Buy WILLisms

XML Feed

Featured Entries

The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM

Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM

Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM

Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM

Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM

Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM

Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM

The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM

From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM

Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM

Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM

Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM

Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM

Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM



Blogroll Me!



July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004

Social Security Reform Thursday.
March 13, 2008

Caption Contest: Enter Today!
Due: July 29, 2008

The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006

Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008

Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007

Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006

A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006


Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori

WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy):

The WILLisms.com Gift Shop: Support This Site


This Week's Carnival of Revolutions: carnivalbutton.gif

Carnival Home Base: homebase.gif


« Wednesday Caption Contest: Part 36. | WILLisms.com | Iran: To Bomb, Or Not To Bomb? »

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 246 -- Title IX & Collegiate Athletics.

Women's Athletics-

Have you ever wondered how profitable or unprofitable college sports programs are? And how Title IX impacts the profitability of collegiate sports programs?

We already know that many schools have eliminated certain traditional male sports programs, such as wrestling, in order to comply with Title IX. Essentially, Title IX requires a school to offer equal opportunities for female and male athletes. Women's sports teams are almost unanimously revenue losers for a school. And we're talking millions of negatory dollars, here. Thus, a school without a huge male cash cow (a football or basketball team, usually) opts to cut both female and male teams. No sports teams, in other words. No soup for you.

Here are the numbers from a few major schools, chosen somewhat at random:


Just a little factoid:
The University of Texas women's basketball program cost the school $1,325,330 last year (that's revenues minus expenses). That's a cost of 63,110 dollars per win.

And that's pretty remarkable, considering that each year, the Texas women's basketball program is one of the more financially successful programs in the nation.

U.S. Department of Education.


Previous Trivia Tidbit: Media Bias On Iraq.

Posted by Will Franklin · 28 December 2005 09:12 PM


Except for a couple of colleges shown here, it looks like the men's programs can easily afford to carry the women's teams. After all, this is college sports, and the motive is competition, not profit, right?

Posted by: oino at December 29, 2005 12:49 AM

So, the paying American public is prejudiced against women's sports. That is not the fault or the responsibility of the women's sports. There are also losing men's sports as well. At most schools only football and basketball make net money, as accounted here. Also, there are hidden costs of the big sports, including special course offerings and all of the administrative time necessary to prevent and/or respond to rules violations and scandals.

Posted by: R. Cooper at December 30, 2005 11:46 AM

No soup for you!...

Posted by: Zsa Zsa at December 30, 2005 05:02 PM

oino said; After all, this is college sports, and the motive is competition, not profit, right?

Upon writing the first of many tuiton checks I learned that everything associated with the so-called institutions of higher learning is about profit. Everything.

Besides, if it weren't about profit then the teams would play for no share of the gate receipts, no share of the television revenue and no share of the merchandise sales.

Posted by: Cardinals Nation at January 1, 2006 02:06 PM

No, college sports are completely about money. MY MONEY. When the athletic department at a public educational facility runs a deficit, the money comes from somewhere right? Where does it come from? The university budget. Where does that money come from? Uh, taxpayers?!?!? DING DING DING!

My tax dollars are being used to subsidize women's sports that are consistently losing money in an effort to affect social change. But guess what, the 1950's are long gone and now almost 60% of college students are women. Let me repeat, there are more females attending college than males.

What purpose does Title IV serve anymore? It simply mandates that we as taxpayers fund non-competitive and often non-watchable sports for women that drain athletic budgets and provide scholarships for a demographic that is already proportionately overrepresented within our universities as it is.

Posted by: Justin B at January 2, 2006 03:00 AM

I wonder how much money they're losing on their English and Philosophy Departments....

Posted by: meep at January 2, 2006 12:58 PM

At least they can shut down a major in Art or Humanities or Basketweaving if their finances dictate it. If Federal Law mandated that my business had to lose money just to be "fair", I would not be too pleased. But when it is mandating wasting tax dollars, who can complain right?

Posted by: Justin B at January 2, 2006 10:17 PM