Rob,
I am not sure you understand what I meant by growing the pie. The "pie" is the total budget for sports. I don't know what the exact numbers were at the time, but let's say that the budget was a mythical 1,000,000 then. Let's say that the spending on men's sports was $750,000 and women's sport's was 250,000. Let's say that the spending had to be 50% of the budget each. That means that if the "pie" did not grow, there would need to be $250,000 diverted from the men's programs to the women's. Yes, it was true that we could have cut the men's coaches' salaries (assuming that their contracts would have allowed that.) But it is important to remember that back then the head coach for football was paid very little. I don't remember but I believe Ray Graves salary was probably only about $150,000. While tuition back then was only $90 a quarter, I think a scholarship was still worth about $3,000. Also, there were not the same scholarship limits in football and other sports like there are today. I suspect that the football team had over 100 men on scholarship for example. Realistically, about the only way we could have handled Title 9 without cutting out some of the men's sports would have been to substantially raise new revenues (growing the pie.) Another way would be to look at only the scholarships. At the time, I would estimate that there were about 200 men's full scholarships and about 50 women's. To get to parity, there was a need to add 150 women's scholarships. I am not sure we could have started enough women's programs to have provided 150 scholarships. Women's basketball was a beneficiary of Title 9 and was began in 1974, two years after Title 9. That may have accounted for 15 new scholarships. Women's softball did not happen until 10 years later. Volleyball was not fully operational until 1984. Another possibility (not realistic) would have been to radically cut the number of men's sports scholarships while continuing to fund the coaches. Finally, it is important to remember that the general economy was not very strong back then. We were mired in stagflation. We were struggling to end a unpopular war in Viet Nam. Civil rights struggles fed social unrest. I wish we could have some of the actual $ numbers for the spending when Title IX first hit. I believe you would have seen that the Ray Graves (I believe he was also the AD) had little choice but to eliminate some of the men's sports. Jerry From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rob Alexander Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 11:04 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [gatortalk] GatorTalk Poll: First game of the year This comes back to my original question, whether sports are there to make money or whether you make money in order to support the sports. I reject your characterizations 1) that attendance or the ability to pay for themselves is relevant, and 2) that we had to grow the pie to retain wrestling and men's volleyball (the other sport that was eliminated at the same time). Sports are part of a broad education, and numerous studies have shown that non-professional college sports (i.e. those in which students have no expectation of turning professional after school) provide a wide range of benefits, including that student athletes on average earn higher GPAs and have lower rates of stress-related problems than the general student population. I teach at a small D-III school and we certainly do not expect sports to pay for themselves because we see these benefits every day. For us, sports are for the students, not the spectators. IMO, asking about attendance or whether a sport pays for itself misses the real point of having sports entirely. College football, which I love, is a very different animal. We all know it's closer to a minor league than it is to what other college sports are about. It's a business. I believe it is a mistake to lump it and BB together with non-professional sports and treat them the same. On the pie comment, I completely agree that if we can't grow the pie (something that I don't believe to be true, but will accept for the sake of the discussion), then we must redistribute it. The decision made was certainly one possible way of redistributing it, but in a pie already this big, there were plenty of other options. To me, this is like a parent at the grocery store who tosses two cartons of cigarettes and a case of beer on the counter while telling his friend he can't afford health insurance for his kids. Our AA doesn't blink over making multi-million dollar increases in coaches' salaries or buyouts of fired coach's salaries. Just the difference in Meyer's salary before and after his first MNC would have more than paid for the four non-revenue sports in question. So would the difference between Weis' compensation package and Adazio's. I'm not saying we shouldn't pay for good football coaches. I'm saying that the amount of money needed to have added two women's sports instead of eliminating two mens' sports was well within the AA's discretion. One thing we seem to overlook when talking about this is not just the benefit of continuing the two men's sports in question, but the foregone benefits of having two more women's sports. At my college, about forty