PS Article: AD Revenue and Football

[xc84]

Universities address it with scholarships, yes but that is not the only way. And even in that case, they are still unequal which kind of disproves your point. Even though the DOE says everyone is in compliance and nobody is getting dinged for violations at least when it comes to athletics.

Read the article that CherieHoop posted and you will see.

I does not disprove my point. It agrees with my point. I read that a few days ago. I don't see where is says scholarship can be unequal. It actually points that that schools are not there yet. For all practical purposes, scholarships are what schools use. Maybe you can provide a case example of a school where scholarship numbers are not equal and the rationale the school has used to rationalize that it is really in compliance.

From the article
The NCAA has made strides, but as Morrison points out, "We're still not there yet." At the college level, female athletes still receive 86,000 fewer opportunities than men and $148 million less in athletic scholarships."

 

[CuseOnly]

I does not disprove my point. It agrees with my point. I read that a few days ago. I don't see where is says scholarship can be unequal. It actually points that that schools are not there yet. For all practical purposes, scholarships are what schools use. Maybe you can provide a case example of a school where scholarship numbers are not equal and the rationale the school has used to rationalize that it is really in compliance.

From the article
The NCAA has made strides, but as Morrison points out, "We're still not there yet." At the college level, female athletes still receive 86,000 fewer opportunities than men and $148 million less in athletic scholarships."

Must be everyone is in violation then.

Way to sniff out every university in the country.

You clearly did not read what I posted, here I will re-post it for you. Not one mention at all that scholarships need to be equal and as Townie pointed out, that is just how most universities chose to interpret it. Which I am guessing is why "We're still not there yet."

Also, no mention of scholarships whatsoever.

Especially this part - Under this equivalency standard, identical benefits, opportunities, or treatment are not required.

The Title IX regulation also permits OCR to consider other factors in determining whether there is equal opportunity.Accordingly, the Policy Interpretation added recruitment of student athletes and provision of support services, since these factors can affect the overall provision of equal opportunity to male and female athletes.

The Policy Interpretation clarifies that institutions must provide equivalent treatment, services, and benefits regarding these factors. The overall equivalence standard allows institutions to achieve their own program goals within the framework of providing equal athletic opportunities. To determine equivalency for men's and women's athletic programs, each of the factors is assessed by comparing the following:

• availability;
  
• quality;
  
• kind of benefits;
  
• kind of opportunities; and
  
• kind of treatment.

Under this equivalency standard, identical benefits, opportunities, or treatment are not required. For example, locker facilities for a women's team do not have to be the same as for a men's team, as long as the effect of any differences in the overall athletic program are negligible.

It is about opportunity provided, has nothing to do with Equal dollars or Equal scholarships nor Equal facilities. Universities are able to interpret the POLICY any way they choose if they can provide the DOE a reasonable explanation as to why they believe they are in compliance.

 

[xc84]

Not one mention at all that scholarships need to be equal and as Townie pointed out, that is just how most universities chose to interpret it.

Right, that's how they interpret it and abide by it. Equal scholarships.

 

[Orangepace]

One question directed to those arguing that a significant reason SU’s non-revenue costs are so high, as compared to other programs, related to the cost of tuition at SU as compared to other programs... Considering that fact, doesn’t that also mean the the football program is even more grossly underfunded as compared to other P5 programs? If the difference b/w SU and another school is $20K/scholarship, that equates to $1.7M extra built into SU’s football spending on an apples-to-apples comparison.

 

[HtownOrange]

One question directed to those arguing that a significant reason SU’s non-revenue costs are so high, as compared to other programs, related to the cost of tuition at SU as compared to other programs... Considering that fact, doesn’t that also mean the the football program is even more grossly underfunded as compared to other P5 programs? If the difference b/w SU and another school is $20K/scholarship, that equates to $1.7M extra built into SU’s football spending on an apples-to-apples comparison.

Yes and no, the Dome is paid for and the "rent" is not disclosed. Many schools have to pay the note on their stadiums. However, you point has merit in that SU is including much higher tuition (assuming the presumption is correct). However, much of the expense at some of the big spenders is for frivolous items ($10K/Locker locker rooms, wiffle ball fields, administrative staff, etc.); while it is true that some spending is clearly beneficial; i.e. dietician/nutritionist for the team.

One must also recall that State school tuition is not accurate, what is reported is what is charged, not the actual cost of a student attending, the difference being that the State (read taxpayers) funding covers up much of the true cost of attendance, which goes to your point.

Considering where Syracuse was less than 10 years ago, and the fact that the school is spending more and has a Chancellor and AD who understand what they need to do (yes, the Dome renovation is taking longer than we want, but they only have one chance to get things right). I am not as worried as most. Our spending must be compared with the other private schools, even then, it will only be a ballpark estimate because of the variety of methods of accounting and responding to the spending questions. I expect football spending to continue to rise and close some of the gap.

 

[NJCuse97]

One question directed to those arguing that a significant reason SU’s non-revenue costs are so high, as compared to other programs, related to the cost of tuition at SU as compared to other programs... Considering that fact, doesn’t that also mean the the football program is even more grossly underfunded as compared to other P5 programs? If the difference b/w SU and another school is $20K/scholarship, that equates to $1.7M extra built into SU’s football spending on an apples-to-apples comparison.

My only real argument was to those crying to eliminate women’s lax or cross country because nobody cares and that money could be used on football. It’s a percentage balance. 100% reduction in field hockey spending might result in 1% increase in football spending, and I think that example is still greatly exaggerated. To say we need to spend more on football especially when compared with our aspirational peers is fine and accepted by me. To say spending on other sports is frivolous and should be eliminated in order to correct that is the wrong idea.