OSU, UT, and KSU receive failing marks

[schooner2]

From the wbball email list....

In yesterday's USA TODAY, there was an article on the National Women's Law Center, which released a list on Tuesday of 30 colleges it says fail to give female athletes a fair share of athletic scholarship dollars as required by Title IX. Note - this is a very specific way of looking at how schools are funding women's participation in sports. This is not a general statement on how the school is complying with Title IX overall.

The schools named were:
* Alaska-Fairbanks
* Bucknell
* Buffalo
* California
* Cent. Meth. (Mo.)
* Cincinnati
* Columbia (Mo.)
* Delaware State
* East Tenn. State
* Green Mtn. (Vt.)
* Idaho
* Indiana
* Kansas State
* Lewis-Clark State (Idaho)
* Miami (Fla.)
* Northwestern
* Notre Dame
* Michigan State
* Minnesota
* Oklahoma State
* Portland State
* Samford
* South Florida
* Texas
* Toledo
* UNLV
* Weber State
* Western Michigan
* W.Va. Tech
* Wyoming

The Indianapolis Star wrote a story on Indiana and Notre Dame's reactions (http://www.indystar.com/article.php?equity19.html).

[DblT81]

I'm surprised Texas is on the list. They certainly have some quality women's sports programs and spend a bunch more money on them than many of the other B12 schools. But...they spend soooo much more on football that it probably tips the scales.

[TXSNOS]

Thanks, schooner, for posting the whole list. I saw an article that just listed KSU, Notre Dame, and Miami, and I was wondering what other schools were also cited.

TXSNOS

[TXSNOS]

Article re salaries for women coaches: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/sports/3508909.htm

TXSNOS

[KSUron]

KSU AD Tim Weiser is not disputing the NWLC claims and he says he is not surprised. He said that KSU hired a consultant in February to assist KSU in analyzing Kansas States positive and negative aspects in regard to athletics gender equity issues. The principal problems KSU identified were the same as the NWLC reported. As a result of the consultant led study, KSU has a plan in place to address the problems.

Under the plan KSU will:
1. Add five more scholarships in rowing
2. Increase equestrian scholarships from 4.4 to 10 this season
3. Add five more equestrian scholies by 2004-05

KSU's problem is partly a result of scrambling to catch up with another gender equity problem. Rowing and equestrian were recently added as women's sports to increase the participation of female athletes. That actually worked out faster than anticipated and as more athletes joined the programs the participation got ahead of the finacial support. About 47% of KSU's students are female and about 52% of its athletes are now female, but they only get 37% of the scholarship dollars. The problem is that K-State does not provide enough $.oo on average per female athlete as per male athlete. Thats why the scholies are being added.

My personal opinion is that the gender equity issues under title IX are perfectly proper and long overdue. I confess I would rather see sports like soccer or softball get extra money but I can accept this as a solution. This will all work out and become more rationalized as time passes.

Now on another note I believe as extra punishment to KSU the purple people should be forced to award an extra five WBB scholarships per year just to make sure we stay compliant. Perhaps however, a good first step would be to get our current WBB numbers up from 10 to 15. (Yah, I know, Patterson is trying and sad to say the men's BB program also has a numbers problem which balances off the WBB problem)

http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

[TXSNOS]

K-State's Patterson on Title IX: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/3520227.htm

TXSNOS

[cctigerfan]

Did anyone have a chance to see the ESPN special on Title IX? What were your thoughts about it?

[KSUron]

Hey! Good to see you back cctigerfan. No I did not see the special.

[TXSNOS]

Article on daughters following in mothers' footsteps (Tech's Casey Jackson is mentioned in article): http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/sports/3527485.htm

TXSNOS

[swok34]

I saw the special; I thought they were really good to bring some of the questions to the forefront. I particularly liked the question about why women's highlights aren't shown on Sportcenter. I don't watch Sportscenter for this very reason, though I like a couple of their Sunday AM shows in Sports Reporters and Outside the Lines. I do think it's great that ESPN is committing itself to showing so much women's basketball.
They've also done really well at airing NCAA championships; I know every single game of the Women's College World Series was on TV this year.

I caught part of a special this morning...think it was on Outside the Lines, and the pres of the Women's Foundation was great. She seemed very well researched in both hs and college athletics, and how many programs are available for both male/female on the hs level.

I think they went way beyond the scope of Title IX last night and asked a lot of questions that "everyone" asks.....

Do women have to be "sexy" to sell their sport? Do they have to be "attractive"? Would Tiger still win if he were ugly http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif
I have to add that when they were discussing "stars and their sports"....I have never watched golf in my life, I've played maybe twice...but last summer I got hooked on Tiger. Even though I don't go scanning the channels for golf, if Tiger's playing I'll watch.

There were a lot of arguments both ways that Title IX is a quota, and a lot of focus on BCS Football teams, both in the amount of money they spend, the scholarships awarded for a team and the amount of money they bring in.

Seems men's gymnastics, women's gymnastics, wrestling are the primary sports on the chopping block.....and that was were the arguments of football came in saying that AD's were hiding behind Title IX to cut these programs when these are relatively small programs.....$250,000 compared to 3.5 million spent in funding a college football team.

I missed Bob Stoops comments this morning on the show I was watching.......how many scholarships does football get? I'm thinking 130, and that's entirely a guess.

