(07-19-2018 06:42 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 12:58 PM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 12:02 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 10:46 AM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 10:38 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  Why would anyone in New Mexico care about hockey? It's pretty hard to get into a sport that no one grows up playing.

Like in Las Vegas where they have sold out all their season tickets and games when many were saying it will be a disaster.

Like in Brookings where the NAHL team is drawing well but no one under 50 played the games and they still don’t have HS sponsored hockey.

Like Sioux Falls where the USHL Stampede is the biggest thing ever where hockey was virtually unknown.

But hockey will be forever hard to get into for old codgers like you.

Again you post total ignorance.

Vegas is the newest team in the biggest league in a major city. Of course there will be initial enthusiasm. I thought hockey was really big in the Dakotas? I guess I was wrong. In either case that's a different animal than college hockey. Especially when you have to travel across the country to find teams to play.

And I'm willing to bet you're older than me, but that doesn't really matter.

Once Vegas experiences mediocrity their attendance will drop. They might end up like the Arizona Coyotes, who had a strong start when they first moved to Phoenix and are now near dead last in league attendance. Hockey in the desert can work, but the teams need to be successful (and not have arenas that are almost inaccessible)

Building in Glendale was OK for football, but hockey makes no sense. Have relatives that live in the East Valley and they had to commute in tough traffic weeknights. They dropped their old season tickets and now just go to weekend games, when traffic is not so bad and they actually don’t have to be rushed when thing are at a standstill. The Coyotes have recognized the location issue and are trying to get an arena built in downtown, Scottsdale, or Tempe.

The entire AHL affiliate for west coast NHL teams have moved to the west coast and those teams are drawing splendidly. California now produces so much hockey talent that it could have several college teams with its own players. The Ducks, Kings, Sharks, and Knights are really kranking up the game out there. Phoenix should be up there, but ownership couldn’t have made worse moves. Listening to Glendale developers was one of the worst.

They tried to partner with Arizona State for an arena in Tempe and it fell through. Now their owner is trying to sell the team after owning it for <3 years due to debts inherited from previous owners. Had they stayed downtown they most likely have as many issues as they do now. It's sad to see the rest of the west be successful while Arizona has been struggling for almost a decade.

The Phoenix arena was like the Brooklyn arena with overhang on one end and too many obstructed seats. It was a plan to fail from the beginning with a setup like that.

The owner is selling 49% so it looks like he’s keeping majority share.

Westgate setup is absolutely beautiful; it’s just too suburban, too away from the population, and Arizona highway system isn’t conducive to Glendale during rush hour. You can get away with it for 8 Sundays a year (Cardinals) but not 25 weeknights after rush hour (Coyotes).

(07-20-2018 12:20 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  The Phoenix arena was like the Brooklyn arena with overhang on one end and too many obstructed seats. It was a plan to fail from the beginning with a setup like that.

The owner is selling 49% so it looks like he’s keeping majority share.

Westgate setup is absolutely beautiful; it’s just too suburban, too away from the population, and Arizona highway system isn’t conducive to Glendale during rush hour. You can get away with it for 8 Sundays a year (Cardinals) but not 25 weeknights after rush hour (Coyotes).

FWIW, once Colangelo sold his interest in the next Coyotes, their revenue downtown dropped due to the lease. The Suns receive all premium seat revenue plus the overwhelming majority of the signage revenue and block out similar businesses from being in-venue sponsors for the subtenant (Coyotes or Rattlers).

(07-19-2018 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  So you think it is "greedy" to take as much money as a TV network is willing to give you? If your boss offers to pay you $100,000 a year, should you say "no, that would be greedy of me to take that, so you can pay me $90,000 instead"?

I'm not against more money being raised. I am against it being used to pay $11,000,000+ for one coach while other schools are cutting programs, decreasing opportunities for student-athletes. I think there can be a way to share the windfall so that college sports isn't functionally reduced to a few dozen "mega-brands".

(07-19-2018 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  And fewer opportunities than when? In 2000, when there was far less overall money in these various contracts, there were about 360,000 NCAA student-athletes. Today there are about 490,000.

That is an interesting statistic that I would like to analyze in more detail. For instance, I've seen a pattern of NAIA schools affiliating with the NCAA. That could add many 1000's. I see nearly 200,000 NCAA athletes are at the D3 (non-scholarship level). I wonder to what degree Title IX compliance is leading schools to add women's sports to get their numbers up (ex. beach volleyball & rowing helps w/ Title IX).

