 quotes a study suggesting that only 19 of 119 FBS athletic departments broke even or made money. In addition, only 67 of the 119 FBS schools even broke even on football, let alone having the football team subsidize the rest of the athletic department. I'm going to guess that most, if not all, FCS, DII, DIII and NAIA athletic departments draw funds from their schools general budget.

Few athletics programs in black; most need aid - USATODAY.com

Snaqs is right about Iowa State. Because of the state of Iowa's general budget crisis, the Iowa Board of Regents has instructed all three state schools to eliminate general budget expenditures for athletics. U of Iowa achieved the feat in 2007, Iowa State is getting very close, but Northern Iowa doesn't have a realistic chance.

Regents approve modest funding cut to UNI athletics | Des Moines Register Staff Blogs

According to the good folks at Equity in Athletics, Iowa State made $6.6 million in profit on the football program in 09-10 (before indirect expenses). However, the department as a whole showed only a $200k profit which would lead me to believe there likely was subsidization from the general budget.

[APG]

An interesting video from Forbes discussing the major costs of college athletics. Video clocks in at 10:00 minutes.

Forbes.com Video Network | Billionaires: College Sports Programs Losing Big Money

[M&M Guy]

While this discussion has been interesting, I still have yet to see how it applies to the basics of Title IX, and how it affects women's and men's sports in schools. Very few, if any, sports departments would exist on an income and profit-producing basis only. I would like to see how many schools' math departments would be self-supporting. But there is something both departments have in common - both have to provide the same opportunities to both women and men. How silly would it sound to say women math majors would only have the TA's teach them, while the guys would be taught by the professors, because there are more guys in the program, and thus pull in more tuition dollars to the department?

Same in sports - if it is offered to the guys, the (relatively) same opportunities will be offered to the girls. If both together cannot be afforded, neither should be offered. It is still up to the school to determine if is worth subsidizing both; it has nothing to do with which sport brings in the most dollars. That's where the OP's article comes in - is providing 2 officials to girl's basketball games the "same opportunity" as providing 3 officials to the boy's games?

Of course, this only applies to the educational setting, not the business and entertainment field. I don't think anyone has said this applies to making people watch the WNBA, or that professional women soccer players need to make the same salaries as their male conterparts.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Thanks, unfortunately, this report is not in enough detail to determine the level of "institutional support" as they put it as there's one line for revenue "Not Allocated by Gender/Sport" which would include this item if it exists.

Interestingly though, the University of Iowa ran a "profit" in it's athletic department of $14.3 million for the 09-10 year. The men's teams ran at a $26.9 million profit and the women's teams ran at a $10.3 million loss (not counting indirect expenses). The football team brought in $45.85 million in revenue out of $58 million total allocated revenue. There was also $30.5 million non-allocated revenue.

I'd say my side of the bet is looking good, but this is in no way determinative.

And again, Iowa is a top 20 program in Football. It is also, in spite of the feelings of many Cyclone fans, the dominant school in the state from a marketing (licensing rights) perspective. That school year includes a BCS game as well. 14 million seems high, but the Orange Bowl has quite the payout.

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

While this discussion has been interesting, I still have yet to see how it applies to the basics of Title IX, and how it affects women's and men's sports in schools. Very few, if any, sports departments would exist on an income and profit-producing basis only. I would like to see how many schools' math departments would be self-supporting. But there is something both departments have in common - both have to provide the same opportunities to both women and men. How silly would it sound to say women math majors would only have the TA's teach them, while the guys would be taught by the professors, because there are more guys in the program, and thus pull in more tuition dollars to the department?

Same in sports - if it is offered to the guys, the (relatively) same opportunities will be offered to the girls. If both together cannot be afforded, neither should be offered. It is still up to the school to determine if is worth subsidizing both; it has nothing to do with which sport brings in the most dollars. That's where the OP's article comes in - is providing 2 officials to girl's basketball games the "same opportunity" as providing 3 officials to the boy's games?

Of course, this only applies to the educational setting, not the business and entertainment field. I don't think anyone has said this applies to making people watch the WNBA, or that professional women soccer players need to make the same salaries as their male conterparts.

Thanks for a very succinct and understandable explanation.

And whether girls' ball is better or not, it's much harder to ref, especially at the hs level, and thus should be MORE likely to get the 3-whistle crew, not less likely. just IMO.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

If they were rational, they would admit there is a deference between boys' and girl's basketball and acknowledging that difference is in no way, shape or form a statement of any kind on the quality or value of girls.

Do they have to use as many spotters at a girls weightlifting meet?

[amusedofficial]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

The athletics program is not part of the mission of the school.

Patently absurd.

I see evidence to the contrary every night.