Could the 11.7 be reduced in the near future?

Agreed! Speaking as a mom of an indoor volleyball player, there are plenty of places for a volleyball player to play. Just like in baseball, the west coast students may have a advantage in being able to play year around, and in order to find a program they may have to leave the state to find an opportunity.
I do think that this could open up more spots on college rosters, as beach players have a viable pro circuit they can play on after college. But the players should have to choose one form or the otehr, and not play both beach and indoor.
And I am certainly not in favor of taking more scholarships away from baseball. Take them from football. Although it is popular, there are plenty of people who couldn't care less about it.
(Me).

IMHO its simple.. men will pay money to watch women in bikinis play volleyball...

As with everything in our society its ok if a $ is to be made doing it...

Oh no, another sport where there will be an argument about seasons and the ability for southern schools and California schools having the advantage of playing year round.

Adding a women's sport doesn't mean men's sports are going to pay the price. The money spent still has to be equal (minus the exemption football receives). All adding sand volleyball does is add another option for what women's sports a college wants to offer. Sand volleyball will be very regional much like hockey.

I can't imagine non warm weather schools building indoor sand pits. Chris Marlowe, the volleyball announcer for Prime Sports (remember Prime?) once tried to promote indoor sand volleyball with the idea he could generate 18,000 seats worth of revenue. It failed. For the average fan sand volleyball is as much of a lifestyle as a sport. It's about hanging out, sitting in the sun and watching the game and everything going on around the game.

(I lived twenty years in southern CA))

As for the rumored dominance of California women's volleyball, the three time defending indoor volleyball champions are the Penn State Nittany Lions. In each of the past three years there has been one player from California.

This is a continueing response to the changing demographics in American education. By the year 2016; 3 of 5 college graduates will be women. This translates under Title IX to either an increase in opportunities for women or a reduction of opportunities for men.

As long as football is the 10,000 pound gorrilla; mens sports will be at risk. The addition of bikini volleyball frankly is nothing more than a reaction to the change in demographics.

Attached is what I consider a very eye opening article. When you read it think about what is happening not only at American colleges but society in general.

The fairer s3x gets ready to take over

ILVBB, I didn't enjoy that article very much. But as they say, the truth hurts sometimes. ouch.

So yes, now I can see how or why this new sport was created.

I guess if we were still in the lead (in some arenas) we'd be discussing how to build horse shoe pits, and how to throw them within regulation. LOL

I can't help but believe that what is driving this type of decision is a keen eye regarding what sports could garner the eyeballs, and thus the advertising revenue when broadcast on tv. If that's the case, and the wave of the future, we can look forward to xgame type teams at all the schools.

RJM - you are absolutely right about Penn State! Amazing athletes! But I think if you look through many of the Ivys and some of the other eastern schools, you'll see CA popping up from time to time.
Lets face it - competition for college spots of any kind is tough - and most dont have an inkling of what kind of work and dedication it takes to get to that level.
I spend half my year on a baseball diamond and the other in a gym or convention center full of thousands of yelling girls, parents, coaches and the whistles!!! My daughter plays for a club vb team and has made some visits to look at playing in college.
I truly hope beach volleyball is funded by taking away scholarships from football, if it has to be funded at all. I don't agree with it becoming a NCAA sport - there's already an indoor team for this. Please leave baseball alone.

quote:

truly hope beach volleyball is funded by taking away scholarships from football, if it has to be funded at all. I don't agree with it becoming a NCAA sport - there's already an indoor team for this. Please leave baseball alone.

It should be funded by taking funds from female sports. I know-- not the poltically correct answer. If you want a female sport, it should come at the expense of other female sports. Especially considering there is already a sport just like it set aside for females already!

quote:

I truly hope beach volleyball is funded by taking away scholarships from football, if it has to be funded at all. I don't agree with it becoming a NCAA sport - there's already an indoor team for this. Please leave baseball alone.

Football is a sacred cow. It's where the money is. But, football gets an exemption from equality. Due to football men's sports actually get more money then women's. The next sacred cow is men's basketball. Once again it's about the money.

