Broken down by program. It begs the question: in this day and age, when college sports is now fully a business, what can be the advantage of running 26 programs that financially perform anywhere from bad to abysmally?
OT: PSU net athletic revenue
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
You cut those 26 programs that are financial liabilities and you're suddenly a business that turns a nearly $60 million profit each year.
My question would be why do the women's sports seemingly cost more than men's sports? Does women's fencing really cost $50K more than for the men?
Less interest, less ticket sales, less revenue. That said, softball is a cash cow compared to baseball.
Thats where I was going to go. Same expenses, less ticket sales gives you those kinds of numbers.
Seriously, why keep these programs that lose money? I suppose since you'd be keeping football and MBB, you'd have to keep two women's programs, but cut the rest and you still turn well over $50 million in profit annually.
Is there any possible justification for keeping them?
I know folks point to our WBB program, since that's what we're best at, but the school really gets nothing meaningful out of it.
I think Title IX required something akin to equal scholarships.So to offset football you see more women’s sports than men’s and in the past women’s teams had more schollies than same men’s sport to equal out numbersWomen’s fencing likely had more participants thanks men’s fencing.Same with basketball and track.All to satisfy Title IX.
I could be wrong, but I don't think Title IX requires an equal number of scholarships for men and women but has to do with proportional funding.
Not sure about the exact wording of Title9 but I do know the reason women’s hoops had more scholarships than men’s was Title 9 and an effort to offset the huge number of football scholarships with no female equivalent.That was my point regarding fencing.Likely more women fencers than men hence disparity in cost.Beyond that Im uninformed on Title IX
My wife was a HS guidance counselor and she said Title IX made it ridiculously easy for girl athletes to get scholarships. Girls who were simply "good" at their sport would get offered scholarships because the schools needed to fund girls sports in order to offset football. Boys had to be one of the best at the school and in the county to get offered a scholarship.
I cant think of a tangible reason other than to represent the school. Highschool sports other than FB and MBB certainly dont make money. But they are govt funded.
My Alma mater ,The Citadel unfortunately is an example of this.The Women’s Soccer,Volleyball,Cross Country and Track teams are competive, though not the top of the Socon,still represent well,but our ladies golf team is a phenomenon unto itself.In almost every event they take place in , the margin between the winner and the next to last team is less than the margin between the next to last team and our Ladies.It’s incredible.It seems even if you took a rank beginner and had them practice every day for 4 years you could have a decent player.Our #1 player barely breaks 100.All to even out scholarships.I believe a young lady could have never picked up a golf club and get a free ride on that team.It’s an embarrassment.
[I posted this before I saw Post # 12] After the enactment of Title IX, WBB was allowed 15 scholarships, and men only 13. That might have been changed, but if so, it was still that way for years - a couple of decades.
Latest
-
01
GamecockCentral
South Carolina women's basketball: Dawn Staley survives harrowing flight
-
02
GamecockCentral
Countdown to kickoff prediction series: Donovan Darden will emerge behind South Carolina's starters at linebacker
-
03
GamecockCentral
South Carolina puts five on preseason Senior Bowl list
-
04
TheBigSpur
South Carolina Football storylines in Saturday's second scrimmage | Carolina Countdown No. 16
-
05
GamecockCentral
How David Bucey could be poised to claim a starting role in Gamecocks' secondary