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

While assembling the poll and checking the womens rosters for former South Carolina high school players, I did the following analysis.

Listed first is the school, their conference and preseason conference ranking, number of players on the 2005 roster, number of SC players on the roster, and percent of the roster comprised of SC high school players.

I will defer to Chico & Company for further statistical analysis.


NCAA Division 1

Francis Marion - (Independent) 20 / 1 = 5%

Charleston Southern - (BSC 8) 21 / 2 = 10%

Furman - (SoCon 2) 20 / 2 = 10%

South Carolina State - (Independent) 16 / 2 = 13%

Coastal Carolina - (BSC 6) 26 / 4 = 15%

The Citadel - (SoCon 11) 19 / 3 = 16%

College of Charleston - (SoCon 3) 22 / 4 = 18%

South Carolina - (SEC-E 5) 25 / 5 = 20%

Winthrop - (BSC 7) 23 / 5 = 22%

Clemson - (ACC 4) 23 / 6 = 26%

Wofford - (SoCon 8) 22 / 8 = 36%


NCAA Division 2

USC Upstate - (PBC 1) 18 / 3 = 17%

Newberry - (SAC 5) 25 / 7 = 28%

Coker - (CVAC 11) 17 / 5 = 29%

Limestone - (CVAC 6) 22 / 7 = 32%

North Greenville - (Independent) 18 / 6 = 33%

USC Aiken - (PBC 9) 17 / 6 = 35%

Anderson - (CVAC 9) 22 / 12 = 55%

Lander - (PBC 5) 21 / 12 = 57%

Presbyterian - (SAC 4) 21 / 13 = 62%

Erskine - (CVAC 7) 21 / 14 = 67%

Converse - (CVAC 12) 15 / 10 = 67%

I'd like to know how many scholarships each of these schools have to offer. I know very few are fully funded.

Hammer --

From the Educationplanner.com:

The NCAA allows each division 1 soccer program 9.9 scholarships for Men and 12 for Women. In division 2 the ratio is 9 for men and 9.9 for women.

This is '04-'05 data but I think still current. Compare with 85 full scholarships for D1 football programs.

lpaf

I am going to risk it.....

85 FULL scholarships, when only 50% actually play (my guess)... We all pay our taxes and it does not seem equal opportunity here in D1 state funded schools. The $$ from the program will still be coming in as the 50% that actually play are still there. So there are potentially 40 FULL scholarships that could be used elsewhere (swimming, fencing, band, whatever) which would actually benefit a kid who wants to play for his school in his chosen sport AND get an education in a system that continually increases their rates.

Bringing in foreign players for a sport and providing full scholarships is a different subject.

LPAF - I think Hammer wanted to know how many of the schools in the state have "fully funded" soccer programs. Just because they are allowed 9.9 for DI and 9 for DII doesn't mean each school offers that many scholarships. I think Wofford only had 3 or 4 as of a year ago.

futbol - I wouldn't tackle the football issue when they pay 85% of the athletic budget.

Talon,

Becareful in your statement if you don't have true facts to back it up. I know several very big D1 schools including Miami is losing money on their football programs. They make a lot of money but the cost of being competitive is sky rocketing.

One thing to keep in mind is that it is a lot easier (or beneficial) for a coach to recruit a South Carolina girl to play at a college in-state for the following reasons:

1. In-state tuition is cheaper at state schools.
2. Many of these girls qualify for a ton of academic scholarship money (Life, Palmetto, etc) if they stay in-state.
3. Use the "hook" if you stay in-state your parents and friends can see you play.

The first two reasons allow the coach to sign the girl a lot "cheaper" than what it would take to sign an out-of-state student. Again, this is based on aid packeges that incorporate need, academics and athletics.

Folks, I've got to weigh in on this discussion ... When you start to discuss college scholarships, Title IX, financial aid, etc., please do not bring up the 85 scholarship rule in college football ... Without that "bread winner" there would not be collegiate athletics -- at least not in the form of the Division 1 level that we know it ... My guess is it would look a lot more like the D2 or D3 level ... If you have any facts and figures about which schools' football programs are losing money, please post them, because I have a hard time believing that Miami is losing money after its' years of affiliation in the Big East Conference and now the Atlantic Coast Conference ... I'll add more later!

