|
Post by bennyskid on Dec 23, 2017 12:05:58 GMT -8
The Pac has a higher threshold, but I don't know what that is. I think it's 16 or 17, as no Pac school has fewer than 17 sports.
The attitude that every sport should pay for itself is warped. This is college, and it should be about the collegians, not the fans. If you want sports that pay, go watch the pro leagues.
|
|
|
Post by zeroposter on Dec 23, 2017 12:43:28 GMT -8
I flat out guarantee that women's sports at Oregon State are untouchable. Even cost cutting moves for women's sports is not realistic if you know who has the real power in the AD office.
Lop one of the male sports and the savings would not greatly enhance the football budget.
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Dec 23, 2017 12:46:39 GMT -8
Schools must field teams in at least seven sports for men and seven for women or six for men and eight for women, with at least two team sports for each gender, to be eligible for Division I athletics. There are also Federal Title IX guidelines regarding overall male/female participation numbers that must be met, but I assume you are a big believer in equal opportunity for all so that shouldn't be an issue. OSU has seven men's sports: FB, BB, baseball, golf, crew, wrestling and soccer. It has 10 women's sports: VB, BB, crew, soccer, swimming, T&F, Indoor T&F, CC, gymnastics and softball. The track & cross country programs count as three sports, but are essentially one program. What do you advocate cutting? And please remember, the Olympic sports are where the majority of our in-state athletes have an opportunity to participate in intercollegiate athletics, which should be of importance to one who goes by Native Beav. As far as redirecting some academic side money from programs you think are not worthwhile to athletics, remember the department already receives a multi-million $$$ annual subsidy from the "academic" side (for lack of a better term) to balance the budget. And, truth be told, Pat Casey and Scott Rueck are each paid well above the industry norm for their respective sports. I suppose we could simply re-direct several hundred thousand dollars from each of their salaries to football support. LOL - this is part of the problem. Having more "men only" sports is not OK, having more women's sports in total number IS OK - because it always works to make up for perceived favoritism/sexism in the past, by creating favoritism/sexism in the present and/ or future
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Dec 23, 2017 13:03:10 GMT -8
The Pac has a higher threshold, but I don't know what that is. I think it's 16 or 17, as no Pac school has fewer than 17 sports. The attitude that every sport should pay for itself is warped. This is college, and it should be about the collegians, not the fans. If you want sports that pay, go watch the pro leagues. As I understand it, no sport completely pays for itself - not even football. What I am suggesting is allocate current resources from the general fund, tying general fund dollars to fan participation/ revenue generated. Base it on a merit system/ sliding scale. Do some sports end up on the cutting room floor? Possibly - then have the university find other funding sources from the general fund. Whether we agree or disagree with some of the changes to college sports, Title IX and the addition of new sports has had an impact on the overall athletic budget. I am in favor of allocating resources that are in line with other P5, Pac12 schools, as a percentage of the total budget, based on the info OSUprof has shared. What is warped is having the university fund and support the building of new buildings and curriculum for certain "studies", then claim that there isn't enough money for athletics, or finishing Reser.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Dec 23, 2017 13:29:24 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by gart79 on Dec 23, 2017 13:31:00 GMT -8
Thanks Prof for researching some facts regarding expenditures. I believe (but am no Title IX lawyer) that a university that receives Federal funds has to allocate scholarships between men and women based on the percentage of general student body. OSU recently flipped to a higher percentage of women than men, which means that we have to have more women on scholarship than men. Add to that so many men scholarships are dedicated to football, puts the screws to the budget. If I was going to prioritize the men's sports below is my prioritization. 1. Football 2. Baseball (we are much better in baseball than Basketball 3. Basketball (tough call but results speak volumes) 4. Wrestling (we have been traditionally good, I do not know what we spend on this but it may have to be cut) 5. Soccer (Gosh, I love soccer but based on budget constraints this could be chopped) 6. Golf (again it is cheap and matches a women's sport) 7. Crew (could get rid of this as well but it is cheap) My take is that the two sports for each gender would be Baseball/softball and Golf or crew then make a tough call on cutting either soccer or wrestling.
