Without Title IX , how many sports would actually be at Michigan ?
Without Title IX , how many sports would actually be at Michigan ?
Football, Basketball (mens ) , Ice Hockey, besides that which ones make a profit for the athletic department normally ?
If it was not profitable, without Title IX alot of sports probably would not be on campus.
How many would actually be a sport and how many would no longer cease to exist ?
The correct answer is 18 sports.
The winning guess is the closest without going over, right??? Price is Right style....
I'm going to say 1 sport, Bob....
This will be an interesting... why are you asking? It's not like Title IX is going away.
Never mind!
Financially it is a good question to ask ? and yes they are not going away. I assume only those 3 and synchronized swimming would stay at Ohio State .
I am sure alot of sports would be dropped at many universities if they could if it was not for Tile IX. i think it is a valid question to ask.
The assumption is that you're asking because you're trying to imply that women's sports would be cut if it didn't exist without actually asking that. It reads as a bad faith question.
So i'll turn this around on you. Ohio State has other men's sports other than the revenue generating ones. They aren't protected by Title IX and have never been. There's nothing stopping them from cutting whatever they want right now.
Also IIRC even "revenue" sports at most institutions lose far more money than they ever bring in. Hockey in particular costs a ton of money due to maintaining rinks and travel costs. If determinations are made due to pure finances then almost every sport goes away.
Exactly right, good post.
The exact requirements for D-1 schools are this:
- must sponsor at least seven sports for men and seven for women (or six for men and eight for women).
- At least 2 of the sports for each gender must be team sports (FB, Hoops, Baseball, Volleyball, Soccer, Ice Hockey, Water Polo, Lacrosse, Field Hockey, Softball).
- Also, each playing season (fall, winter, spring) has to be represented by at least one sport for each gender.
Michigan obviously has more than 14 sports overall - I think the exact number is pretty close to 30! So that's ~ 16 sports that (1) they don't have to sponsor and (2) likely aren't making a profit.
Yet, they sponsor them. Similarly for most of the other big D-1 athletic programs (OSU, PSU, Texas, USC, Stanford, et cetera) across the country that routinely finish in the Top 10-20 of the Director's Cup standings.
So, bottom line: it's just not ALL about $$$ or Title IX as regards sponsoring sports.
^^ My thinking as well is in both of the above responses. I didn’t want to assume, so I asked.
Most predict the Supreme Court will strike down any form of affirmative action in the near future. It's not that far fetched to imagine the current court seeing Title IX in a similar way.
Title IX isn't only about sports but I agree that it's definitely under threat from the current SCOTUS.
That said, a number of analyses of current Title IX compliance by schools shows that virtually none of them are meeting the truly "equal" resource allocation people believe is required, and most are operating a pretty significant deficit.
Which cases going up to the Court would involve an overturn of Title IX? Have any justices indicated a desire to overturn Title IX? Do you actually understand the basis of current dissents against the Court's existing affirmative action precedents? Or is this just a standard "the other side is evil" post that violates the no politics rule?
There are numerous lawsuits currently challenging Title IX, any one of which could reach the Supreme Court.
My understanding is that these lawsuits are primarily related to how Title IX requires schools to handle sexual assault allegations - this are not "overturn Title IX" objections, but rather narrowly focused questions on recent regulations and interpretations by the DoE under the aegis of Title IX.
Are there any lawsuits with a snowball's chance of making it to the Supremes that are actually "Title IX is unconstitutional"?
You sure about that, Grendel? I could see the current Supreme Court finding Title IX unconstitutional.
Gorsuch wrote the opinion for the Court in Bostock v. Clayton County, which clarified that Title VII also bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, so this seems improbable.
@Commie - thelomasbrowns made the Supreme Court comment, not Grendel!
Well with this SCOTUS, you never know.
Fire SCOTUS!
About 350.
I'm not conviced that you understand what Title IX does or how it works.
It's similar to Title VIII, but better.
But not as good as Title X.
So then, why is Title VI afraid of Title VII?
Because Title VII eight Title IX!
Thank you Fred Jackson!
i understand the matching scholarship amounts
From a financial standpoint, if Title IX did not exist, how many sports would the University fund the way it does now. I doubt all of them would be their as many are unprofitable and lose money and only are their to match the Title ix scholarship match.
You don't need athletic scholarships for college sports. Division 3 schools exist.
Would be nice to go D3 for the unprofitable sports of the least fanfare.
eleventy
Umpteen
How about exactly ONE.
If Title IX went away tomorrow I'd fight like hell for Michigan to have 29 teams, 14 men's and 15 women's. Or maybe without Title IX requirements we can get 16 women's and let the maize and blue get some more gold at the olympics.
Financially, I'm pretty sure football is the only thing that makes money. I know hockey brings in revenue but as otherwise stated, it costs a lot. Basketball - men's and women's - are probably currently small money makers, but drops in the bucket compared to football. Everything else loses money. But our AD keeps it because a) it's a non-profit b) it gives excellent individuals a chance to complete a college degree c) it gives excellent individuals a chance to train for the olympics
But really i'm pretty sure the reason we have sports is because sports are fun and we like to win. Money is a constraint, not the goal. Sports is the goal. Winning is the goal. Letting people play is the goal. Title IX happened because universities were failing their women with taliban like attitudes. Obviously not everyone's attitude has changed but I hope to god the Michigan AD would value its women sports, and its dozen or so men's sports that don't bring in revenues.
