Jump to content
Mavric

Expanding Football Roster Has Title IX, Logistical Issues

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, gratefullred said:

I just dont understand why we need to create more women scholarship athletes in order to add more men non-scholarship athletes.  I understand opportunities need to be created, but couldnt that be achieved by creating more women non-scholarship athletes.  There's got to be 10 women's programs that could add 2 walk-ons each.

 

Yes, there could be -- but maybe those programs don't want to, or aren't equipped to accommodate the additional numbers, and so the "opportunities" created there are a lot less real than in FB. With 105-man rosters in FB, I'm not sure I understand why there's a need to create more roster space, anyway. The bottom line is if they want to do this, there will probably be an easy way, and maybe exactly the one that you mention. Maybe not.

 

Bear in mind what's being done here: putting the pressure on Title IX. Administrators do not tend to like Title IX. Everything would be easier without it, or with some moderated version of it. So they'll frame the issue in such a way that everyone fully understands that it's the women who are ruining things. "Gee, I'd really love to, and as you all know walk-ons are so core to the Nebraska football identity, but you know, this Title IX stuff is just throwing a big ol' wrench into things...we're going to work really hard to try to appease these onerous requirements, because as you know, we're forced to."

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, zoogs said:

Ha, ha, can’t the University devote a lion’s share of its offered resources and opportunity to men’s athletics, the ones that matter, and get away with it by pretending to care about women’s sports?

 

There’s probably a measure of this going on already. But balance should be assertive and genuine.

 

 

measure? This is all that goes on. That's the whole reason Title IX exists - we (America) don't care about women's sports, with an asterisk in reference to Nebraska fans and volleyball.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I care that our universities should offer plentiful and equitable opportunities for not just the male portion of their student-athlete body.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

So how long do taxpayers and revenue from men's sports have to prop up women's sports to that no one cares about?

 

For as long as men's sports are offered.

 

Dear lord i hope that was just sarcasm that i missed.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, desertshox said:

 

For as long as men's sports are offered.

 

Dear lord i hope that was just sarcasm that i missed.

I have a feeling that it's not

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

So how long do taxpayers and revenue from men's sports have to prop up women's sports to that no one cares about?

 

I doubt anyone cares about men's golf, tennis, or cross-country. And the football teams' revenue props up those non-money making sports.

 

So if your concern about propping up non-revenue generating sports is legitimate, and not some passive-aggressive misogyny, then I would think you'd mention some of the men's sports.

  • Plus1 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing being overlooked here is the quality of players we'd be adding.  Back in Frost's time at NU, the cost to a walk-on for college was roughly 20-22 thousand.  I was in college during most of Frost's years, and I knew a lot of the walk-on players.  Almost all of them had scholarship offers to smaller schools but chose to walk-on because the cost wasn't really seen as that big of deal.  The starting salaries of their first job out of college was typically higher than their entire cost to attend college.  In todays day and age, I'd guess the cost to a walk-on for college would be quadruple or 80-88 thousand.  I can't think many/any of them would have a starting salary at their first job even remotely close to what it would cost to attend college.  I'd assume the players we'd target to walk-on would also have scholarship offers to smaller schools.  The economics from when Frost was on the team to today have changed drastically.  This would lead me to believe that the quality of players will have changed drastically as well.  A lot of kids these days are taking the scholarships from the smaller schools.  I'd venture to guess the pool of potential walk-on players today is either quite a bit smaller than when Frost played or quite a bit less talented than when Frost played. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2018 at 1:34 PM, junior4949 said:

One thing being overlooked here is the quality of players we'd be adding.  Back in Frost's time at NU, the cost to a walk-on for college was roughly 20-22 thousand.  I was in college during most of Frost's years, and I knew a lot of the walk-on players.  Almost all of them had scholarship offers to smaller schools but chose to walk-on because the cost wasn't really seen as that big of deal.  The starting salaries of their first job out of college was typically higher than their entire cost to attend college.  In todays day and age, I'd guess the cost to a walk-on for college would be quadruple or 80-88 thousand.  I can't think many/any of them would have a starting salary at their first job even remotely close to what it would cost to attend college.  I'd assume the players we'd target to walk-on would also have scholarship offers to smaller schools.  The economics from when Frost was on the team to today have changed drastically.  This would lead me to believe that the quality of players will have changed drastically as well.  A lot of kids these days are taking the scholarships from the smaller schools.  I'd venture to guess the pool of potential walk-on players today is either quite a bit smaller than when Frost played or quite a bit less talented than when Frost played. 

That's exactly what I thought until Frost recruited one walk-on class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2018 at 9:18 PM, desertshox said:

 

For as long as men's sports are offered.

 

Dear lord i hope that was just sarcasm that i missed.

 

Rather than comparing men’s scholarships to women’s scholarships, we should evaluate sports based on whether they generate revenue.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I've moved a few posts out of here to the tangent thread for straddling the line between being on-topic, being too personal or trying to bring politics into the debate.

 

The irony is, with Title IX...it is invariably political.  You literally cannot discuss this topic without being political.  That being said, moving a few of the post is a-okay because I don't really feel the need to say anything further.  This post notwithstanding.  ;)

Edited by Making Chimichangas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Rather than comparing men’s scholarships to women’s scholarships, we should evaluate sports based on whether they generate revenue.

Or we could consider whether a non-profit university's athletic dept should even be allowed to generate revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...