The dominant phenomenon I have been seeing for the past 10 years is cutting of many sports at the D1 (G5) and D2 levels.

A 2017 USA Today article says: "Overall, there has been a net loss of 338 men’s programs in Division I since 1988. This net reduction in opportunities in Division I men’s intercollegiate athletics has come during an era of spectacular growth of sport revenues at NCAA institutions."

The author tries to answer the question: Why? "This is a complex question with no easy answers, but the explanation is grounded in this principle: Institutional priorities constrained by an ever-widening revenue gap between many of the top schools and all others. "http://college.usatoday.com/2017/04/24/viewpoint-its-a-really-bad-idea-to-cut-sports-programs-lots-of-schools-are-doing-it-anyway/

Greater wealth is being consolidated in the hands of fewer to the detriment of college sports overall.
I think with all the intelligent people populating universities, something better could be devised.

(07-19-2018 08:18 PM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 06:42 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 12:58 PM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 12:02 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 10:46 AM)NoDak Wrote:  Like in Las Vegas where they have sold out all their season tickets and games when many were saying it will be a disaster.

Like in Brookings where the NAHL team is drawing well but no one under 50 played the games and they still don’t have HS sponsored hockey.

Like Sioux Falls where the USHL Stampede is the biggest thing ever where hockey was virtually unknown.

But hockey will be forever hard to get into for old codgers like you.

Again you post total ignorance.

Vegas is the newest team in the biggest league in a major city. Of course there will be initial enthusiasm. I thought hockey was really big in the Dakotas? I guess I was wrong. In either case that's a different animal than college hockey. Especially when you have to travel across the country to find teams to play.

And I'm willing to bet you're older than me, but that doesn't really matter.

Once Vegas experiences mediocrity their attendance will drop. They might end up like the Arizona Coyotes, who had a strong start when they first moved to Phoenix and are now near dead last in league attendance. Hockey in the desert can work, but the teams need to be successful (and not have arenas that are almost inaccessible)

Building in Glendale was OK for football, but hockey makes no sense. Have relatives that live in the East Valley and they had to commute in tough traffic weeknights. They dropped their old season tickets and now just go to weekend games, when traffic is not so bad and they actually don’t have to be rushed when thing are at a standstill. The Coyotes have recognized the location issue and are trying to get an arena built in downtown, Scottsdale, or Tempe.

The entire AHL affiliate for west coast NHL teams have moved to the west coast and those teams are drawing splendidly. California now produces so much hockey talent that it could have several college teams with its own players. The Ducks, Kings, Sharks, and Knights are really kranking up the game out there. Phoenix should be up there, but ownership couldn’t have made worse moves. Listening to Glendale developers was one of the worst.

They tried to partner with Arizona State for an arena in Tempe and it fell through. Now their owner is trying to sell the team after owning it for <3 years due to debts inherited from previous owners. Had they stayed downtown they most likely have as many issues as they do now. It's sad to see the rest of the west be successful while Arizona has been struggling for almost a decade.

If Arizona had a downtown hockey arena, no they wouldn't be struggling like they are now. Even if you work downtown, it is almost impossible to get to a weeknight game on time unless you leave work early. If you work in the East Valley, impossible to do so.

(07-20-2018 11:01 AM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  So you think it is "greedy" to take as much money as a TV network is willing to give you? If your boss offers to pay you $100,000 a year, should you say "no, that would be greedy of me to take that, so you can pay me $90,000 instead"?

I'm not against more money being raised. I am against it being used to pay $11,000,000+ for one coach while other schools are cutting programs, decreasing opportunities for student-athletes. I think there can be a way to share the windfall so that college sports isn't functionally reduced to a few dozen "mega-brands".

(07-19-2018 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  And fewer opportunities than when? In 2000, when there was far less overall money in these various contracts, there were about 360,000 NCAA student-athletes. Today there are about 490,000.

That is an interesting statistic that I would like to analyze in more detail. For instance, I've seen a pattern of NAIA schools affiliating with the NCAA. That could add many 1000's. I see nearly 200,000 NCAA athletes are at the D3 (non-scholarship level). I wonder to what degree Title IX compliance is leading schools to add women's sports to get their numbers up (ex. beach volleyball & rowing helps w/ Title IX).

