Nothing in Title IX says anything abut football. Schools that offer football can stay in compliance, and most do.
Since college athletics has turned into professional sports, where revenues from profitable sports are used to attract athletes playing that sport through a free agent market (& therefore not used to fund the broader athletic programs), why should sports with no potential for generating revenue be supported at all any longer? i.e., other than as required for title IX.
Or new woman's sports are added to offset the football scholarships.
When we say professional sports, essentially the athletic departments are non-profits. There is no profit motive at these departments, they have a revenue motive but no earnings motive.
Don’t compare BB and FB athletes at the elite college level with track.
Big 12 doesn’t sponsor soccer. My guess is they stay in Big East for that sport
You extrapolate the entire college athletic landscape from some single rando meeting you supposedly had (probably never happened) and then have the gall to complain about the way others argue. Wow man, crazy stuff here.
If all your dreams come true will your version of UConn have a branch campus in South Orange NJ?
A) You literally mentioned that you knew someone who gave up a D1 scholarship to go D2 for track citing travel. What’s your point?
Know your audience…. For the record, you’re on a website largely dedicated to college athletes that ‘entertain in athletic events’. I’m quite certain that without those athletes, this board has 1% of the activity.
Come on. In a more rational world our universities wouldn‘t have sports except intramural and club teams. Like Europe. But that’s not the world we inhabit. Even the Ivies play D1 basketball and hockey And FCS football.
At what point did you decide UConn's ceiling is a Seton Hall existence?
Not sure field hockey is making the argument you think it is. UConn wins national titles in that too. Those girls aren’t choosing Fairfield over UConn. If we can continue to add Olympic sport athletes into our Collective profile and give them NIL they are choosing UConn no matter the potential travel. Especially if our academic rankings remain as high as they are.
if i were a non-football or bball athlete and didnt have Olympic dreams then i would 100% attend a D3 NESCAC school over most D1 schools, including UConn. hundreds of student athletes make this decision every year already and many more will if they dont think the added travel that D1 sports now requires is worth it.
BS, Kids love to see a schedule that has them traveling to the best competitions. They get pissed if they don't make a trip, and will compete like heck for the right to get on the bus to the airport. Kids that don't want that should go to a lesser school/program anyway.
that's fine for you, but there's a long line of kids who want top flight competition and educations and will snap that D1 scholarship right up.
not the point. you were arguing that extra travel will not sway any would-be D1 athlete and that's just wrong. many would-be D1 athletes are already choosing to play down a level or two based on other considerations. increased travel will 100% be another of those considerations.
You're not obligated to match Waylon's crazy with your own crazy.
