Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BigApple

Solving the football problem with Title IX

Recommended Posts

I think I’ve got a viable “outside of the box” way to solve the football problem as it pertains to Title IX. The 85 scholarships for male football players has resulted in the elimination of some men’s athletic teams, with wrestling being a major victim.

 

Football funds the entire athletic program at many of the major universities. The University of Oklahoma is my alma mater, I was an assistant coach there in the 70s. My drinking buddy was the recruiting coordinator for football, then the associate AD in charge of fund-raising. So I got a first hand view of the entire athletic program from a financial point of view, and the importance of football as a revenue source.

 

The OU athletic department in the 1950s was a separate legal entity from the university. It was wholly self supporting including the building of its facilities. Now the university administration did the hiring of the coaches. Later it was brought back into the university.

 

There is a possibility of the major college football programs “bolting” from the NCAA because of the restrictions it places on them in regards to the number of scholarships, the forbidding of payments to student athletes. When I coached each athlete on a full scholarship got a $15 per month stipend, that was considered a “laundry allowance”. This was eliminated by the NCAA after I left in 1974.

 

Here is what I propose. The football and some of the basketball programs in the major conferences leave the NCAA and become “for profit entities”. The universities own the stadiums and arenas the football teams and basketball teams play in. The university would charge a “market rate” as the rental rate for the use of the facilities: housing, offices, weight rooms, trainers, football stadium and basketball arena. These programs are defacto minor leagues for the NFL and NBA. Many of the athletes aren’t there to get a degree, they are there to prepare themselves for a professional career as a football or basketball player. As with all minor league teams (baseball and hockey) not everyone makes to the majors.

 

As a result of this there would be 85 less scholarships for male athletes. This means that in order to be in compliance with the Title IX, the number of male athletes would need to increase, instead of decreasing. The revenues received from the rental of the facilities for football and basketball would provide the funding for the minor sports teams.

 

The football and basketball teams could recruit athletes who may or may not be attending school. That would be a decision of the governing body of their new organization. They could pay them a market rate for their services, just as baseball does for its minor league players.

 

Let the discussion begin, and point out the flaw. As I pointed out there is a precedent for a separate legal entity for the athletic department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with the implementation but I agree with the premise. Football and basketball players aren't student athletes, they are semi-proffesional athletes who happen to sometimes attend class. There's no reason for them to be included in Title IX student athlete numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zeeb, that is precisely my point. Being a realist I am looking at a possible solution for which there is a precedent, or is financially feasible. I was hoping for a dissection of my suggestion, maybe others have a better solution to this problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After watching the NCAA do whatever they felt like with the Penn State football team after a few men conjured up their opinions on what they felt was right, wrong, and just and executing the most severe penalties in the history of college athletics I don't think it's possible to predict the kind of strong arm tactics NCAA officials will utilize to keep themselves at the top of the proverbial food chain of college athletics. There's far too many "perks" for those guys to give up their power so easily. The NCAA system is about as corrupt as what we see at the IOC (just look at how the bowl structure has evolved over the past decade. These guys have obviously sold their common sense in exchange for "favors"). In theory it sounds like a good idea. In reality those schmucks at the top of the NCAA food chain that enjoy their kick backs, free lunches and vacations will do everything they can to prevent it from happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I don't like the implementation is that the whole reason college football and basketball thrive is because of their connection with the universities. That would be lost if they are just semi pro teams that are loosely affiliated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As a result of this there would be 85 less scholarships for male athletes. This means that in order to be in compliance with the Title IX, the number of male athletes would need to increase, instead of decreasing."

 

Big Apple, I would think more Athletic Directors would just cut female sports down, instead of adding mens sports. That is what a lot of schools did when Title IX was at the beginning, instead of adding a bunch of womens sports, they added a few and cut mens sports. I could see the opposite happening with this proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not shooting this whole idea down. I like the out-of-the-box, but the premise that a material number of bball/fball players go pro is flawed. Very few go pro. The large % of fball & bball players are no different than wrestlers as it relates future earnings from their respetive sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeeb, that is precisely my point. Being a realist I am looking at a possible solution for which there is a precedent, or is financially feasible. I was hoping for a dissection of my suggestion, maybe others have a better solution to this problem.

 

My idea ??? And I have said this before.

 

Football and maybe Basketball, drive the revenue stream in college athletics. Also ... IMO, colleges have become a "free", no charge training ground for the professional sports community.

 

The NCAA needs to place a "recruiting" fee on every college athlete that goes "Pro". The fee will be paid by the Pro Team that drafts them, and that money should go back into the Draftee's College athletic fund to support the non-revenue sports.

 

I understand the potential arguments against this ... Yet it would be a way to generate addition moneys, for the fringe sports.

 

Why are Colleges "free" training grounds for Pro Sports? It never made sense to me, that the colleges would not want to take advantage of this in some way.

This potential revenue, could possible support several Women's sports, while preserving some "minor" men's sports.

 

We just spent 300+ MILLION, to renovate the UW Huskies Football Stadium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wire, I have a similar point of view as yours, just a different way of getting there.

As I stated major league baseball signs a lot of players, some to large contracts, others to minimal contracts. Only a small % make it.

 

Top quarterbacks coming out of high school would be given more money than positions that are in less demand.

 

The Huskies $300 million renovated stadium would command a higher market rent that it did previously. Because the university, the $300 million raised wasn't subject to taxes. This is similar to communities building a stadium for billionaires in the NFL, in order to keep the team there. Alabama, Oklahoma, and Nebraska are three states lacking the population needed to attract a NFL team. hence the entire state follows the top state football program and pours money into it to keep it near the top.

 

So the university builds a top flight facility and leases it to the football team, that because it is for profit can pay players, and is no longer part of the NCAA. There are rumors the teams making up the top tier of college football are considering leaving the NCAA, which doesn't get any money from football, but controls how it operates.

 

I'm just trying to look at the future landscape of college sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been about two years... but I remember the USA Today posting the revenue vs expendeture of DI football programs. I don't recall exactly the number but there was something like only 11 or 12 DI football programs that actually made money throughout the course of the entire season when comparing revenue produced vs dollars spent (recruiting, team traveling, facility upkeep, equipment, etc). The article basically stated that if a program did not make a major bowl game every two or three years the program lost money irregardless of its size, success, etc. I will see if I can find it. Again, don't quote me because I was actually shocked at the breakdown they gave. BigApple, OU was one of the very few that did create revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has been about two years... but I remember the USA Today posting the revenue vs expendeture of DI football programs. I don't recall exactly the number but there was something like only 11 or 12 DI football programs that actually made money throughout the course of the entire season when comparing revenue produced vs dollars spent (recruiting, team traveling, facility upkeep, equipment, etc). The article basically stated that if a program did not make a major bowl game every two or three years the program lost money irregardless of its size, success, etc. I will see if I can find it. Again, don't quote me because I was actually shocked at the breakdown they gave. BigApple, OU was one of the very few that did create revenue.

 

Not the USA Today report but this is the jist of it, it was a report released by the NCAA in 2009/10 highlighting the football financials:

 

http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/ ... money-4121

 

The full NCAA report: http://www.ncaapublications.com/product ... P_2010.pdf

 

The NCAA does not tie the financials to specific schools. This article looks at the most profitable schools for football and basketball in 2012: http://www.businessinsider.com/these-20 ... 012-1?op=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...