The dominant phenomenon I have been seeing for the past 10 years is cutting of many sports at the D1 (G5) and D2 levels.

A 2017 USA Today article says: "Overall, there has been a net loss of 338 men’s programs in Division I since 1988. This net reduction in opportunities in Division I men’s intercollegiate athletics has come during an era of spectacular growth of sport revenues at NCAA institutions."

The author tries to answer the question: Why? "This is a complex question with no easy answers, but the explanation is grounded in this principle: Institutional priorities constrained by an ever-widening revenue gap between many of the top schools and all others. "http://college.usatoday.com/2017/04/24/viewpoint-its-a-really-bad-idea-to-cut-sports-programs-lots-of-schools-are-doing-it-anyway/

Greater wealth is being consolidated in the hands of fewer to the detriment of college sports overall.
I think with all the intelligent people populating universities, something better could be devised.

Another article about D1 sports dropped in the last 10 years

A total of 186 men's sports and 122 women's sports were dropped during this time frame. There was a net loss of 59 men's teams and a net gain of 101 women's teams. The women's number is skewed by the net gain of 48 beach volleyball teams as an emerging sport.

(07-20-2018 11:01 AM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  So you think it is "greedy" to take as much money as a TV network is willing to give you? If your boss offers to pay you $100,000 a year, should you say "no, that would be greedy of me to take that, so you can pay me $90,000 instead"?

I'm not against more money being raised. I am against it being used to pay $11,000,000+ for one coach while other schools are cutting programs, decreasing opportunities for student-athletes. I think there can be a way to share the windfall so that college sports isn't functionally reduced to a few dozen "mega-brands".

(07-19-2018 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  And fewer opportunities than when? In 2000, when there was far less overall money in these various contracts, there were about 360,000 NCAA student-athletes. Today there are about 490,000.

That is an interesting statistic that I would like to analyze in more detail. For instance, I've seen a pattern of NAIA schools affiliating with the NCAA. That could add many 1000's. I see nearly 200,000 NCAA athletes are at the D3 (non-scholarship level). I wonder to what degree Title IX compliance is leading schools to add women's sports to get their numbers up (ex. beach volleyball & rowing helps w/ Title IX).

The dominant phenomenon I have been seeing for the past 10 years is cutting of many sports at the D1 (G5) and D2 levels.

A 2017 USA Today article says: "Overall, there has been a net loss of 338 men’s programs in Division I since 1988. This net reduction in opportunities in Division I men’s intercollegiate athletics has come during an era of spectacular growth of sport revenues at NCAA institutions."

The author tries to answer the question: Why? "This is a complex question with no easy answers, but the explanation is grounded in this principle: Institutional priorities constrained by an ever-widening revenue gap between many of the top schools and all others. "http://college.usatoday.com/2017/04/24/viewpoint-its-a-really-bad-idea-to-cut-sports-programs-lots-of-schools-are-doing-it-anyway/

Greater wealth is being consolidated in the hands of fewer to the detriment of college sports overall.
I think with all the intelligent people populating universities, something better could be devised.

I would bet the vast majority of those programs dropped were men’s programs which were dropped to balance Title-9 requirements.

The Coyotes should move to Quebec City. Je me souviens les Nordiques.

(07-20-2018 11:01 AM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  So you think it is "greedy" to take as much money as a TV network is willing to give you? If your boss offers to pay you $100,000 a year, should you say "no, that would be greedy of me to take that, so you can pay me $90,000 instead"?

Quote:I'm not against more money being raised. I am against it being used to pay $11,000,000+ for one coach while other schools are cutting programs, decreasing opportunities for student-athletes. I think there can be a way to share the windfall so that college sports isn't functionally reduced to a few dozen "mega-brands".

I don't see the connection. Alabama is able to pay Nick Saban $10m a year because they generate enough money from Disney and their own fan base to afford to, and that has nothing to do with how much money that say North Texas State makes and how many athletic programs it can field. NTS is free to raise as much revenue from its fans, supporters, and media partners as it can, and field as many teams as it can, and Alabama can't do a damn thing about it.