What isn't right is there are football players who never see the field getting a scholarship since the sport gets 85. The same goes for men's and women's basketball. Men's gets 12 rides. Women's gets 15. Basketball teams use a 7-9 man rotation. So, basketball is giving rides to players who never play.

There are other sports like baseball where they don't get the number of rides to cover the active players. If there were, baseball would get 18-20 rides. It seems silly to me in two sports players who never get in the game get a ride where in baseball there are plenty of contributors getting partials or nothing.

quote:

It should be funded by taking funds from female sports. I know-- not the poltically correct answer. If you want a female sport, it should come at the expense of other female sports. Especially considering there is already a sport just like it set aside for females already!

The athletes who will get screwed over this decision will be female athletes of other sports at schools in California and Florida.

quote:

Football is a sacred cow. It's where the money is. But, football gets an exemption from equality. Due to football men's sports actually get more money then women's. The next sacred cow is men's basketball. Once again it's about the money.

Reference? Last I saw football DID count. Especially considering Title IX doesn't even mention sports...

quote:

The athletes who will get screwed over this decision will be female athletes of other sports at schools in California and Florida.

That's a choice for the universities to make. This isn't about equality; this is about adding another sport for which there is already one nearly identical present. This is like if a university were to decide to add a 3-on-3 basketball team.

Football gets a waiver on the expense ledger due to it's extensive cost. Therefore the budget for an athletic department is tilted towards men's sports if there's a football program. Obviously the reason is big programs generate so much revenue.

I recently asked the assistant AD at a college that dropped 1-AA football if Title IX has anything to do with the decision. He told me the reason is they don't have the facilities to compete when recruiting and the expense to upgrade would have been in the millions.

It's always easy to blame Title IX. Often it's not the reason. I don't see why this thread even started. All that's going to happen is some colleges are going to start sand volleyball programs and drop scholarships for other female sports or drop a female sport.

If life had been fair in the past there wouldn't be Title IX. Title IX was originally written for gender equity in academics. Here's a great story of don't pi$$ off a motivated woman ...

Patsy Mink applied to med school and was denied acceptance to all twenty schools for being a woman. She decided to change the world. She went to law school, got elected to Congress and sponsored Title IX legislation to allow women equal opportunity to educational opportunities.

quote:

Football gets a waiver on the expense ledger due to it's extensive cost. Therefore the budget for an athletic department is tilted towards men's sports if there's a football program. Obviously the reason is big programs generate so much revenue.

I recently asked the assistant AD at a college that dropped 1-AA football if Title IX has anything to do with the decision. He told me the reason is they don't have the facilities to compete when recruiting and the expense to upgrade would have been in the millions.

Thanks for the evidence NOT. Because I know at my school most of the money that the football team brings in goes straight to the female sports. If it weren't for that, our men's basketball and football teams would actually come out in the black each year. Instead, they show up as being in the red because that money is sucked up by everything else.

quote:

Thanks for the evidence NOT. Because I know at my school most of the money that the football team brings in goes straight to the female sports.

You need to read, comprehend and think before responding. I stated football gets an exception on expenses due to the excessive cost of the sport. You stated the revenue for football goes to other sports. Were you absent from Accounting 101 the day they discussed the difference between expenses and revenues?

quote:

You need to read, comprehend and think before responding. I stated football gets an exception on expenses due to the excessive cost of the sport. You stated the revenue for football goes to other sports. Were you absent from Accounting 101 the day they discussed the difference between expenses and revenues?

If football got an exception, then it would be a separate entity and would get to keep its money.

You have yet to show me that football gets an exception. Because it DOES NOT. All 100 "opportunities" that are set aside for a football roster requires there to be a similar number of "opportunities" for female sports.

Football is not a separate entity. It gets an exemption on expenses due to the cost of running a football program. Before you confused revenue with expense. Now you're confusing opportunity with expense. There is not an exemption for men's sports based on the number of scholarships to be offered over women's sports. There is an exemption in the budgeting due to the expense of running a football program.