[Preface: 1999 data, from a report by Carr Sports Associates from November 1999 to February 2000, commissioned by the University of Southern Alabama, in which South Carolina was used to benchmark football program viability. Summary: Other than USC and Clemson, football was almost always a money-losing proposition.]

[...] South Carolina, a Deep South state with a population of 4 million (compared to Alabama’s 4.4) and also facing massive state budget cuts, is perhaps more comparable to the state of Alabama. Their twins are South Carolina and Clemson, in the SEC and ACC, respectively. In 1999, Clemson ranked 13th in Division I-A attendance and South Carolina 14th. In 1998, Clemson enjoyed revenues of $15,613,780, while spending nearly $8.8 million. South Carolina brought in $14,950,979 while spending $5.88 million. Their coaches, Lou Holtz and Tommy Bowden, both make more than a million dollars a year. They are the only Division I-A programs in the state. Meanwhile, among the state’s several I-AA programs, South Carolina State garnered $1.37 million while spending $1.26 million, Furman brought in $716,702 while spending $2.1 million, the Citadel brought in $712,739 while spending $1.95 million, Wofford brought in $275,592 while spending $1.24 million, and Charleston Southern brought in $79,596 while spending $724,534.

From an internal University of Southern Alabama report, this one done by members of its business school on the 1998 NCAA football season.

In order to quality as a Division I-A school, a school must have a stadium with 30,000 permanent seats and an average of at least 17,000 attendees per game.

There were 113 Division I-A schools, 75 had a positive net revenue [profit] and 38 had a negative net revenue [loss].

There were 115 Division I-AA schools, 15 had a positive net revenue [profit], 7 were break-even, and 93 had a negative net revenue [loss].

Preface; Here's more up to date information on Division I-AA and II average revenue and expenses for football programs from the NCAA, dated July 4, 2005. I haven't found the numbers yet, but I would assume that the average Division I-A school is profitable.]

Division I-AA averages $7.2 million in revenue and $7.5 million in expenses.

An average Division II program with football has annual revenue of about $2.6 million and expenses of $2.7 million.

Finally, as an FYI...there are 42,304 students at South Carolina's Division I-A schools [USC and Clemson]; there are more than 68,026 at the Division I-AA, II, and III schools in South Carolina.

thank you chico for the enlightment....
Qusetion to mmake sure I am reading right....
Revenue is due to all sports or just football?
Loss is due to all sports or just footbal program?

I think it is the whole budget.

My original point was that revenue is the same as the reduction in the % of scholarships would not impact negatively. I realize that players would attend elsewhere that would give scholarships but revenue would still be pretty similar....

Obviously 100% guess.

I apologize for any confusion; I've gone back and edited each post so that "football program" is put in bold. These numbers are football program numbers only; they are not the entire athletic budget.

Bottom line: in Division I-A, the average football program seems to make a lot of money; in Division I-AA, II, and III, the average football program loses money.

http://www.dailyorange.com/media/paper522/news/2003/09/17/Sports/Money.Matters.Without.It.The.Big.East.Could.Split.Or.Cease.To.Exist-467575.shtml

This is the only article I can find right now, but I will look a little more tomorrow. I remember readin the Ohio State was another that was losing money like crazy a few years ago. If you aren't in the BCS series year in and year out then you will probably lose money. 2 Million for a coach each year is a lot of money/

OK, I want to get in one this one b/c I've done each year this topic comes up....

First, some of the owness needs to be put back on the players. We lose a lot of quality in-state talent that leaves to play Division 1 soccer outside of the state as opposed to playing at a smaller D. 1 or ever D. 2 program here in the state. Ask your daughter if she would play at Wofford or Charleston Southern.

Next, this is the livelyhood for these coaches. If a coach has to decide between a National Pool player from outside of South Carolina or a Region Team player from inside S.C. why should that coach feel compelled to take the S.C. girl?

College coaches HAVE to target the players they feel best suit their program. Also, ask a player from inside of S.C. why they chose to go out-of-state when they could have stayed and played in the state.

