SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Girls Varsity Soccer So your daughter wants to play college soccer?

Interesting. The current next generation of lawsuits over Title IX from those who wish to see it better implemented seem to be going in two directions: [1] universities which are attempting to argue that proportional representation isn't needed and [2] high schools that aren't meeting the basics of gender equality [from the point of view of advocates of Title IX].

Of course, there's a whole other tide shifting against some of this as well. I am still trying to understand the arguments on this side; but at the highest level it seems that the argument is that girls are simply not inclined toward athletics at the same rate boys are. Shades of arguments about education and minorities 40 years ago, huh? But maybe I'm missing something fundamental here; thus I keep reading when I get the time.

Yes, my mistake with my automotive analogy.

The simple truth is this: The average amount of money made on football at the high school or collegiate level will forever overshadow any average income of a girl's sport.

This is obvious and you can google the information until you are blue in the face, but you will find nothing to disprove that fact. Therefore, AD's will always make that fatted calf the priority.

I think Americanitis has struck and the word "deserve" if floating around carelessly. They do not deserve anything, but to be funded by, at the least, by the money their program is responsible for bringing in.

For example:

I find it difficult to believe a program such as Lexington Girls Soccer could support itself in the purchasing of jerseys, balls, officials, transportation, tournaments, and coaching supplements based on the 8-12 home games a year they have. Where, then, does the money come from?

People often criticize football AD's as being "Pro-Football" and make the ridiculous accusations that "football gets everything!". My bone to pick is 'What have these other sports done to deserve more money?' If I was an AD/Football coach I would find it difficult to stomach the fact that my team was responsible for bringing in (and I quote) 97% of the budget while only being aloud to spend (and I quote once again) just under 20%. Mens basketball is the only other program that is self funding in most high school programs. I am aware that West Ashley girls soccer does quite well. There are exceptions, but I speak in generalities.

I, personally, am glad that things are not "fair". I find it hard to believe many would be happy if they were.

Then with your argument,R1, then the money that comes from my taxes for the schools must go only to the schools my kids attend.... Or better yet, if I do not have any kids, why am I being taxed? I am not using the "facilities"...or why not have the parents of the kids who are actually playing in the team pay for the expenses and get their money back at the end of the season if they turned a profit... The truth is starts out with a pool of money that it is used by some to turn aprofit for use by others. As with Chico, without being able to see the budgets and how they are assigned we can only speculate. As you are a coach in a sschool maybe you can share information in % so as not to divulge actual $$

>> [R1C] The simple truth is this: The average amount of money made on football at the high school or collegiate level will forever overshadow any average income of a girl's sport.

This is obvious and you can google the information until you are blue in the face, but you will find nothing to disprove that fact. Therefore, AD's will always make that fatted calf the priority.<<

If you hadn't have included "collegiate", then I might be able to suspend my disbelief long enough to accept your opinions as authoritative.

However, given that the average college-level Division I-AA, I-AAA, II, and III football program loses money, then what you're debating isn't how much money is made but instead how much money is lost. Is more money lost in the football program or the soccer program? I don't know -- but using the earlier sourced example of Furman we have a football program that several years ago lost roughly $1.4M. Are you seriously proposing that the women's soccer program lost that amount?

>> [R1C] I think Americanitis has struck and the word "deserve" if floating around carelessly. They do not deserve anything, but to be funded by, at the least, by the money their program is responsible for bringing in.<<

I went back to find where I used the term "deserve", here it is: "If your argument is that college or high school football pays the bills and thus deserves more, well, then show me the revenue and expense statements from most of these universities." I notice that you ignored the challenge of finding actual facts to serve as the foundation of your arguments; instead relying on the rhetorical adroitness alone to attempt to establish your arguments. R1C: No offense, I'm sure you're a swell guy and all, but if you want to make your point then show some numbers.

I know you're wrong at the university level for everything but Division I-A, what I'm open to is that you ***might*** be right at the high school level. I know that high school football program should show much greater revenue; what I wonder is if you look at the expenses whether it is the money-maker you purport it to be. It very well could be -- but showing some sourced data is the only way to move this conversation further.

>> [R1C] I, personally, am glad that things are not "fair". I find it hard to believe many would be happy if they were.<<

I offered up one basis for the term "fair" at the athletic department level; that associated with proportional representation as per Title IX. This doesn't mean that you don't spend several billion dollars on football; it simply means that you spend a proportional level on men's sports and women's sports.

You didn't offer an alternative besides a rather rabid defense of football. Try taking your perspective up from your current football coaching duties and imagine you were responsible for the athletic department budget -- just what would be your idea of an equitable level of spending on men's and women's programs?

futbol(soccer): I fear that R1C is a bit blinded by a rather knee-jerk reaction to a perceived criticism of football. I honestly meant no such criticism; instead, I think that what we have here is less an honest difference of opinion than an issue of perspective.

I, like you, perceive high school sports as having a pool of money that is given to it each year by taxpayers. This pool of money, like that associated with education, is then divided to effect the greatest societal return.

Title IX and the concept of propotional representation doesn't mean that you can't spend money on men's sports, what it means is that you need to spend an amount of money proportional to the male/female representation of students. This law passed 30+ years ago in order to generate what was perceived as a greater societal return.

The problem isn't football -- Title IX doesn't address how much money is spent on football. You can spend $1B on football; but if you have a 50/50 male/female proportion then you then need to spend $1B on female sports.

There is a real debate that can take place as to whether Title IX and proportional representation does achieve the greatest societal return; however, not many people want to argue that -- instead folks seem to knee jerk about football. But the real question, for R1C and anyone else who cares about this, concerns societal return and not perceived criticism of any beloved football program.

R1C: One last note. I thought I remembered a previous reference to "google" from you, and found that on the girl's high school thread, you're the only one to use this term and you've used it twice, both times mildly perjoratively, in response to my posts.

Is this anger at missing the IPO, or some deeper issue?

R1C.......you Yahoo.

Chico, I know that certain topics act as spinach to your Popeye, but my attempt to converse should not be translated into "Bruno". Athletics prosper with football spearheading the department. I do not believe that most programs lose money. That, I know, is wrong. But on to a more personal level:

When I begin to bad mouth Chico the greyhound, club soccer in your area, and the shortcomings of Lexington soccer--then it can be considered a "knee-jerk" reaction, frustration at counterpoints, and misdirected anger. Until then, I am merely glad to have a post on this board worth replying to, albeit apparently not quite as excited as you.

Yes, I am the Czar of Google, and have used that word before. Other words you might remember are, but not limited to:

Recently
Perhaps
Entertained
Besides
Corner Kick
Hilarious

Now, I must leave for practice but I beg of you to explain the IPO comment. My extensive stupidity cannot crack that code.

Google share performance since IPO [Initial Public Offering of shares] [Note: Your so-called "stupidity" can't hold a candle to my incredible idiocy -- I thought it was overpriced at the IPO!]

R1C: One very targeted question. You write "Athletics prosper with football spearheading the department. I do not believe that most programs lose money."

Do you believe this about non-Division-IA college-level football programs, high school football programs, or both?