Title IX requires opportunity to be equal. It does require expenses to be equal "under reasonable circumstances" I believe is the term used. The extra expense of running a football program is considered reasonable. I can bet the lobby for determining it's acceptibility were D1 AD's and presidents.

"Football is a sacred cow. It's where the money is. But, football gets an exemption from equality. Due to football men's sports actually get more money then women's. The next sacred cow is men's basketball. Once again it's about the money."

I should have stopped you right here when you quoted this point. Unfortunately I went on to your next incorrect assumption. Just so you're clear the point I was making is it's ridiculous football and men's and women's basketball get full rides for players who never see the game when baseball players who contribute on the field get partials or nothing.

Rather than attacking Title IX over women's sand volleyball when there's nothing to suggest it will have any affect on men's sports, it makes more sense for there to be less football and men's basketball scholarships. I'm guessing between the two sports they can do without ten scholarships giving baseball 21.7. There's your legitimate argument which on common sense is winnable. But good luck convincing the two big cash cows they can survive with a few less scholarships.

quote:

"Football is a sacred cow. It's where the money is. But, football gets an exemption from equality. Due to football men's sports actually get more money then women's. The next sacred cow is men's basketball. Once again it's about the money."

I should have stopped you right here when you quoted this point. Unfortunately I went on to your next incorrect assumption. Just so you're clear the point I was making is it's ridiculous football and men's and women's basketball get full rides for players who never see the game when baseball players who contribute on the field get partials or nothing.

Rather than attacking Title IX over women's sand volleyball when there's nothing to suggest it will have any affect on men's sports, it makes more sense for there to be less football and men's basketball scholarships. I'm guessing between the two sports they can do without ten scholarships giving baseball 21.7. There's your legitimate argument which on common sense is winnable. But good luck convincing the two big cash cows they can survive with a few less scholarships.

Even if those players never see a single minute of play, they are important to the team. Yes, I'll say that again-- many of them are important to the teams that MAKE the money. Female sports and baseball do not make money.

quote:

Even if those players never see a single minute of play, they are important to the team.

Do you think the 78th to 85th football players are more important to their team than the 12th to 19th player on a baseball team? I think football could afford to give up 8 rides to baseball. But like we agree, it won't happen because football is a money generating business.

Unfortunately that is the business. If baseball wants more piece of the pie, then they have to produce more of the pie. I'm not saying I like it; that's just the way it is.

The discussion began with the inclusion of Beach Vollyball as an NCAA approved sport. Skip the hystronics about mens football and basketball; this is about changing demographics and any effort to create new sports which will attract more women. Recently there was an attempt to certify cheerleading as a sport. Again, this is an attempt to attract and count women in an effort to create equality pursuant to Title IX.

The demographics in college are changing; the biggest factor is young men are falling by the wayside academically. The reality is less are applying and being accepted at colleges. Hence, pursuant to Title IX athletic departments are struggling to maintain compliance. Historically the first action was to cut some sports by colleges; the inclusion of Beach Volleyball (along with the attempt to certify chearleeding) is a new strategy to create compliance with Title IX.

From my prospective; although intially I found it offensive, I now see it for what it really is - a creative solution to an every evolving change in America.

quote:

The discussion began with the inclusion of Beach Volleyball as an NCAA approved sport.

Unfortunately, many times it comes down to WHO is behind the effort to make a change. While I agree that the equipment, uniform costs are manageable, there are other club sports that are more worthy. My daughters water ski on the college level and I'll bet many would be surprised at the number of competing teams around the country and never have I heard word about it being recognized as an NCAA official sport.

college water ski teams

In my own snooty way I'll bet somewhere along the way there was some "beach house" family influence behind the movement.

rz1- how about some recent pictures of your daughters skiing? You haven't posted any in awhile and I love seeing them.

Volleyball USA puts out a magazine (they are the ones who put together the Olympic team) and at least five of the articles are about beach volleyball.
Just an interesting point.