It's fascinating how people look at the same thing and come to completely different conclusions.

I remember a few years ago that the USC Women's program was being constantly criticized regarding its in-state recruiting. Now, you don't read those criticisms any more. I actually thought that the numbers above were pretty good given the state of South Carolina youth soccer; Clemson with 26% and USC with 20% seemed like great progress.

I agree with the thrust of "TVOR"'s post and would add only one comment: if more girls from South Carolina want to play college ball, then more clubs/teams are going to have to step up to being competitive at the regional and national level and girls with D-IA ambitions are going to have to compete on those teams -- or the odds of making it are long.

Brief illustration of the preceeding post. There are 11 girls on Clemson's and USC's roster; here's the club breakdown:

GFC/SGU: 8
CUFC Fusion: 2
Spartanburg: 1

Details:

Clemson
Amber Funk: SGU
Jacquelyn Hines: GFC
Britten Myer: GFC
Kelly Schneider: GFC
Julie Bolt: CUFC Fusion
Lia Schendel: CUFC Fusion

USC
Laura Armstrong: GFC
Annie Galloway: Spartanburg
Kim Gillespie: GFC
Sara Jane Harris: GFC
Alex Mouton: GFC

So back to my theory....

Scholarships are giving to entice an athlete to attend the university and provide the university with his services. The university in exchange provides the athlete with an education that hopefully will launch him into the real world on the right foot.

What is lost here is that the STUDENT portion of STUDENT ATHLETE is mostly ignored.

If a University receives public funds to function, then the University has a requirement that the public funds be used for those who have difficulty in affording education. EDUCATION that one is seeking.

I wonder what is the graduation rate for the Football scholarship players?. When I went to school (not in the South), I knew of players that left the school the year their eligibility was complete.
Never graduated, never received a diploma...

Yet many lower status sports graduate their athletes at a good rate (feeling, no proof). Would it not make sense then that they should receive "compensation" for their services?.

Title IX was introduced to provide equal opportunity to women... I applaud.. But why does the wrestling team have to disband or other male sports because the numbers have to be maintained? (for football player's benefit).

I still say that reducing the numbers of football scholarships will not reduce the revenue and the losses will become profits.

If a football program is using all the budget it generates, then you can say it is self sufficient.

Sounds like a well run business to me...

question... how many have children going to college? I just got my first started this year at an in-state DIV II school. Because of her chosen curriculum she will not be able to play, (I believe she could have probably received a scholarship to this school's soccer program) but we support her nevertheless. This is a DIV II school and with room and board we are talking about $12000/year. The gov tells me I make too much money so I do not qualify for all kinds of things... So I have to foot the bill.

So you can see that I am not biased because of self interests.

Chico, good points.

I introduced this topic to show that there is plenty of opportunity for SC high school players to receive athletic/academic/need aid to play soccer at the next level. With at least 22 D1 & D2 colleges in the Palmetto state adding between 110 - 130 freshman players to their rosters each year, high-level players have a great shot at catching on and having a significant part of their education subsidized.

However, CESA U-18 premier only produces about 16 girls per year.....where are the other in-state players going to come from? We have to do a better job of producing more competitive teams.

TVOR.....you mentioned some girls going out-of-state to play? Hershey has a pretty good list of South Carolina girls playing college soccer out-of-state but I don't think the list is that long. Look at college rosters throughout the south and you will see them full of girls from GA, FL, TX & NC. There are not too many from SC.

Hurst66,

I would hope all "the other in-state players" will come from the much lower ranking clubs in the state. I know CSC has helped in producing a few players to the D1 and mostly D2 ranks.

Quite a few players have no desire to play in college. Female players especially tend to qualify for academic scholarships and want to focus on thier academics. There isn't a high paying pro league after college they can shoot for like in football, basketball, and baseball.

Chico,

USC and Clemson both have done great in starting to recruit players from home. And they will start to reap the benefits in a few years.

TVOR,

Why would I select a reginal home town player over a national pool player? I have several answers for you.

1. Home town players tend to stay enrolled in the program for the entire 4-5 years. Out state players can a higher chance of getting home sick and leaving after the first year.

