Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

What does it take to make a club sport a varsity sport? I can't quite remember what was said in my sport law class.

Club to varsity sport -------- it's always a matter of money. Some say Title IX enters into the picture, but probably not. The mega schools and the smaller Div II and III schools sustain a full slate of sports for both men and women. It's only a handful of larger institutions like BG that find the need to drop sports.

Dr. Reality wrote:Club to varsity sport -------- it's always a matter of money. Some say Title IX enters into the picture, but probably not. The mega schools and the smaller Div II and III schools sustain a full slate of sports for both men and women. It's only a handful of larger institutions like BG that find the need to drop sports.

I think what helps a lot of the smaller schools in this regard is that they seem to be more private, and not get federal funding, which is the major reason behind Title IX. They also may not (and definitely not in D-III) have scholarships, which funding schollies for an entire football team weights the equality scale heavily in favor of the men's side. The mega schools just have enough money to even the balance. Bringing in a few million from each home football game and a basketball home schedule will go a ways toward covering a number of "lesser" sports on both side of the gender equation.

TG is right on with the DIII schools. Since they aren't allowed to give scholarships, they can put that money that they would have put into scholarships into uniforms, travel, and other expenses for other sports. A lot of the DIII's don't have out of conference travel, so there isn't much overnight stays, and they usually use vans to travel in. But I know that I wouldn't want to coach a DIII though. Trying to get a kid to pay a lot of money to go to school just to play a sport is hard. You aren't going to get the quality of athlete that you want. I know down here you are usually getting the lowest quality athlete. I coach at a Junior College, and I know that if I had the choice between of head coaching a DIII or JUCO, I would take the JUCO anyday. But the money they save from no scholarships is the reason they can fund a few more sports.

Dr. Reality wrote:Club to varsity sport -------- it's always a matter of money. Some say Title IX enters into the picture, but probably not.

Title IX is huge.

If a school is living up to Title IX, one of the things it ought to be doing is offering scholarships to men and women in roughly the same proportion of the student body.

To play I-A football puts you in an 85-scholarship hole immediately. That's 85 scholarships your university ought to be offering for womens sports (assuming a 50/50 student body, and Bowling Green's still leans a little female, I believe).

That's not too difficult for a program rolling in cash like Ohio State. They can -- and do -- offer a wide variety of women's sports, including some not offered at Bowling Green, such as ice hockey, field hockey, synchronized swimming, rowing, etc.

With all those sports, there isn't a strain to offer scholarships in a variety of men's sports and still live within the spirit of equity. Ohio State offers wrestling and men's volleyball, for instance.

The challenge isn't as tough in Divisions II or III because in the latter case scholarships aren't an issue at all and in the former case, they aren't nearly as significant. Division II program may offer a maximum of 36 football scholarships (and there is talk about lowering that number). That's much easier to balance with womens scholarships.

Your next comment gets at the real situation:

The mega schools and the smaller Div II and III schools sustain a full slate of sports for both men and women. It's only a handful of larger institutions like BG that find the need to drop sports.

There is a real squeeze on the non BCS Division I-A programs to keep up. Revenue is only a small fraction of the BCS programs, and yet there are still 85 football scholarships to be balanced with womens sports. The result is a limited number of other offerings for men.

A look at Division I men's hockey really tells the story. It's largely made up of BCS schools, Division I-AA (non scholarship football schools) and schools from lower divisions who opt to "play up" in hockey.

The number of schools who aren't in the BCS and that offer Division I hockey and Division I football is truly tiny: Army, Air Force, Bowling Green, Miami, Western Michigan and (arguably), Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, Niagara and Canisus.

(I don't know whether the latter five fully fund the 63 football scholarships they could offer. Even if they do, they face a bit less of a challenge).

If Bowling Green hadn't offered men's hockey for so long, I doubt we would try to start.

transfer2BGSU wrote:Oh God, please do not go around telling Tony he's right!

Seriously. We all KNOW I'm right. No need to continuously remind the others about it.

And if you're gonna have us look at pictures of college girls, could you at least make them moderately attractive? Aside from "Katie Dick", who I'm sure has some real talents with her grip.

The number of schools who aren't in the BCS and that offer Division I hockey and Division I football is truly tiny: Army, Air Force, Bowling Green, Miami, Western Michigan and (arguably), Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, Niagara and Canisus.

(I don't know whether the latter five fully fund the 63 football scholarships they could offer. Even if they do, they face a bit less of a challenge).

If Bowling Green hadn't offered men's hockey for so long, I doubt we would try to start.[/quote]

Just so you know Niagara doesn't even have a football team. My brother went there and played for the hockey team, they were the number 1 revenue sport on campus

No, Schad is right. It is football (and, specifically D-1A) football that creates the budget hole. That's why we had to drop a couple men's sports recently--because we either needed to add women's sports or reduce men's sports.

Titlle IX is a good thing. The opportunity to be an intercollegiate athlete, and to experience all the benefits, should belong to everyone equally. Having said that, it is a shame that it has resulted in less opportunity for male athletes, which I believe was an unintended consequences.

I doubt if any men's club sports will make the transition soon.

i think they should bring back mens tennis and get rid of mens soccer

moneymaker02 wrote:i think they should bring back mens tennis and get rid of mens soccer

I don't.

This is a different strokes argument that it tough to win, but I'll posit that collegiate tennis is an attempt to fit an intrinsically individual sport into a team frame. Not so with soccer, which also seems to be more popular in America right now.

Our soccer program is a mess, but it has a decent history.

The sport I'd love to bring back is lacrosse. We had a real opportunity to make a name for ourselves there. There are relatively few programs outside of the original 13 colonies, and it isn't a bad spectator sport. It was a growth opportunity much like hockey was in the early 1970s.

But that isn't going to happen.

Schadenfreude wrote:

moneymaker02 wrote:i think they should bring back mens tennis and get rid of mens soccer

I don't.



The sport I'd love to bring back is lacrosse. We had a real opportunity to make a name for ourselves there. There are relatively few programs outside of the original 13 colonies, and it isn't a bad spectator sport. It was a growth opportunity much like hockey was in the early 1970s.

But that isn't going to happen.

Schad,
I agree that LAX won't be coming back to BG...too bad as we were a nationally known program for awhile; But your comment of relatively few programs outside the 13 colonies is really offbase now..... LAX is exploding, first at the HS level, and now on to the college level. When I started coaching at Walsh Jesuit in '88 or so, there were EIGHT teams total in the state... This year, there will be EIGHTY-SIX. Problem has been that the growth has been so fast that schools who want to start up can't find coaches. Exception to that has been the Columbus area, as OSU,O.Wesleyan, Denison etc. are all in the geographic area and can supply grads willing to coach. NW Ohio has been left far behind in this area, as only a few Toledo area schools have a program.

As to the college level, admittedly there are probably more D-III programs than D-1 (and I'm not sure of that).But D-III schools are very competitive even against D-I's. Colorado,California and even Florida are rapidly building a base from HS up, that will eventually result in a ton of kids looking to play somewhere after HS. My son still coaches at Hudson HS, and I can tell you he's sent a heck of a lot more players onto the college fields than most football programs.

I meant Division I programs. Not many west of the Allegenies.