I am not in favor of what Title IX has done to the Athletic landscape, but is the umbrella all programs live under. Unfortunately for low revenue Athletic programs like OSU it becomes an anchor dragging down everything.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Dec 23, 2017 13:38:38 GMT -8
If I’m reading prof’s information correctly, I’d start with a hard look at who/what is making up the administrative costs and trim a lot of fat from there. Every hundred grand you save should go to to the assistant salary pool or football facility improvements. Running the risk of sending this to The Tap territory.... but the explosive growth of administrative costs is a problem at all levels of education. not just for athletic departments. Multiple studies have looked at this issue. One paper found that US colleges added a collective 517,000 NEW administrative positions over a 25 year period from 1987 to 2012. A paper from the Federal Department of Education revealed from 1993 to 2009, administrative positions grew by 60%. in the US. (a sampling of 200 universities) Administration has grown at 10 times the rate of faculty and professor growth, which has been in steady connection to campus population growth. The California State University system found that faculty and professor positions grew from 11,614 positions in 1975 to 12,019 in 2008... at the same time non-teaching administrative positions grew from 3,800 to 12,183 positions. In 2008, the California state system had more administrators that teachers... Huge, HUGE problem in academia right now. and it isn't limited to higher education. My wife is a middle school math teacher. There are as many employees in the district office shuffling paper around as there are teaching the leaders of tomorrow in her school.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Dec 23, 2017 13:42:33 GMT -8
The Pac has a higher threshold, but I don't know what that is. I think it's 16 or 17, as no Pac school has fewer than 17 sports. The attitude that every sport should pay for itself is warped. This is college, and it should be about the collegians, not the fans. If you want sports that pay, go watch the pro leagues. I agree 100%. Nobody here would demand high schools only run sports that can pay for themselves... That is insanity. Sports programs for universities are functions of the university. They SHOULD be paid for by the university. In my world, 100% of the budget for athletics would be allocated from the general fund of the university (and 100% of the revenue would go to the fund as well). This notion of making them some autonomous entity that is both part of the university, and not, is crazy.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Dec 23, 2017 13:47:48 GMT -8
Thanks Prof for researching some facts regarding expenditures. I believe (but am no Title IX lawyer) that a university that receives Federal funds has to allocate scholarships between men and women based on the percentage of general student body. OSU recently flipped to a higher percentage of women than men, which means that we have to have more women on scholarship than men. Add to that so many men scholarships are dedicated to football, puts the screws to the budget. If I was going to prioritize the men's sports below is my prioritization. 1. Football 2. Baseball (we are much better in baseball than Basketball 3. Basketball (tough call but results speak volumes) 4. Wrestling (we have been traditionally good, I do not know what we spend on this but it may have to be cut) 5. Soccer (Gosh, I love soccer but based on budget constraints this could be chopped) 6. Golf (again it is cheap and matches a women's sport) 7. Crew (could get rid of this as well but it is cheap) My take is that the two sports for each gender would be Baseball/softball and Golf or crew then make a tough call on cutting either soccer or wrestling. I am not in favor of what Title IX has done to the Athletic landscape, but is the umbrella all programs live under. Unfortunately for low revenue Athletic programs like OSU it becomes an anchor dragging down everything. Thing is, OSU is not a low revenue athletic program (at least until the last 2-3 years). It has been pretty much a mid-level sports revenue school both nationally and in the Pac 12. It's reinvested in the football program at a lower level than comparable schools, but revenues haven't really been that bad unless you compare them with top level sports revenue schools.
|
|
bill82
Freshman
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 971
|
Post by bill82 on Dec 23, 2017 13:56:25 GMT -8
If I’m reading prof’s information correctly, I’d start with a hard look at who/what is making up the administrative costs and trim a lot of fat from there. Every hundred grand you save should go to to the assistant salary pool or football facility improvements. A paper from the Federal Department of Education revealed from 1993 to 2009, administrative positions grew by 60%. in the US. (a sampling of 200 universities) Administration has grown at 10 times the rate of faculty and professor growth, which has been in steady connection to campus population growth. The California State University system found that faculty and professor positions grew from 11,614 positions in 1975 to 12,019 in 2008... at the same time non-teaching administrative positions grew from 3,800 to 12,183 positions. In 2008, the California state system had more administrators that teachers... Very good data. If the AD cuts his budget, he might see his own salary reduced and take a drop in title. The other empire-building administrators will make sure it is noted that he has less employees and does not deserve to remain in the top tier of admins.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Dec 23, 2017 14:02:39 GMT -8
Having more "men only" sports is not OK, having more women's sports in total number IS OK - because it always works to make up for perceived favoritism/sexism in the past, by creating favoritism/sexism in the present and/ or future.