2. Tuition is cheap when giving out a partial or full scholarship, so it is a bigger help to an in state player that can also get a Hope scholarship.

3. Home town people like paying to see home town players. The school needs to generate extras funds through the gate money. I know persoanlly my daughter will be going to a lot more games this year because of the in-state connection. She has played againist several of the players, so it adds that personal interest. I could care less about the girls from CA and even less about the international player.

So to sum it up. I want a player taht will be with me for the entire 4-5 years or playing and show the AD how much money I generate at the gate. People say it is about the wins and losses but I tell you it is completely about the money. If you can't dominate the sport, like NC, then you need to find other ways to put fannies in the seats in women's sports.

ChapinDad:
You bring up some good points. I just want to make a couple of comments on those....

The first thing is tuition. Most schools have clauses in their scholarship program that state something to the following-- a student who receives any kind of scholarship assistance is automatically considered an in-state student. This cuts both ways. Many good S.C. soccer players (boys and girls) have left the state to play out-of-state b/c of academic and athletic opportunities.

Second, local players may tend to stay at the school and complete their elegibility. However, if a girl leaves her home area to play for a top program, she is probably most interested in winning. That is something that a coach scopes out in the recruiting process. That process can take almost two years. A coach and player can have a lot of interaction (NCAA allowed), and in that time, a coach can get the impression of whether a student-athlete is committed to the school and the program. Chemistry also plays a HUGE factor in women's college soccer. A coach may not only select an out-of-state player b/c she is better on the field, but perhaps that player is also better in the locker room. Local players also tend to be more confortable with the town, know more people from high school who also stuck around and thus may tend to get into more trouble than out-of-state players.

Finally, are you and your daughter more willing to go and watch a local school with predominately out-of-state players but plays at a high level --OR-- a local school made up of primarily local or in-state players but plays a poor level of soccer?? From your statements, if you lived near UNC-Chapel Hill, you would not go and see them play and support the team simply b/c they have a lot of out-of-state players.

I would think it would be more inportant to have your daughter see high level women's soccer rather than limiting her exposure simply b/c a local college gets it's top talent form out-of-state. Remember, these coaches have to win and graduate players to keep their job. If a local girl cannot cut it athletically --OR-- academically, the coach cannot take her b/c she will hurt the way he pays the bills!

Voice,

You are absolutely correct in pointing out that chemistry is a HUGE component to team success.....

but.....

no matter how much "homework" a college coach does on a player, he or she cannot predict the outcome until the player has gone through preseason training and at least the first few weeks of the season. Naturally the coach will talk with the player, her parents and previous coaches to assess the situation. Sure if a "red light" goes off, the coach should take a pass.

My point here is that it is very difficult to "recruit team chemistry" whether you are looking at out-of-state or in-state players.

Ok - I have to weigh in on this too. From personal knowledge, USC has raised almost 14 million in just donations for athletic scholarships. This money is donated (mostly) so that people can get football tickets. These donations are used for tuition, book fees, housing, etc. Coach's salaries are paid out of ticket sales. Other income comes from conference affiliation, bowl appearances, television, etc. You don't often see other sports besides football, basketball and some baseball on tv. USC has sold out every fooball ticket available for another 14.7 million in income besides the premium seat money that equals an additional 1.1 million.

As much as I love soccer, there would be few scholarships without the football program. I dare say Coach Berson's program nor Coach Smith's program bring in enough to cover all of their expenses (uniform, travel, coach's salary).

The football program at USC is the work horse for all sports. It brings in the vast majority of the money, so I can't deny that they should have their 85 scholarships. As far as coach's salaries go, you may see that they are making a million a year, but a portion of that money comes from their camps & sponsorships - not all is salary paid by the university.

I hope this will clarify some things for everyone about the state of scholarships at the local level.

This is fascinating...I've never cared enough to form an opinion on any of this...a few questions:

Football scholarships: Why only 85? Why not 105? Why not unlimited?

Football coaches salary: Why shouldn't the university pay as much as they want to...1M, 2M, 10M, or whatever?

Why shouldn't the football program be treated as a separate business unit, paying a licensing fee to the university and doing whatever it wants with the rest of the money?