Bottom line: If Disney decided to pay the SEC only $10 million a year for their TV rights instead of say $40 million a year, it's not like that would free up $30 million for Disney to pay the Sun Belt, C-USA, and the MAC, thus giving those schools more money to pay for more sports and more athletes. Disney would just keep that $30 million, because the Sun Belt et al. wouldn't be any more valuable to them than they are now. So the SEC making all that $40m doesn't take any food out of those other conference's mouths. They aren't getting that money either way.

Also, I can assure you that the presence of 'mega brands' is nothing new in college athletics. I've been watching college football since 1969, and back then, there were about 10-15 big name schools everyone knew about, and dozens of other schools nobody ever heard of, same as now. Back then, it was Michigan and Ohio State, Notre Dame and Southern Cal, Alabama and Texas, just like now.

In fact, I'd say for a school like North Texas or Troy, their visibility is considerably higher now than it would have been 40 years ago. There are many more opportunities for such schools to be on TV, etc. now compared to then.

(07-19-2018 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  And fewer opportunities than when? In 2000, when there was far less overall money in these various contracts, there were about 360,000 NCAA student-athletes. Today there are about 490,000.

That is an interesting statistic that I would like to analyze in more detail. For instance, I've seen a pattern of NAIA schools affiliating with the NCAA. That could add many 1000's. I see nearly 200,000 NCAA athletes are at the D3 (non-scholarship level). I wonder to what degree Title IX compliance is leading schools to add women's sports to get their numbers up (ex. beach volleyball & rowing helps w/ Title IX).

The dominant phenomenon I have been seeing for the past 10 years is cutting of many sports at the D1 (G5) and D2 levels.

A 2017 USA Today article says: "Overall, there has been a net loss of 338 men’s programs in Division I since 1988. This net reduction in opportunities in Division I men’s intercollegiate athletics has come during an era of spectacular growth of sport revenues at NCAA institutions."

Well, the numbers do show a dramatic gain in the number of student-athletes over the years, and that has risen with the rise in money. Which makes sense - since Title IX existed in 2000 and now, more money means schools can afford more sports to achieve the required parity. And whether they are on scholarship or not is beside the point - they are getting the opportunity to play their sport and learn something all the same. D3 athletes have the same hopes and dreams as D1 athletes do.

Also, as AttackCoog points out, you can't just focus on the decline in men's programs, you have to include the rise in women's programs, and it's pretty clear that a big cause of the decline in men's programs/rise of women's is Title IX compliance. We all know that for many years, schools gave way more opportunities to male athletes, so a correction has had to be made.

Beyond that, I'd say blaming Title IX completely is a bit unfair. Part of the blame has to be put on football. Football immediately creates a +65 or +80 scholarship gap in favor of male athletes, so to keep women at parity, you either have to add several women's sports, or else cut other men's sports. And sadly, many schools choose to sacrifice multiple men's programs in other sports to preserve football, even though their football is running more of a deficit than those other programs.

So part of the problem here is that many schools choose to cut 4 other men's sports to preserve 1 men's sport, football, whereas if they cut football, they would have 4 more men's programs. A lot of men's programs have been sacrificed on the altar of football but those doing that try to shift the blame to Title IX. Just look at the OP, New Mexico could have solved their deficit by cutting football, but they chose to cut four other sports instead, and also reduce the team size of three other sports, AND also to seek more money from regular students. Football is seemingly a sacred cow even in places where the students and university community is obviously indifferent to it.

Look at this, regarding Rutgers cutting men's tennis"

"According to stats culled by Sports on Earth writer Patrick Hruby, at Rutgers, one of the slashed teams — men's tennis — had a budget of $175,000, which is roughly what the football team spent on hotel rooms for its home games (my italics)."

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/09/...a-20140109

Bottom line though, since a male athlete isn't any more valuable in a moral-opportunity sense than a female athlete, it's the overall numbers that matter, and they say that their are more opportunities for athletes than ever.

(07-19-2018 09:26 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  https://www.abqjournal.com/1198235/unm-l...ports.html

President and AD are recommending to cut men's soccer, men's and women's skiiing and women's beach volleyball. Additionally, rosters will be trimmed for men’s cross country and track and women’s swimming and diving.

"And those measures will not entirely cure the athletic department’s budget challenges; filling the shortfall could still require more support from main campus, students and/or the state."