==================================
Football has 105 athletes, more when school starts. There is no female equivalent sport, so you need more women's sports to meet the proportionality prong of Title IX.
OSU has a total undergraduate enrollment of 25,327; 54 percent male students and 46 percent female students. Our high proportion of engineering students makes us one of the few schools with more males than females, which helps in Title IX compliance.
Wrestling is almost completely endowed, through the Oregon Wrestling Endowment. Drop that sport and the endowment goes away.
Sorry you find fault with Title IX. Those on this board with daughters would disagree.
=============================
In my world, 100% of the budget for athletics would be allocated from the general fund of the university (and 100% of the revenue would go to the fund as well). This notion of making them some autonomous entity that is both part of the university, and not, is crazy.
Yes, the Division III model is one to emulate. But the big-money schools would never go along with it. It's all about power, and very few ADs want non-athletics to oversee the program.
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Dec 23, 2017 14:38:39 GMT -8
Having more "men only" sports is not OK, having more women's sports in total number IS OK - because it always works to make up for perceived favoritism/sexism in the past, by creating favoritism/sexism in the present and/ or future. ================================== Football has 105 athletes, more when school starts. There is no female equivalent sport, so you need more women's sports to meet the proportionality prong of Title IX. OSU has a total undergraduate enrollment of 25,327; 54 percent male students and 46 percent female students. Our high proportion of engineering students makes us one of the few schools with more males than females, which helps in Title IX compliance. Wrestling is almost completely endowed, through the Oregon Wrestling Endowment. Drop that sport and the endowment goes away. Sorry you find fault with Title IX. Those on this board with daughters would disagree. ============================= In my world, 100% of the budget for athletics would be allocated from the general fund of the university (and 100% of the revenue would go to the fund as well). This notion of making them some autonomous entity that is both part of the university, and not, is crazy. Yes, the Division III model is one to emulate. But the big-money schools would never go along with it. It's all about power, and very few ADs want non-athletics to oversee the program. I do not have a problem with the concept of Title IX, it is how it is applied that I sometimes question the necessity/ effectiveness of it (devil is in the details, as they say). I have daughters as well - but if they chose to play one of the more minor sports, and were good enough to make the team, I would understand if the university expected more of a financial commitment from them, especially if it was basically an non spectator sport, with the exception of family/ friends. I like your idea of 100% athletic fund budget coming from the general fund, with all revenues going there as well. Where I think we disagree is the weighting of the dollars going to certain sports, whether they are male dominated or not, based on fan support and revenues generated. This could also create more of a level playing field (I agree the big-money schools would never go for it) by placing limits on the overall athletic budget for all universities based on enrollment. As well as maybe caps on overall percentage that men's football and basketball could garner from said budget. But as you have stated, good luck!
|
|
|
Post by lebaneaver on Dec 23, 2017 18:55:21 GMT -8
I flat out guarantee that women's sports at Oregon State are untouchable. Even cost cutting moves for women's sports is not realistic if you know who has the real power in the AD office. Lop one of the male sports and the savings would not greatly enhance the football budget. I'm not dense, but need an explanation. Are you saying women's sports are a DRAIN on the Ath. Dept? Not "touchable" due to politics? Honest questions. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by zeroposter on Dec 23, 2017 20:13:58 GMT -8
I flat out guarantee that women's sports at Oregon State are untouchable. Even cost cutting moves for women's sports is not realistic if you know who has the real power in the AD office. Lop one of the male sports and the savings would not greatly enhance the football budget. I'm not dense, but need an explanation. Are you saying women's sports are a DRAIN on the Ath. Dept? Not "touchable" due to politics? Honest questions. Thanks Not a drain, but tough to make cuts because of the strength of a couple of people.
|
|
|
Post by lebaneaver on Dec 23, 2017 20:53:48 GMT -8
I'm not dense, but need an explanation. Are you saying women's sports are a DRAIN on the Ath. Dept? Not "touchable" due to politics? Honest questions. Thanks Not a drain, but tough to make cuts because of the strength of a couple of people. Thanks
|
|