josephski wrote:Blue Man wrote:josephski wrote:
You would add the scholarships to woman's sports we already have. I doubt all our woman's sports are fully funded so I really don't think it would be an issue.
Title IX doesn't mean "women get more opportunities in sports than men." It means "women and men will have the same opportunity to compete at sports at the same level."
The number of D1 athletic scholarships for men and women need to be equal to the proportion of men and women at the school. If a school is 50/50 (URI is 54% Female, 46% male) it means you have to provide 1:1 scholarships.
If you take away 60 men's scholarships, that means you need to take away 65 women's scholarships. If you wanted to just continue adding scholarships to the women's sports we already have (sure lets just throw 5 backup catchers onto the softball team, great use of resources), then you would need to add even more male scholarships to satisfy that ratio.
Good God, this stuff is a simple google search away. Can't we at least get to discussion about facts instead of just posting opinions posing as facts?
Title IX isn't something you interpret. It's a law. So yes, there are implications to anything you do that involves a massive amount of D1 athletic scholarships.
As for why football is on this feed? Beats me but some people seem to think that doing away with the football program would benefit basketball and somehow not be a disaster for the athletics department. Those people are wrong and have no idea what they're talking about.
Yea you're right, I was thinking backwards. Either way I don't think it's as big of a problem as you're making it out to be. If we did get rid of football we'd probably add hockey so then after that we could add a couple other men's sports and drop a couple woman's sports to the club level.
I'm sure if you asked Thorr he'd tell you it was a bigger problem than I'm making it out to be.
60 scholarships + the investments of a football team. That needs to be made up on the male athlete side or taken away from the female athlete side.
It would take more than a hockey team and reduction of D1 teams to club.
The athletic department would be assigning itself a death sentence to decrease it's footprint by 25% athletes. I think you guys think that if that money went away that it just automatically goes to basketball. Again, wrong.
The university would instead view that as a reason to cut athletic funding probably by 25% under the reasoning that it's now an even smaller ratio of students to athletes. All the other people around the state and campus would say, "why are we giving all this money to only a few hundred students, that should be used to benefit the other 15000 students at the university." This is a battle Thorr has to fight every budget season, he isn't going to make that harder on himself and the rest of the athletic department.
I know that to people on this board basketball is the only thing that URI does. As much as it means to all of us, you have to understand that there are other ramifications (lol i said ram) and realities at play outside of the men's basketball team.
URI has a nearly 800 million dollar budget. 10% of that is funded by the state. Athletics is around 30 mil of that; insignificant compared to the total operating cost, but massive compared to other departments. Every department is so hard up for cash that you think somehow the university would OK more money to go to athletics?
You have no grasp of what actually happens on campus. Despite how all of us understand the worthwhile investment that a coach like Dan Hurley represents, or the athletic department itself - most of the money to pay for Dan and pay for all the cool stuff has to come from outside sources, not the university budget. Most people don't understand that, as evidenced by the furthering of this conversation and the continuing reason that I have to repeat myself.
There are professors and department heads who want to RIOT every time they see a story about how much Dan makes. Of Dan's well deserved $955k compensation this year, a fraction of that comes from the school allotted funds directed towards athletics. Those professors and department heads don't understand that the money given to him would never find it's way to their department.
Just like you don't seem to understand that the money that goes to football, or women's soccer, or any of the litany of other things the athletic department deals with would never go to basketball if they didn't exist.
Please just stop with this thought that there is any program in the athletic department that is hoarding money from basketball. Neither of you can grasp the knowledge needed to understand how the university's budget works, how the athletic department's budget works, and possibly how any budget works.
I am literally telling you how it is. Just agree and understand that football is not a problem, or the problem, or any problem somehow related to funding the basketball team, and if you actually want to do something to help just donate money.