Title IX: Should the football program be exempt? Should Title IX be proportional?

Now now Chico.... they are going to think my ID and your ID are one and the same....

Chico,

To answer a few statements - 85 football scholarships is the limit imposed by the NCAA. Schools can pay their coaches whatever they wish. Carolina has historically been low in coach's salaries as compared to other SEC or top schools in the country. If the football program is treated as a separate business then there would be a lot of excess money for them and not enough to cover the scholarships for the other "non-revenue" sports such as track, equestrian, softball, swimming etc. As much as we would love for soccer to have a full ride scholarship for every player, it's just not going to happen. The dollars just aren't there.

caalam: Thanks for this discussion...I'm at the very beginning of forming some opinions here. What's interesting to me is that most of the on-going debate in this area is "wrestling teams versus Title IX" -- when in fact I think that the argument could better be framed "socioeconomic equality versus gender equality" -- but I'll leave that for another day.

85 football scholarshipos is the limit imposed by the NCAA now. In the past it's been 105 and before that unlimited. There are organizations that want the number to go to 60 so that athletic departments can better fund non-revenue-producing sports. If the only reason that 85 is the right number is that this is the latest NCAA number, then 60, unlimited, or a lot of other numbers appear just as valid, don't they?

Regarding coach's salaries, I'm not being clear enough. I am not arguing whether USC's or anyone else's coaches are paid too much. I am asking why it is that people feel the need to rationalize these high salaries -- if a coach runs a profitable and winning program why worry whether the coach is being paid over $1M...or over $10M? Why not let the market sort it out?

So your belief is that football programs shouldn't be run as a separate business because the football program implicitly owes something to other programs at the school and thus this revenue must be used to fund other sports. It seems to be a fair position. Then the question becomes how much does the football program owe -- and why shouldn't the number of scholarships go down [at the NCAA level] in order to increase what the football program owes to these other sports [as per some organization's wishes]?

Finally, do you believe that the only schools that are fully funding their soccer programs are those that are running profitable football and are thus able to fund it from athletic revenue? Many schools seem to be funding from an assortment of income streams including student tuition fees, don't they? [Note: I've tried, but I can't find any sources of data for "The Hammer"'s earlier request of which schools are fully funding their soccer programs.]

By the way, I did find an interesting set of numbers the other day for USC. In their latest reporting period, 55% of USC's undergraduates were female. In that same period, just under 42% of athletic aid went to women.

This is not what I'd have expected from an institution in compliance with Title IX. But in reading about Title IX compliance over the last few days, I'm starting to understand that proportional compliance is the exception.

Things to keep in mind. Football at the two large public institutions doesn't represent every football program, univerisity or college out there. USC and Clemson do very well with the amount of income they make in football. Other programs are not as lucky. Ohio and Miami are the two bigs I can thing of that had funding problems in the past few years. Duke and UNC don't make it on football, I believe they play basketball, which we don't do.

The 85 Scholarships and thinking about 60 is not something USC, Clemson, Florida want to happen. They love the 85 and probably would love to have unlimited. They make plenty of money to cover it. The problem for them is that they aren't the center of the world and there are other univerisities that can't fund the 85 and find it hard to compete and with the mega conferences starting to acquire all the TV and Bowl money, don't be surprised if smaller schools don't start shutting down football because of the high cost and move to things like soccer because of the lower costs in order to compete on a national level. Francis Marion has a D-1 women's soccer team that has a chance at playing on a national level. Do you think if they had a football team, it would have a chance at the bowl or TV money?

Articles to read before I get told that I am crazy and no one is shutting down football.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/04/SPGGC5E0CD1.DTL

http://www.voy.com/53670/4/6378.html

http://starbulletin.com/97/08/08/sports/bigold.html

Wow - a lot of good questions and many I don't have answers for or an opinion on (to be honest).