percent of our women are on a varsity sports team. At a large university like UF, those opportunities are much harder to come by and we should be looking for ways to make them possible. It should be about the students. As with all financial decisions, this one was a choice. We didn't 'have to' eliminate those sports and we don't 'have to' have seven home games a year. We choose those things, and people of good faith may disagree about whether they were (are) good choices. I disagree with both, even while respecting overall the job our AA does with sports at UF. Rob Sent from my iPhone On Jul 10, 2011, at 7:11 AM, Jerry Belloit <[email protected]> wrote: NO! I think Title IX was a good thing. The obvious intent of the law was to achieve sports funding parity for the genders. If the money pie does not grow, then the money must be redistributed. The alternative was to grow the pie, which at the time was not a likely option. It is unfortunate that there is not the same consumer enthusiasm for all sports so that all sports would be self funding. (I should add that I do believe that the university DID kick in quite a bit of new money to fund women's sports. There was not enough savings from the wrestling program to fund women's sports by eliminating that one program. I also believe that wrestling was targeted because it was not that popular of a sport in the south.) Even though my roommate was a wrestler, I never got to go to see a match. Perhaps some of you can comment on the size of the crowd there. I don't think they charged admission back then so I doubt that wrestling was a revenue sport. (I know at least students were not charged admission for anything but football back then. I remember walking into Alligator Alley by just flashing my ID.) It is ironic that where I teach now, wrestling is our only D1 sport and it is probably revenue neutral or may even turn a small profit to help subsidize the other sports. For many years the wrestlers would outdraw the basketball team and sometimes even the football team in attendance. Jerry From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cecilia Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 4:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [gatortalk] GatorTalk Poll: First game of the year So... do you think requiring parity between men's and women's sports is unfair, Jerry? Cee ----- Original Message ----- From: Jerry Belloit <mailto:[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 5:13 PM Subject: RE: [gatortalk] GatorTalk Poll: First game of the year Helen, I rarely disagree with you on things, but I believe Title IX was the direct cause the elimination of men's wrestling. It is true that the Title IX did not REQUIRE the elimination of any men's sports, but it did required that the spending on men's and women's sports be equalized. At the time, I believe that the football team was the only team that made money. The "profit" from the football team then had to support the rest of the men's and women's sports. Since there were not enough surplus dollars to fund women's sports at the required level, spending on men's sports had to be curtailed. Thus the elimination of men's wrestling. Florida's endowments were not sufficiently large to be able to fund additional women's sports so the money had to come from the profit from the football team. If Florida would have had endowments like Stanford, we would have not needed to cut any sports and could have archery, rowing, etc. and would be the perennial winner of the All Sport's trophy formerly known as the Sear's Cup. Jerry From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Helen Huntley Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 4:05 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [gatortalk] GatorTalk Poll: First game of the year I agree with Rob. It's not about how much UAA "needs," it's about how much it can get. Title IX doesn't require the elimination of any men's teams. It requires parity. Instead of choosing to spend some additional money on women's teams to make spending fairer, some universities choose to transfer money from men's sports to women's sports. On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Ed Williamson <[email protected]> wrote: It wasn't money that killed the wrestling team, it was Title IX On 7/9/2011 9:33 AM, Rob Alexander wrote: That's a red herring. We have seven home games now. Before the NCAA added an extra game to the schedule, Foley always said we must have six home games a year to make a profit. Now we have added another game and he uses the same argument about needing seven home games a year. If we made a large profit with six home games, and we did, then we would make a larger profit with 6.5 home games a year. Of course, we make even more with seven, but the point is that we were already past the number of home games we 'needed' before. However many or few games we have, and no matter how financially sound we are, Foley is always going to put making another dollar above the fans' enjoyment of the sport itself. (See discussion of early home games at noon.) If the NCAA added two more games a year, Foley would rush out and schedule two more patsies, and he'd say we 'must' have nine home games a year. I know money is