None of the recommended cut sports are members of the Mountain West Conference. New Mexico skiiing won the National Championship in 2004. Men's Soccer is part of Conference USA (along with Kentucky and South Carolina), which would now have eight members.

As mentioned before, New Mexico sponsors a whopping 22 sports! Even dropping these will leave New Mexico with more than many SEC schools, which shows that UNM just has too many sports for a non p5 school. They even had wrestling into the 2000's....
Maybe at some point the Lobos will pump more into their big 3: basketball, baseball and football.

(07-20-2018 03:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Beyond that, I'd say blaming Title IX completely is a bit unfair.

Here is what I think IS unfair about Title IX:
-women make up slightly more than 50% of the country's population
-women have quite a bit of disposable income
-women COULD support women's athletics with their income
-but most women prefer other entertainment options (The Bachelorette, Dancing With The Stars, soap operas, etc.) - nothing wrong with that

The reason women's sports are are underfunded is that women under support them: women don't fill the stands, tune in the TV, buy the merchandise, etc. And yet men are blamed, made to feel guilty, and told they must provide $$$ to remedy the injustice. Men's collegiate football is basically the cash cow that funds women's sports. And yet men are punished for that by losing their wrestling, track, swimming, baseball, etc., teams. There is something unfair about that.

Why couldn't women be told: "Recognizing the great gains made in women's sports, starting in 2032 (60 years after Title IX) women's sports will now operate on the financial support they receive." Heck, women outnumber men on campus now. More degrees are now granted to women then men. By then their earning power might be greater. (But I think they will still generally prefer other entertainment options.)

(07-19-2018 10:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 09:55 AM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  Gripe #1:
Men's sports (football & basketball) bring in most revenue.
But 25% of male athletes are eliminated to make things fair.
Women comprise 5.4% higher enrollment at the university.
But in the end, will have 14.4% more athletes (313 F; 234 M)
That's fair? That's right?

Gripe #2:
College athletics are bringing in record amounts of money.
But at the start of every fiscal year, 100's of student-athletes outside of P5 lose their teams.
And there will be fewer opportunities for future student-athletes.
(But on the bright side, P5 coaches can drive bigger cars and buy bigger homes-- several of them.)

Nothing I can do about it. I'm just griping. It burns me up each time I hear about it.

Sometimes gripes are justified, it feels good to vent. My take on your gripes:

1) I agree, the federal courts have taken a strict view of what Title IX demands. But, that view has clearly been endorsed by congress, as any time proposals to change Title IX are made, it's always to toughen the regulations not weaken them. E.g., early in 2003, the Bush administration floated some ideas about changing Title IX that IMO made some sense, such as using survey data to gauge interest in men's and women's athletic teams, but a firestorm erupted in congress and the proposals were withdrawn. That's evidence that congress wants things the way they are.

A school can free itself of Title IX, it just has to be willing to live without federal dollars.

2) This gripe I don't get. I like it when institutions that generate revenue keep it, and college athletics is largely that way. The P5 schools generate the money so they should keep it, otherwise you are talking socialism.

Heck, at P5 schools, the money brought in by football and men's hoops is already used to subsidize other men's and women's athletic teams at their schools, it would be silly IMO to ask them to also subsidize those sports at other schools.

Although I would like to see Title IX modified to reflect the actual participation rates by gender (it's definitely 3:1 or higher male to female) --just as we see with Elementary School Teaching Programs, Nursing and Electrical Engineering, a very strong gender bias exists for a variety of long entrenched sociological reasons-- it misses the target. Yes, Title IX has not made much of a dent if any in youth sports after it's initial introduction (there was a female surge in youth sports, but the rates are a bit lower than a decade ago, and pretty much flat now). In this sense Title IX does not allow opportunities to participate at the collegiate level commiserate with the level of interest by gender. It introduces discrimination inadvertently.

But the real issue here is the decline in male enrollment and the rise in female. We are quickly headed to 60% female college student enrollment. 3 girls for every 2 boys. As Mona Charen put it, "who are these young women going to marry?" Back on point, we are failing about 1/3rd of the boys who should be college bound. The system is breaking down, perhaps as early as middle school. Nobody is talking about.

Except us, and mostly because we are moaning about the loss of men's college sports, not because our sons will have a 33% greater failure rate than they should.

