On 7/16/06, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe it was in the New York Times a couple days ago I read an article reporting that small colleges were starting football teams as a way of recruiting more students....
they were attracting _male_ students, because of the horrible, horrible!, fall-off in male enrollment at almost all colleges. but this argument doesn't make sense for two reasons: 1) there are tremendous costs to having football. there are big equipment, legal, and (of course) insurance costs. In addition, if a school dedicates all these resources to an all-male sport, title IX says they have to add more funds to the female side of the ledger (or punish the other all-male sports). It makes much more sense to put $$$ into cheaper all-male sports such as soccer (a.k.a. futbol). 2) this strategy only works if a small number of colleges do it, since they would be competing over a limited pool of football-interested males who are also eligible to go to college. If they all do it, then each one would be recruiting only a handful of students. But if it's only a small number, how do the colleges organize a significant league that would allow meaningful competition? why is it that males aren't going to college as much as they used to? is it the fascination with video games? -- Jim Devine / "You need a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