Football did drop in scholarship numbers after Title IX enforcement took place. USC also dropped their men's cross country team and added equestrian to increase the number of female participants. I know that baseball has a roster of 40 players, but only 11 scholarships (I think) to split between them. I do not know how many scholarships the other sports have. The women's track team has a roster of 43 and the men's is 32. Are they all on scholarship? I don't know. You are probably a lot more well read on Title IX than I am and you've obviously sought out some figures to back up your statements. I don't know where these figures come from. It's not something I've ever seen. I just know the ticketing/fundraising side of things.

You asked why people felt the need to rationalize the salaries that coaches are paid. I personally don't, so that's a question for someone else. I feel that all of the coaches are well compensated and they have built into their contracts bonuses for team performance. That's an incentive for the coach to push their teams to do well.

Next: "Then the question becomes how much does the football program owe -- and why shouldn't the number of scholarships go down [at the NCAA level] in order to increase what the football program owes to these other sports [as per some organization's wishes]?" I didn't mean for you to get the impression that I felt the football program "owed" the rest of the sports anything. My point is that without the football program the funding for the othe programs would not be there. USC is lucky to operate "in the black" unlike some other schools. Soccer, baseball, basketball, volleyball does bring in some funding through ticket sales, but many of the other sports do not. You don't have to pay to go to an equestrian or swimming or tennis match, but these students are still provided equipment, coaches and some scholarships. Where does this money come from? Booster donations and ticket sales.

Your final question about fully funded soccer programs being related to football, I can't answer. I don't know who is fully funded and who isn't. I would assume the UNC women's program is fully funded solely based on their year end and year out domination in the sport. I would assume this even though their football program does not draw a big crowd. You appear to know a lot more than I do on other institutions and even more than I do in other areas of USC. I won't discuss things that I know nothing about so that I don't throw out incorrect information.

Thanks for the discussion. You've given me some things to think on also.

Maybe I am just being obstinate.... but if you reduce the number of scholarships to 60, I believe you still make the same revenue and therefore more to go around for all. 25 additional scholarships is a lot of money to go around

What exactly is the question we are trying to solve?

Something about football and soccer and not being treated fair?

I coach football and soccer now, as well as played football and soccer in college. My conclusion is this: Our soccer team funding was/is dependent on the football team. They receive many more perks and benefits than the soccer team, but without them we would not be able to support a team half as well as we do now.

To me it seems like a teenage girl girl being angry at her father for owning a '04 Dodge Ram with power everything versus her '99 Saturn with roll up windows and cassette player. She can complain, or be thankful she is being taken care of was well as she is.

R1C: I came into this discussion believing that college football was the engine that allowed scholarships to be offered in most other sports. In the last few days, as I've searched out numbers, what I've found is that most college football programs lose money and thus can't be funding much of anything. This is amazing to me. It's also amazing to me that there is so much more funding for men's sports than women's sports; I thought that Title IX had resulted in proportional funding. I have no doubt that I was amazingly ignorant a few days ago, and am only slightly less so now -- but I'm still in the process of learning the questions to ask and asking them -- I'm a long way from getting to an "answer" or even a set of answers.

Specifically, here's what I've learned in this discussion to date:

1. USC and Clemson are the only SC universities making non-trivial money on their football programs.
2. Most college football programs lose money.
3. If a college football program loses money, it is not helping fund any other programs regardless of its revenue.
4. Title IX has not resulted in proportional representation.
5. Since the only proven legally defensible mechanism is proportional representation, most South Carolina universities seem to be open to lawsuits if any organizations choose to pursue them.

Now, you've taken this discussion into the realm of high school football [I believe this is what you meant in your third paragraph]. What is the revenue and expenses associated with your high school football program? Are these numbers available anywhere for South Carolina high school athletic departments? Is Title IX applicable to high schools? Is there anything like the EADA (the reporting standard for Title IX) being done at the high school level?

R1C: One other note on the heart of your post, the hypothetical you posed concerning football and soccer being treated fairly.

I don't know how you'd come up with a definition of "fair", so I'll give you my definition...which is at the athletic department level, not the program-by-program level. At this time, it appears that the best definition I can find is proportional representation in terms of spending since there's a 30+ year legal framework for that in Title IX. I honestly don't give a rat's behind how much money is spent on football; however, if you take all men's sports and all women's sports then it makes sense to me that you're going to spend a proportional amount based on the proportion of students you have.