I file such gripes under the same category as electoral college complaints. The answer is to fix the fundamental problem underlying it. Democrats go set up a platform that wins votes in more rural states, by addressing those people's needs, Republicans focus on urban people's needs. And for college athletics focus on improving the prospects of males in middle school and high school so that the same percentage of them will go to college as young females. "Fixing the system" means avoiding the true issues, and wanting to avoid difficult choices and real hard work.

(07-20-2018 02:02 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  The Coyotes should move to Quebec City. Je me souviens les Nordiques.

I would like to see a team return to Quebec but Bettman has actively supported struggling southern teams to keep them in the south to try and grow the sport. That's why Quebec was passed up in favor Vegas for an expansion team. Only way the Coyotes will move is if the NHL can't find a local buyer (like what happened in Atlanta) and have no other option.

(07-20-2018 08:47 PM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  Men's collegiate football is basically the cash cow that funds women's sports.

No, it's not. Football is a cash cow at Ohio State, Alabama, Texas, USC, and a few other places. More than half of the P5 programs can only say football is "profitable" by counting nearly all of the school's share of conference TV revenue as football revenue.

Every place else in FBS and FCS, football is not even close to paying all the bills. Most schools in FCS, and a few in FBS, generate less than $2 million/year in ticket sales and donations for the entire athletic department, yet spend $5-10 million/year on football alone. Many of the more successful G5 programs self-generate more revenue but are still in a position where the entire department self-generates about $10 million/year but they spend $15 million/year on football alone.

So, again, if your sole criteria for whether a university sponsors a sport is going to be whether that sport makes money, at all but a handful of schools, football would be just as endangered as every other sport.

(07-20-2018 09:26 PM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 02:02 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  The Coyotes should move to Quebec City. Je me souviens les Nordiques.

I would like to see a team return to Quebec but Bettman has actively supported struggling southern teams to keep them in the south to try and grow the sport. That's why Quebec was passed up in favor Vegas for an expansion team. Only way the Coyotes will move is if the NHL can't find a local buyer (like what happened in Atlanta) and have no other option.

Ottawa’s owner supposedly is in financial strife. Ottawa could move, but Southern Ontario or a second Toronto team would be a cash register, just like the Leafs. A number of NHL owners don’t think Quebec City has the corporate support needed to be a financially viable franchise.

Several PAC12 schools are upgrading their hockey club programs as well as UNLV, Bakersfield, EWU and Boise St. Seems like a serious effort to actually get western varsity hockey going in a few years as so many are upgrading in lock step. UNM has a nearby facility to use without expending money. UNM would be wise to follow, and this might be the cuts needed to begin the process and hockey not taking the blame.

(07-20-2018 08:47 PM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 03:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Beyond that, I'd say blaming Title IX completely is a bit unfair.

Here is what I think IS unfair about Title IX:
-women make up slightly more than 50% of the country's population
-women have quite a bit of disposable income
-women COULD support women's athletics with their income
-but most women prefer other entertainment options (The Bachelorette, Dancing With The Stars, soap operas, etc.) - nothing wrong with that

The reason women's sports are are underfunded is that women under support them: women don't fill the stands, tune in the TV, buy the merchandise, etc. And yet men are blamed, made to feel guilty, and told they must provide $$$ to remedy the injustice. Men's collegiate football is basically the cash cow that funds women's sports. And yet men are punished for that by losing their wrestling, track, swimming, baseball, etc., teams. There is something unfair about that.

I agree that Title IX is built on some dubious assumptions about why in many places women's college sports are not well supported even by women. But I don't think it's true that football is the cash cow that funds women's sports. At most places, football loses money so it isn't supporting even itself, much less women's sports.

Title IX is what it is, it isn't getting weaker or going away.

so woman' cash cow is student fee's & tax payers

(07-20-2018 05:41 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 09:26 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  https://www.abqjournal.com/1198235/unm-l...ports.html

President and AD are recommending to cut men's soccer, men's and women's skiiing and women's beach volleyball. Additionally, rosters will be trimmed for men’s cross country and track and women’s swimming and diving.

"And those measures will not entirely cure the athletic department’s budget challenges; filling the shortfall could still require more support from main campus, students and/or the state."

None of the recommended cut sports are members of the Mountain West Conference. New Mexico skiiing won the National Championship in 2004. Men's Soccer is part of Conference USA (along with Kentucky and South Carolina), which would now have eight members.

