Small school + mid-major conference + political budget cutting = increase in student sports activity fee from $22 per semester to $120 per semester (h/t The Wiz of Odds).
It’s not like that’s going to raise a major fortune, either.
If the implemented fee does pass, the athletic department can draw an addition $1.8 million annually, which would increase its current budget by 25 percent.
And somehow they’re supposed to pay their student athletes, too?
Get The Picture 
“And somehow they’re supposed to pay their student athletes, too”? Just hope the “pay the athletes” crowd reads this comment, well done Senator.
LikeLike
Title IX has been a huge flop. Many schools are struggling trying to support money losers (most women’s sports) with just a few money winners (football, men’s basketball) and it’s not working. In addition, if you pay football players then you will have to pay all players in all sports including those that are already bleeding money. It’s ridiculous that the students should have to pay $100 more per semester to support this.
LikeLike
Right Tdawg, when I was at Georgia in the 70’s we ran a candidate who wore a bag on his face as the “unknown” candidate, who’s sole platform was to abolish Student Gov’t and the fees charges for lousy entertainment. He won.
Maybe some real grumbling from the students about those fees.
LikeLike
Not if you’re a female student athlete who’s seen her opportunity to play at the college level expand enormously since Title IX was enacted.
And it’s not like most men’s sports aren’t money losers, too.
LikeLike
Agreed on the men’s sports but now you just see universities getting around funding more money losers but cutting back on both men’s and women’s sports just to maintain equality. Some men’s sports that break even or turn a small profit maybe but by some schools just to comply with Title IX
LikeLike
Examples of that?
LikeLike
“The conundrum plagues nearly every athletic department that is contemplating cutting a team to save money. Although most men’s teams tend to bring in more revenue, they’re often the first on the chopping block so schools can remain compliant with Title IX laws.”
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=4326021
LikeLike
+1 Texas Dawg –
Senator, I respect your willingness to play devil’s advocate here (and the strides forward/opportunities for women are laudable), but there can be no doubt that men’s sports have suffered under Title 9. Good luck finding a varsity wrestling team at most schools (no female counterpart + no revenue = cut). Georgia doesn’t even have a varsity men’s soccer team anymore.
LikeLike
No argument here. But when women outnumber men on campus by a significant margin, it’s kind of hard to argue that they’re the ones who should bear the brunt of the cuts.
LikeLike
When men outnumbered women on campus …. we were all concerned about getting more women on campus…. same thing happened with math scores in high school. Now that it has been pushed in the other direction no one seems to notice the disparity. I hope we can reach parity without sacrificing too much of one groups needs over another. Yes “life ain’t fair”. I remember my son complaining of mixed soccer games against some talented young lady athletes. His coach road him extra if he got beat during a play by a girl and if he was too physical he got the same treatment from parents and opposing coaches for it. I don’t have the answer but he learned a lot. He shrugged it off and managed to enjoy himself.
LikeLike
Title IX is another one of those things, like paying players, that will never be changed. The majority of presidents like the ruling because college sports are supposed to be non-profit activity (at least in terms of the participants), and in terms of the vast majority of the ADs too, they are. So the fact that a few very obvious cases give the appearance of the entire college sports planet raking in a boatloads of dough is not going to deter what is seen as one of the hallmarks of college sports, i.e., that participation is treated like access to classes. Some classes get higher enrollment but others are offered anyway despite being
unprofitable because a diversity of opportunities is part of the mission.
LikeLike
“Title IX is another one of those things, like paying players, that will never be changed” unless and until Title IX can somehow be packaged as a social issue like abortion, the BCS or evolution. Then maybe somebody will get around to trying to repeal Title IX. Until then, we are left with the beauty of this
Title IX – The Story of a Chick* and a Dick**
*”Too Strong for a Woman”–The Five Words That Created Title IX
http://bernicesandler.com/id44.htm
**”Title IX was enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Nixon, prohibiting discrimination based on sex in any educational program or activity receiving federal financial aid.”
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0706/gallery.title.IX/content.4.html
LikeLike
Glad to see the ladies get a chance to play. I hate to see the cuts in men’s programs though.
LikeLike
Agree. Problem is that at many places football pays the bills and also eats up the most scholarships. Makes for a tough balancing act.
LikeLike
The 500 lb gorilla is football. It makes most of the cash but eats up a huge # of scholarships for guys.
I wish there was some way to exempt money producers from Title IX. Then the school is offering non-revenue producers equally.
I also wish I had wash board abs and a cool million in my bank account and I can tell you what that has gotten me.
LikeLike
“some way to exempt money producers from Title IX”
From what this http://www.titleix.info/History/The-Living-Law.aspx says, many have thought about that idea and tried before.
I guess right now it’s up to private sector fund raising to save teams set for elimination http://www.vanderbiltsportsline.com/2011/04/cal-baseball-saved1-commodores-host.html
LikeLike
I’ve always said that Title IX should be an “except football” rule. It’s by far the largest roster and also by far the biggest revenue producer. Title IX should only count scholarships with other sports.
LikeLike
Perhaps fielding major college football programs at 120+/- colleges just isn’t economically feasible. Either the economy will change or schools will be dropping out until we get to a number that is realistic.
Whether one is for paying or against paying players (something like a stipend), it’s a false analogy to compare a minor Sun Belt team’s income to a major football org. UGA could easily afford to pay fb players based on gate proceeds, whereas a Sun Belt team like Western Kentucky can’t and likely never will. I’m not arguing either way, but those commenting on the issue should compare apples to apples.
LikeLike
They’re all D-1 schools, so to that extent I think the fruit matches.
Also, don’t forget the lines tend to blur more with basketball programs than with football ones.
LikeLike
Eventually there will be no more intercollegiate athletes at the small college level. It simply can’t be sustained. The DI’s will end up with football, men’s basketball, women’s basketball and women’s soccer. This is the future, it sucks but there is no way around it.
LikeLike
Not sure. When it comes to basketball all you need is one recruit to disrupt the balance of power. Larry Bird@ Indiana State comes to mind. Or an above average coach can take a program far (Butler). There are plenty of examples.
LikeLike