At 04:17 PM 6/4/97 -0600, Arthur Berman wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Danish, Christian wrote:
>
>> On a personal note I think that is disappointing that sports need to be
>> dropped in order for schools to be in accordance with Title IX. The law
>> should have had some provisions in it to allow schools to figure out
>> creative methods of balancing out the money.
>>
>It would not take too much creativity.  At many schools merely dropping
>football solves the problem.  A common misconception is that schools make
>money on football.  With a couple of exceptions this is not the case.
 
I would be interested in seeing some hard data to back up the statement, "
At many schools merely dropping football solves the problem.  A common
misconception is that schools make money on football."   Usually when this
statement is made itis accompanied by some antadote that proves little if
anything.
 
If you examine that list with all of its shortcommings, there is only one
real "football school" ..Colorado on the list.  There are two others Wake
Forrest and Vandy that are weak sisters in their respective leagues.  I keep
seeing the claim that football is a money loser but at most Big Ten, Big 12,
SEC, ACC, and PAC 10  schools that is not the case.  I will grant you, it
may be true for many of the smaller programs.  However, at many of the
smaller schools virtually every sport is losing money.
 
I find the dropping of any sport to be a poor way of meeting Title IX.  I
prefer the way The Ohio State University is doing it..by adding women's
sports, including women's hockey.  It and 32 other varsity sports are being
financed largely through the football program.
 
Bob Svec
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.