As mentioned before, New Mexico sponsors a whopping 22 sports! Even dropping these will leave New Mexico with more than many SEC schools, which shows that UNM just has too many sports for a non p5 school. They even had wrestling into the 2000's....
Maybe at some point the Lobos will pump more into their big 3: basketball, baseball and football.

Didn’t Temple do the same thing recently? Like New Mexico, they ran an athletic department as if they were in the Big Ten minus the budget.

The only G5’s that might be able to afford that many sports are schools like Rice, Tulane, SMU and the academies. Liberty might be able as well.

(07-21-2018 11:47 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 05:41 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 09:26 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  https://www.abqjournal.com/1198235/unm-l...ports.html

President and AD are recommending to cut men's soccer, men's and women's skiiing and women's beach volleyball. Additionally, rosters will be trimmed for men’s cross country and track and women’s swimming and diving.

"And those measures will not entirely cure the athletic department’s budget challenges; filling the shortfall could still require more support from main campus, students and/or the state."

None of the recommended cut sports are members of the Mountain West Conference. New Mexico skiiing won the National Championship in 2004. Men's Soccer is part of Conference USA (along with Kentucky and South Carolina), which would now have eight members.

As mentioned before, New Mexico sponsors a whopping 22 sports! Even dropping these will leave New Mexico with more than many SEC schools, which shows that UNM just has too many sports for a non p5 school. They even had wrestling into the 2000's....
Maybe at some point the Lobos will pump more into their big 3: basketball, baseball and football.

Didn’t Temple do the same thing recently? Like New Mexico, they ran an athletic department as if they were in the Big Ten minus the budget.

The only G5’s that might be able to afford that many sports are schools like Rice, Tulane, SMU and the academies. Liberty might be able as well.

I agree with you except with SMU. Maybe they could, but they won’t. They don’t even have a baseball team. Neither does Tulsa and Temple now.

(07-21-2018 01:17 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-21-2018 11:47 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 05:41 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 09:26 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  https://www.abqjournal.com/1198235/unm-l...ports.html

President and AD are recommending to cut men's soccer, men's and women's skiiing and women's beach volleyball. Additionally, rosters will be trimmed for men’s cross country and track and women’s swimming and diving.

"And those measures will not entirely cure the athletic department’s budget challenges; filling the shortfall could still require more support from main campus, students and/or the state."

None of the recommended cut sports are members of the Mountain West Conference. New Mexico skiiing won the National Championship in 2004. Men's Soccer is part of Conference USA (along with Kentucky and South Carolina), which would now have eight members.

As mentioned before, New Mexico sponsors a whopping 22 sports! Even dropping these will leave New Mexico with more than many SEC schools, which shows that UNM just has too many sports for a non p5 school. They even had wrestling into the 2000's....
Maybe at some point the Lobos will pump more into their big 3: basketball, baseball and football.

Didn’t Temple do the same thing recently? Like New Mexico, they ran an athletic department as if they were in the Big Ten minus the budget.

The only G5’s that might be able to afford that many sports are schools like Rice, Tulane, SMU and the academies. Liberty might be able as well.

I agree with you except with SMU. Maybe they could, but they won’t. They don’t even have a baseball team. Neither does Tulsa and Temple now.

SMU has the money. They just lack the fanbase. The June Jones and Larry Brown hires proved that they can pay big money if they want to but as a Dallasite, I see the disconnect between the school and the community. TCU does an excellent job in Fort Worth, the entire town (which is mostly blue collar) embraced the Horned Frogs while most folks here in Dallas and surrounding communities see SMU as an out of touch, spoiled brat, daddy will buy me a Mercedes and get me a credit card type of institution which you can say the same thing about any private school but I don’t see Rice dealing with the same issue in Houston. Twenty years ago, SMU and TCU were seen as equals in athletics. The gap is so wide now, I don’t think SMU will ever be able to catch up to TCU.

As for New Mexico, I should be happy as a UTEP fan to see our rivals suffer. But in reality, I wish the Lobos well. I don’t think they know their full potential being the flagship school in a mid size metro area and their decent academics which could be attractive for a P5 opening in the long term. Same for Colorado State. They can learn a thing or two from Utah which was behind both in the 80’s and early 90’s.