Your automotive analogy you give above is seriously flawed. This isn't about a "father" and a "daughter", this is about a "man" and a "woman." There isn't an automatic authoritative paternalistic relationship due to gender.

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. What you'll find, as I did, is that with two major exceptions that college football is so expensive that it tends to lose money or at best break-even.

Is this the case in high school? No idea at all. Honestly...none! Do I think we should spend less on high school football? No idea at all. Honestly...none! I would hope the high school football programs are run efficiently enough so that they're almost all making money.

But would I like to see the athletic department budgets by program for South Carolina high schools to understand what is going on -- and would I like to see EADA-like reports showing gender representation? Honestly...absolutely!

[futbol(soccer)] Maybe I am just being obstinate.... but if you reduce the number of scholarships to 60, I believe you still make the same revenue and therefore more to go around for all. 25 additional scholarships is a lot of money to go around

I can come up with an argument against this. My guess would be that the 25 football scholarships that would be removed would be much more likely to negatively impact people on a lower socioeconomic scale. Thus you'd be pitting statistically disadvantaged male kids against advantaged female kids if you put more money into soccer [for example].

Then again, a counter argument is that these are athletic, not need-based, financial assistance -- and that the 25 you take away from football could be applied to sports in which there are proportionally more disadvantaged female athletes.

Interesting stuff!

High school football teams do not have the following three major costs that are associated with D1 college football programs:

1. Paying players (scholarships)
2. Paying coaches (big bucks for major D1 staffs)
3. Travel (a day trip to Summerville vs. overnights to Oregon)

Thus, if they get a decent gate six Friday nights per year, high school teams should not only be able to fund themselves, but a significant part of the rest of the athletic teams as well.

Hurst66: Is there any reporting requirements associated with high school athletic departments? Or is "Freedom of Information" the only way to get this kind of information?

No idea.

There's always the question of Athletic Department funds and Booster Club funds as well.

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?

Good question. Again, I should have specified. My comments were directed towards D-IA programs and those on the high school level. Somewhere in the mix D-1AA schools get screwed in comparable travel expenses without comparable gates/television rights/trademark earnings.

This argument is completely beyond the rules of begin fair. Your time and preparation, valid points, and rational thought exceed my resources. I'm suing you over violation of Title XIX--All posters shall compete on equals grounds of intelligence and research.

You have to fight in my yard now.

Don't forget the biggest cost shift in women's collegiate soccer:

It's not the money going from the men's football program to women's soccer. It's tricking the colleges into signing your daughter (or son) to play for them and then having the school cover all the expenses that you've had to pay out of pocket (club fees, tournament fees, travel costs, uniforms, new cleats, camps...) for the last 10 years.

lpaf

Alas, a new twist...

the other thing to remeber here is that few if any players get the FULL RIDE. Womens programs are ALLOWED 12 full scholarships by NCAA but that doesn't mean the school is REQUIRED to fund the program at that level. Any coach should be asked how many he has and how well he expects his funding to hold over next five years.

If the coach has 24 on the roster and he's fully funded, he still only has 1/2 scholarship per player. Unless you are the second coming of Mia Hamm a full is not likely. Rather coaches will work athletic money in conjunction with other wards available from the school and try to get close overall. You may end up at near full ride but its not likely all athletic dept funding.

An interesting side note (which I beleive is still the case) - if you are on a full ATHLETIC scholarship you are not allowed to have a job and earn extra money - you've probably heard this lament in the football context. If you are on a less than full ride - even as much as 95%, this NCAA restriction doesn't apply.

The odds get smaller too when we only get 7 games to play. This is exactly why a lot of players are leaving and crossing the boarders

FMFAN - That may be true in the Charlotte suburbs, but I don't see any Charlestonian kids crossing the "border" to play for Georgia or NC teams (or the Atlantic either, while we're on borders). Can someone state if there are Holy City players opting for other states?

FMFAN have to agree with the 7 games problem; being from Columbia we can't even do the state exodus solution. Hope all your club members have written Cothran at SCYSA gscsl@charter.net and tell him how pleased you are with his schedule. If enough people complain maybe they get the message.