[OhMandy]

Football has 85 scholarships. But there maybe 130 players on the football team. Of course there would be 45 players who are not on scholarship if there are 130 players on a team. But those 45 players count as 45 male students playing a varsity sport. So a school would have to some how find a sport or sports where 45 females students are playing a varsity sport.

Now the thing is with football, a sport I love, is that there are too many excesses because the coaches are control freaks. The practice of putting up the whole team in a hotel the night before a HOME game has to stop. Figure at least 5 home games a year at say $50,000 per night. Well that could fund a softball or soccer program for woman. Now there are some benefits of having a team stay at a hotel. Mainly the team won't be out partying and drinking and causing trouble the night before a game. But there are other ways to house the football and make sure they are getting a good night's sleep.


I'll be honest. I like Title IX. It serves a very worthwhile purpose. I could really care less if wrestling or M & W gymnastics are cut. I don't want to see two guys rolling around on a mat and I've always felt that gymnastics forces the athlete to do things to his or her body that aren't meant for the body to do.

Question about KSU. NCAA max for WBB is 15 scholarships. You're telling me that KSU only offers 10? That's interesting.

[swok34]

The Maryland AD was interviewed this weekend, because she walked into a program that was losing gobs of money and has been turning that around.

She mentioned one thing that she did was have the athletic department's office vacuumed twice a week rather than every day.
Would suspect there are a lot of these "small" ways that programs can cut that they don't look at.

Seems in football, walk-on's are "counted". Though they are not awarded scholarship money, they do "use athletic department funds"........I'm not in favor of doing away with "walk-ons", but they reported the other night that Nebraska had 200 football players on it's roster. Perhaps, limit walk-ons to say 40/45 a program.

Mandy, doesn't Stanford have every program available under the sun? I know they offer a lot more sports than many universities.

[TXSNOS]

OhMandy, I may be speaking out of turn here because I do not follow KSU as closely as some others, but I believe KSU has more than 10 scholarships available for womens' basketball. They just may not have awarded all that are available. Coach Patterson is not just handing them out willy nilly. I think she wants to make sure the players she gives scholarships too have an opportunity contribute to the team's success in a very competitive conference.

TXSNOS

[OhMandy]

Yes Stanford does have something like 33 sports offered. I think that's one reason why Stanford wins the Sears Cup almost every year. They play so many sports.

[cctigerfan]

Concerning KSU WBB scholarships, they may still be feeling the effects of NCAA sanctions placed on them in the early to mid 90s under Brian Agler. I believe scholarships were affected in some way as was their summer camps.

I do agree though, that Patterson is picky about who gets scholarships. I don't believe she has filled all the scholarship positions available for the last couple of years.

[KSUron]

As regards KSU being down to ten players. Coach Patterson thinks, I belive correctly, that KSU's new prominence will benefit recruiting more next year than this due to the long lead time in the process. She has said that while the results remain to be proven "now everyone returns KSU phone calls". Further consider that next years team will have 3 juniors, 6 sophmores and 1 freshman. If Patterson had brought in 4 recruits this year to get up to 15 (she lost one player after the season to transfer) she would have been dead in the water with no scholarships to give next year no matter how good the recruiting opportunities may have been. Strategy would dictate that with no seniors she keep at least a some spots open. Add in losing Danille Hutton to career ending injury and losing Andrea Armstrong to transfer for more playing time and you quickly can see how being down to ten players happened. You will see some more quality players coming to Manhattan soon. Coach Patterson may be a bit short handed right now but she is not even a little bit crazy.

[TXSNOS]

Stanford did win the 2001-02 Sears Directors' Cup with a total of 1499 overall points. Texas was second with 1,110.5 points. Link to story: http://www.texassports.com/mainpages/generalrelease/2001_02/02/gr_062602_01.html

TXSNOS

[vickie1ok]

I am not surprised OSU was on this list; according to OSU fans you read on the internet, they spend too much on women's sports as it is. I am shocked Texas is on this list. They have always had a strong women's sports program. I think Jody Condrad is a pioneer for ncaa women's hoops. But as someone suggested, it may be relative to what men's sports spends. And Texas spends more on men's sports than anyone in the galaxy.

Regarding the ESPN show on Title IX. I thought it was a little disappointing. They had some gal from the current administration from the Justice Dept. who squealed about how Title IX was unfair to men because men care more about sports than women. Just that point of view made her position a radical one, which made any of her arguments mute, in my opinion.

Also, the anti-Title IX argument rests upon male sports which have been eliminated where Title IX has been used as an excuse (fairly or unfairly). The main male sport which claims victimization is wresting. As an Oklahoman, I used to love wrestling in junior high and high school. But by the time I got to college, wrestling was changing and becoming a dying sport. Wrestling's demise can't be blamed on women's sports but rather rule changes within the sport which has made it more boring, and the popularity of men's basketball. But, hell, it's easier to blame the chick's, ain't it?

[Daddo]

not ALL of us, now! Remembering that I'm a Mizzou season ticket holder and Tiger fan, I'm OSU first and foremost when it comes to sports loyalties, and have already contacted the new AD Harry Birdwell and encouraged him to deal with this problem.


[B]I am not surprised OSU was on this list; according to OSU fans you read on the internet, they spend too much on women's sports as it is.