important to all our athletic programs (though it didn't save the wrestling team), but it begs the question... are the sports there to earn money, or is the money earned to support the sports? Rob Sent from my iPhone On Jul 9, 2011, at 7:13 AM, Jerry Belloit<[email protected]> wrote: I would too. The problem Foley has is that we have to find good teams that will not want a home-and-home. Good teams will demand that. Major teams need the six home games for revenue. Only teams that do not have a great revenue source from home games can afford to play away games without a return home game. That being said, I wonder why Miami doesn't play us here every year. They don't do that well with their home games, do they? Jerry -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rob Alexander Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 3:44 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [gatortalk] GatorTalk Poll: First game of the year I'd be much more interested in playing two-game home and home series with different well-respected teams that we rarely would play otherwise. Although I understand the reasons for the two warm-up games every year, as a fan of the sport, I'd rather see good games. Rob Sent from my iPhone On Jul 8, 2011, at 2:11 PM, John Vega<[email protected]> wrote: On Jul 8, 2011, at 2:02 PM, mail.bobparks.com wrote: One word: recruiting. they'll have trouble paying their recruiting coordinators if they can't sell any tickets soon UM football will be the functional equivalent of similarly sized private schools How is St. John's football team doing these days? -Zeb -- GATORS: ONE VOICE ON SATURDAY - NO VOICE ON SUNDAY! 1996 National Football Champions | 2006 National Basketball Champions 2006 National Football Champions | 2007 National Basketball Champions 2008 National Football Champions | Three Heisman Trophy winners: Steve Spurrier (1966), Danny Wuerffel (1996), Tim Tebow (2007) - Visit our website at www.gatornet.us -- GATORS: ONE VOICE ON SATURDAY - NO VOICE ON SUNDAY! 1996 National Football Champions | 2006 National Basketball Champions 2006 National Football Champions | 2007 National Basketball Champions 2008 National Football Champions | Three Heisman Trophy winners: Steve Spurrier (1966), Danny Wuerffel (1996), Tim Tebow (2007) - Visit our website at www.gatornet.us -- GATORS: ONE VOICE ON SATURDAY - NO VOICE ON SUNDAY! 1996 National Football Champions | 2006 National Basketball Champions 2006 National Football Champions | 2007 National Basketball Champions 2008 National Football Champions | Three Heisman Trophy winners: Steve Spurrier (1966), Danny Wuerffel (1996), Tim Tebow (2007) - Visit our website at www.gatornet.us -- GATORS: ONE VOICE ON SATURDAY - NO VOICE ON SUNDAY! 1996 National Football Champions | 2006 National Basketball Champions 2006 National Football Champions | 2007 National Basketball Champions 2008 National Football Champions | Three Heisman Trophy winners: Steve Spurrier (1966), Danny Wuerffel (1996), Tim Tebow (2007) - Visit our website at www.gatornet.us -- Helen Huntley (727) 823-3801 www.helenhuntley.com -- GATORS: ONE VOICE ON SATURDAY - NO VOICE ON SUNDAY! 1996 National Football Champions | 2006 National Basketball Champions 2006 National Football Champions | 2007 National Basketball Champions 2008 National Football Champions | Three Heisman Trophy winners: Steve Spurrier (1966), Danny Wuerffel (1996), Tim Tebow (2007) - Visit our website at www.gatornet.us -- GATORS: ONE VOICE ON SATURDAY - NO VOICE ON SUNDAY! 1996 National Football Champions | 2006 National Basketball Champions 2006 National Football Champions | 2007 National Basketball Champions 2008 National Football Champions | Three Heisman Trophy winners: Steve Spurrier (1966), Danny Wuerffel (1996), Tim Tebow (2007) - Visit our website at www.gatornet.us -- GATORS: ONE VOICE ON SATURDAY - NO VOICE ON SUNDAY! 1996 National Football Champions | 2006 National Basketball Champions 2006 National Football Champions | 2007 National Basketball Champions 2008 National Football Champions | Three Heisman Trophy winners: Steve Spurrier (1966), Danny Wuerffel (1996), Tim Tebow (2007) - Visit our website at www.gatornet.us -- GATORS: ONE VOICE ON SATURDAY - NO VOICE ON SUNDAY! 1996 National Football Champions | 2006 National Basketball Champions 2006 National Football Champions | 2007 National Basketball Champions 2008 National Football Champions | Three Heisman Trophy winners: Steve Spurrier (1966), Danny Wuerffel (1996), Tim Tebow (2007) - Visit our website at www.gatornet.us -- GATORS: ONE VOICE ON SATURDAY - NO VOICE ON SUNDAY! 1996 National Football Champions | 2006 National Basketball Champions 2006 National Football Champions | 2007 National Basketball Champions 2008 National Football Champions | Three Heisman Trophy winners: Steve Spurrier (1966), Danny Wuerffel (1996), Tim Tebow (2007) - Visit our website at www.gatornet.us -- GATORS: ONE VOICE ON SATURDAY - NO VOICE ON SUNDAY! 1996 National Football Champions | 2006 National Basketball Champions 2006 National Football Champions | 2007 National Basketball Champions 2008 National Football Champions | Three Heisman Trophy winners: Steve Spurrier (1966), Danny Wuerffel (1996), Tim Tebow (2007) - Visit our website at www.gatornet.us