42 at Michigan.
27 of the the Ohio State teams.
A well run and supported womens basketball team can make money. Baseball makes money in the south where hockey doesn't.
The reality that drove the need for title 9 wasn't schools only doing sports which were profitable, it was supporting mens sports which weren't profitable and not supporting womens sports.
Actually Title IX was originally about stopping schools from allowing only single digit percentages of women to enroll for graduate degrees. Later it was applied to sports.
Well put AK. Those issues get conflated fairly often but they're not connected.
The reason universities field sports teams is not profitability; many of them happen to be extremely profitable but that's not the reason they exist. They began as an educational opportunity/activity for the students to represent their university. And that tradition has lasted for roughly 150 years (only now college sports is a billion dollar industry).
In fact, I think many other college sports could be more profitable if the NCAA gave a damn about them.
(my fear is that in the future, universities and athletic departments will only look at sports through the corporate-style lens: if a program is not profitable, cut it. And this is not what college athletics is supposed to be about).
I definitely agree with your last paragraph (L'Carpetron). Outside the power five conferences, football loses money and the profit for men's (and/or women's) basketball varies a lot. Most D1 athletic departments lose money and are subsidized by fees on other students. I am fairly confident that no (or at least very few) DII or DII programs make money (though in DIII, a program that brings in students adds to revenue--Mount Union used to have around 200 students on the football team, but that's an outlier). At lower levels (smaller D2 and D3), sports are mostly a way to recruit students and build community.
(See here for discussion of Ohio, where I live):
https://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/2020/02/192-million-in-student-fees-other-school-subsidies-for-sports-at-ohio-division-i-public-universities.html)
I'm skeptical of this premise:
If it was not profitable, without Title IX alot of sports probably would not be on campus.
If the University wanted to cut as many unprofitable sports as possible, it could do so now and get down to 2*N sports, where N is the number of profitable sports.
For many universities and colleges, N is zero.
"no longer cease to exist"???
Probably only the Men's sports of Football, Basketball, Hockey and baseball. May be women's basketball, volleyball, softball and soccer?
Why would eliminating Title IX, on its own, result in eliminating men's sports?
The reason i asked is i saw an article with alot of schools having to cut sports on both sides mens and womens due to the financials.
So i guess because of that if we ever had to get to that point what sports would we have to sadly drop.
I guess the bad effect of title ix is it has forced compliance to the point of having universities having to cut sports because of the costs to keep up with the mandate. I saw one universitiy save 4.9 million by cutting 2 sports of each men and women.
At some point do schools only go 6 for men and 8 for women to stay D-1 in those sports and make the rest D-3 to be able to survive financially as an athletic department ?
The exact requirements for D-1 schools are this:
- must sponsor at least seven sports for men and seven for women (or six for men and eight for women).
- At least 2 of the sports for each gender must be team sports (FB, Hoops, Baseball, Volleyball, Soccer, Ice Hockey, Water Polo, Lacrosse, Field Hockey, Softball).
- Also, each playing season (fall, winter, spring) has to be represented by at least one sport for each gender.
"If it was not profitable, without Title IX alot [sic] of sports probably would not be on campus."
This doesn't really make any sense, since most sports on campus, for both men and women, are not profitable. Title IX doesn't say "thou must maximize number of sports" just that there should be equal opportunities for men and women.
There might actually be more sports on some college campuses, or more total scholarships - in some cases there are men's teams that might otherwise be "varsity" but can't be due to the need to balance opportunities and the huge size of the men's football team.
Generally speaking, I don't think the UofM of 2022 is only offering women's sports at the threat of Title IX lawsuits. It might be having an impact on how they divvy up resources between the teams.
How many sports did UM have at the start of the year when Title IX was enacted?
A better question is how many actual women will be competing if they keep letting men pretending to be women take their spots.
You have heard that FINA changed the rules for transgender participation, and the NCAA follows the lead of the international organizations in Olympic sports, right?
Looking at Army and Navy, which don't follow the same rule set, I get the sense there would be more men's sports and no change to women's sports.
At every university, all teams in non-revenue sports operate at a loss. Even UConn women's basketball operates at a loss. Universities offer sports programs in part to meet the interests of their students.
If money were the only object, inter-collegiate sports would exist only at the club level and would be funded only by player fees and donations. All we'd have is Division I men's basketball and major college football.
More high school boys than girls participate in sports. Title IX was never intended to change that. It was intended to give college women the same opportunity to benefit as college men. That just wasn't the case in the '70s. So it was instrumental in forcing universities, like Michigan, to start building competitive varsity women's programs.
There are many Title IX tests these days, and universities have more-or-less found a pattern that works. The numbers aren't the same. Funding isn't the same. But more women's sports exist to provide opportunity, and that's what seems to best meet the goals of the law. So high school girls interested in sports at the collegiate level have opportunities to continue their participation in college. It's a shame it took legislation to make that happen, but it did.
Because of budgets, and the huge numbers of scholarships needed for football programs, what happened is that some men's sports were dropped. You see wrestling, squash, water polo, rowing, gymnastics, golf among men's sports at the military schools. Those exist at other universities, but it's not the norm. Even baseball isn't offered by every Big Ten school (Wisconsin doesn't have a varsity program).
So I think the answer to this question would be somewhere around 30. It would be nice if Title IX hadn't meant the cutting of some men's sports, but with football, the numbers don't quite work.