re: This is what people should be complaining about.

quote:

---

every male scholarship gets a female scholarship

---

But the commercial told me genders don't play sports, athletes do. What a joke! #spankemmcenroe

They have enough money to give more kids scholarships, but they imposed limits on themselves to save money to spend on coaching salaries and administration salaries and facilities.

They can't legally control coach's salaries and we see what's happening there. They are out of sight.

95% of adminstrators and coaches of college baseball teams do NOT want more schollies. That's the main reason we only have 11.7.

It's not cost - it's competitive limits set by the various organizations, mainly the NCAA.

However, because Title IX says if you give X number of male scholarships, you have to give X number to female.

I'm completely cool with that - IF they exempt football. There is NO comparable female sport, particularly if you consider the revenue, prestige, etc.

Exempt football and you get no arguments from me. That's 85 for frick's sake. After that, if you want to have a male jousting team with 6 scholarship competitors, then by G-d - you have to have a female jousting team with 6 scholarship competitors.

quote:

---

So every female bench player at every school is on full ride. Male athletes are often paying their own way or getting a partial scholarship

---

Not true. My Niece played softball for LSU and did not get a full ride so this is in fact false.

The US becomes a second tier world power in soccer within ten years if you could have soccer schollies for men.

quote:

---

Interesting read on Title IX. The argument here is that Title IX is not actually responsible for the scholarship limits. The NCAA is who put the limits in effect to protect the sports that make them the most money.

---

That's exactly what I've been trying to say here. Title IX is an excuse, the NCAA is just trying to save money for the schools.

Without scholarship limitations more kids(men and women ) could get scholarships but they can't because of the self imposed cap the schools put on themselves.

quote:

---

the NCAA is just trying to save money for the schools.

---

This is a gross misrepresentation of the issue. The only reason there are scholarship limits is for competitive balance - the NCAA's version of the draft. Power 5 teams would have 120 scholarship players, and you wouldn't have 18 or 20 legitimate contender teams (with a dozen or so others with an outside chance), you'd have 6. Great for those 6, but that would lock out 95% of member institutions at the highest division.


Seriously - exempt football and this problem largely goes away.

quote:

---

I get why we needed title ix, but do you guys seriously think if baseball was allowed more scholarships, LSU would just start scrapping women's programs? I think there would be a huge backlash.

---

LSU could afford 100 baseball scholarships. The NCAA steps in with their 11.7 limit because somehow they've deemed this sufficient and levels the playing field for teams across the country. The vast majority of baseball programs lose money.

I'm sure most universities would gladly kick a few more female athletic scholarships in the pot if it meant baseball could raise their scholarship limit by a few.

What kills the AD budget with women's sports is the facilities, travel, and coaching costs. Not scholarships.

quote:

---

This is a gross misrepresentation of the issue.

---

Not really.

quote:

---

The only reason there are scholarship limits is for competitive balance

---

Not really, we have the same scholarship limit as USL. Is there a competitive balance? No its not. LSU is far superior to USL in every way except in scholarship numbers.

And do we schedule schools from lower divisions? We certainly do because they come to Tiger Stadium and we don't have to pay them as much. These schools have a limit of something like 50 scholarships. If we were interested in competitive balance, why do we play them? Its because of an easy W and the money.

quote:

---

Power 5 teams would have 120 scholarship players, and you wouldn't have 18 or 20 legitimate contender teams (with a dozen or so others with an outside chance), you'd have 6. Great for those 6, but that would lock out 95% of member institutions at the highest division.

---

So you think all 100+ D 1 teams are on equal footing and have a chance? I don't. Despite having 85 scholarships most D1 teams have no shot at the playoffs.

Scholarship limits were placed years ago to save money. That's the main reason, anything else they tell you is BS.

If you look back to when scholarships were capped for each sport, it coincides with the passage and then the full implementation of Title IX. Prior to that time there were no scholarship caps. The schools weren't worried about balancing the playing field, they were worried about finances.

If LSU and the SEC wanted, we could start new sports at the varsity level, but we do not because it costs money. It's not because of Title IX unless of course you believe universities should only give scholarships to sports that turn a profit, and if that's the case LSU would have a hard time finding baseball opponents because for 99% of the schools baseball loses money. We'd just have basketball and football.

I think what the big schools are doing is wrong. Instead of sharing the wealth due to the recent boom in TV money and letting more kids (men and women) participate and get scholarships; they have enriched coaches and administrators and built extravagant facilities.