I wonder how many examples of Title IX cuts there are that we never hear about?

Major DI football gets 85 scholarships. All of them are full rides, cannot be split. Lower DI football gets 63 scholarships which can be split..

TPM, yes, I know baseball is supposed to be limited to 35. I took the numbers directly off Georgia's website. Not sure why they have 39 on there. I also know Georgia kicked two kids off the team this year and they are not part of the 39. This would bring the number to 41. I'm not sure why they have this many kids listed. There has to be some way they can be doing it. Although, the Georgia baseball coach was fired this year, so who knows?

Yes bowl schools are at 85 (off by 5) and only allowed 85 on scholarship at one time. I didn't explain correctly, there are many players that are on the team getting money from other sources, state money, academic and other sports.  Lower D1 programs can split as they wish.

 

I am with RJM on this, but my theory is that complaints about the program come from those that often feel their baseball players got screwed and should be receiving more money.

 

In HS we raised money to build new batting cages.  We didn't have to give anyone anything, but the use of the cages would be for the girls teams use as well, and that was fine with us.  I have a real good friend who is invloved in fund raising at a major d1 program, going to ask how they get around raising money for facilities equally under the law.

 

UGA just fired Perno, so I would assume that roster was never updated, as the fall rosters are different than spring, you cannot have any more than 35.

Well, I pulled this roster just a week or two ago, whenever it was I made that post. So I doubt this was the fall roster. In fact one kid was on the roster in the fall, got kicked off and his name was removed. The other kid got kicked off about 3/4 of the way through the season and his name was taken off after that. And Perno was not fired until the season was over. So I'm pretty sure this was not the fall roster.

Keep in mind that the student information director is in charge of that and maybe no one updated him.

You cannot have 35 over the roster limit to be in compliance, and no more than 27 on scholarship. Those additionals are walk ons so who knows if that is correct.

 

BTW, isn't this about equality in actual scholarships, not roster numbers?

To be honest with you, I'm not sure if the Title IX stuff relates to total athletes or total scholarships available to athletes. I'm sure they are interrelated since the NCAA regulates how many scholarships are available to each sport.

I'm thinking that it is probably about total athletes. If it was about scholarships, and things were out of balance, instead of cutting a men's program, they could make the decision to still offer the program, but without athletic money.

And is it for schools that are state/federally funded vs. private?

And does overall enrollment play a part as well? 

Blaming title IX  for eliminating bb programs is ridiculous.  There are many factors at work here.

With a 39.9% in men's enrollment makes sense that there would be more woman's sports and if they had to cut a team sport it would be the one that costs more and brings in nothing.

Perhaps Towson baseball has proved they belong, perhaps they showed they deserved another shot.

 

Scholarships are based on ratios per male/female enrollment.  Female enrollment at all schools is in on the rise, so therefore so will be woman's sports and increase in their participation.  Roster sizes have nothing to do with it, but actual scholarships awarded. Example in baseball, the count of 35,36,37 on a roster has nothing to do with it but 11.7. Schools can split and blend as they choose according to  NCAA rules.   My understanding is that before adding a sport,  needed facilities financial commitments are studied. Lax has become popular because it requires no special facilities other than the soccer field for participation.  Definetly cost is a factor, it takes much more money to run a baseball team than a soccer or cross country team.

 

The decision to drop Towson was based upon financial responsibility not because they were giving more scholarships to woman.   It would be financially beneficial to drop a more expensive men's sport for one that cost less to maintain and fund.  Maintaining baseball facilities is expensive. They have another shot because of money awarded, but not sure for how long.  It had nothing to do with Title 9 but the lack of any money to fund the program. This I am sure is the reason why the few bb programs that are dropped are because of $$, but there will always be those that blame title 9.

 

I messed up on the 85, that is for bowl schools only. Many of those 85 D1 guys also play other sports, which are funded by their full scholarship.  So if you are on the baseball team and play football your scholarship is from the football program.

 

As far as the story from Coach, I questioned that because of our own situation where we built new cages with our own money and there were no question it was illegal, however I now remember having to give it to the AD who gave us back the money. 

 

I was told from my D1 contact to the school my son attended,  that fundraising for specific athletic facility improvements has nothing to do with Title 9. However, in D1, if the football team wins a bowl game, and awarded money, that money has to be shared within the student athletic body based on ratios as well.  I believe that in the case that C2709 cited, it may not have been the whole story, either there were other factors not known or someone just didn't know the law as it is interpreted. At a D1 program, when a football wins big, the lions share will go to that team, but each team will reap the benefits one way of another.  Most likely the womens soccer team's new unis was from that win.

I remember people used to make fun of women's rowing at Clemson. The truth to the matter was that when enrollment ratios began changing, the least expensive women's sport to consider was that, as Clemson resides on a lake.  The biggest expense is transportation for meets.  So in the end, things do work themselves out evenly I suppose.

 

I wanted to isolate this part as to the reply that I received.

Schools depend a lot on their giving programs, and the larger programs have full time paid employees to travel throughout their state and country for fundraisers and alumni support.  The endowments at many schools are in the millions.  Many millions.  You do have many small D1 programs that have no means to support their programs anymore, they just do not have the ability to fund programs through the small donations they receive. 

 

This is not all a gender issue, this is financial, and because of economics you will begin to see more and more programs having to consider cutting baseball unless funds can be raised to support the program.  If you want a fair balance, make sure that your male child heads to college to boost male enrollment and equality.

 

This should also be a reminder how important it is to give as an alumni, each year.

bballman,

Wrestling may be a popular sport in your state, but not an approved men's sport at UGA because the SEC does not participate in that NCAA sport.  The ACC has 6 schools that participate, GT not being one of them.

 

Equestrian is offered at only 18  D1 universities, only 15 scholarships to be divided among the players anyway the coach desires and an average roster is 40 or could be more. Only count opportunities at 15.

 

The SEC has teams that participate, UGA, LSU, Auburn, USC.

 

It may not seem fair but there is a reason to why there is and why there isn't particular sports at D1 programs.

A high probability men's tennis at FIU was dropped due to a shift in enrollment of male vs. female ratios. Something had to go and the decision was most likely a financial one also based upon conference participation (I think 6 in all) as well. I would imagine the cost of travel, etc is all taken into consideration, not just "because" of title 9.

So what he was told (title 9) was most likely correct but the reasons of enrollment shifts, cost, etc were also a factor. 

 

Vector claims he doesn't read my posts, he should,  and he also should get his information correct.

 

FYI, the recent ratios are 44% male, 55% female.  Maybe lower for men, higher for women.  This is why there is no more men's tennis.

 

I forgot to ask about football not being included, but based on the numbers I received for ratios at Clemson and scholarships, it is not.

The ratios at Clemson are 46 to 54 female to male. Therefore there has to be and should be if fully funded 46 female scholarships and 54 male scholarships to be divided according to my understanding of how Title 9 works.

Whether one gender has more sports than the other means nothing.