When we talked about Title IX, we talked about how some schools are cutting male sports to get in compliance with Title IX and also to manage their budget. Hopefully someday I want to be an athletic director and this is something that I will have to deal with. The sports that are getting cut are the non-revenue sports like wrestling and men's track.
I do not believe that universities should be allowed to cut men's sports to come in compliance with Title IX and also to manage the budget. There has to be some other way for a school to fix the problem than just cutting sports. One way to fix the problem is to cut some of the expenses from the revenue sports. When you have to cut sports and the football team is getting new equipment every year that is not right. A good example that we used to show that universities do not need to cut male sports is the example of Maryland. The athletic director came to that university and they were having all kinds of financial problems. She fixed all of those and did not have to cut and sports.
One other thing I do not agree with is that university football teams do not need to give out the number of scholarships that they do. The argument that they do need that many is because players get hurt and you can not just sign a player like you can in the NFL. I understand that but still you do not need that many. How many of the players that have scholarship actually see the field during their four years at college.
Finally, I think it would suck if I was a member of a team that got cut. To work hard at the sport that you are playing then the university cuts the program. I think this is the main reason for not cutting sports is because of how the athletes will feel after losing their sport.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm reposting this comment due to corrected grammatical errors...
ReplyDeleteI understand where you are coming from, in regards to the feelings of the athletes after having their sport cut, due to Title IX and/or budget reasons. I agree it would be awful to experience.
However, you mentioned there is no need for the current number of 85 scholarships for football. Thus, you identified decreasing that amount to offset budget and Title IX issues.
The reasons for having so many players on scholarship are not only injuries, but also scout teams.
The other thing to think about is the players coming out of high school who want to play at the collegiate level. Suddenly, if there are fewer opportunities at the next level, will it hurt the long-term landscape of college football? Would it then hurt the long-term landscape of the institution?
I'm glad I'm not making those decisions right now!
I posted a blog very similar to this. I also talked about universities losing programs to be in compliance with Title IX. I stated that I think it is the athletic director's and the university's job to make sure this isn't the only option. They are responsible for making sure each sport can sustain itself financially. If that takes cutting jobs elsewhere so be it. Cutting jobs may only affect a few people but eliminating a program leaves a lot of players without other options. Now it is getting into bigger programs such as Hofstra's football program. This is just a tragedy and the people that head the athletic department need to be prepared and make adjustments as necessary to make sure this doesn't happen.
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see how you and Andrew Karr view this topic in about 10-20 years from now, after you have hopefully obtained a position as AD.
ReplyDelete