Suggest Title IX Compromise

[BroadwayVik]

The problem with Title IX is it equates things politically but not economically. The solution is to equalize the number of sports for both sexes but to exempt football IF it is profitable.

This does two things: (1) It motivates universities to either do what is necessary to make football profitable or strongly consider dropping the program in favor of balancing the number of other men's sports; and

(2) If it is profitable, it usually counts for 70 percent of an academic department's revenue, which means it supports other programs. Therefore, it deserves to be exempt from political-balancing given that it provides so much economically. This is certainly deserving of exceptional political favor. So be it.

Men's basketball, if profitable, usually supplies another 20 percent of revenue and could also be viable for exemption status as well, but things are more nicely balanced if profitable football is the only exempt sport.

 

[Alan1]

The problem here is that only a handful of the P5 football programs are profitable. The vast majority of football programs are heavily subsidized through student fees, direct state support for athletics, and direct and indirect institutional support. The numbers for each public institution can be found here: http://chronicle.com/interactives/ncaa-subsidies-main#id=table_2014

 

[BroadwayVik]

You're right, as things stand, according to the compromise policy I suggested, Portland State (and many others) would not qualify ... yet. This would be a revision of NCAA policy. In light of what you've shown, the policy would need adjustments to provide realistic incentives.

If such a policy were adopted, there would be incentive, then, to make football programs more profitable. Once it became "profitable" (accounting for, say, at least one-third the AD revenue), football could then be removed from the balancing equation.

But not before. If it were not yet profitable, two choices remain: remove or keep the program. Keeping it comes at the cost of football staying in the balancing equation. A decision for keeping is based on an either an optimistic or determined outlook.

Portland State, I believe, is determined to keep the program based on a such an outlook. Many are dying to see the attendance marketing puzzle finally cracked and a return to the days of a filled stadium. We experienced it during D-II days, during the playoffs when UO & OSU were faring poorly. The cheers sounded like a jet plane taking off. Awesome experience. There is a purpose-filled determinism based on this quest.

The solution to the problem seems to be largely sociological. President Weiwell is a sociologist. Maybe he and other PSU social scientists could have a go at solving this marketing puzzle. It would be a great thesis project for a marketing student.

 

[Alan1]

Broadway, as long as public funds are involved in the operation of the University, I believe Title 9 rules. If you want a change, Congress is the answer and good luck with that.

 

[BroadwayVik]

____________________________________

You sound benighted on the subject. Did you know that NCAA policies are subject to revision? One problem they have now is bubble-headed attorneys who protect Title IX though it be unfair and economically harmful.

It doesn't matter if PSU relies on public funding. Foolish NCAA policies creating economic distortion can be exposed freely to the public. When people see the error, they can certainly recommend remedies and seek after their betterment.

____________________________________

 

[Alan1]

Broadway, Title IX is a portion of the United States Education Amendments of 1972, Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235 (June 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688. It states (in part) that: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

 

[BobWoodshed]

Beyond this idea being impossible to implement unless a school declined to accept federal aid (which none ever would), the potential for abuse by schools with big donors would be disgusting.

 

[BroadwayVik]

____________________________________________

You are not listening. You are making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. I am suggesting a change in the law, a tweaking really, that we raise awareness and seek to amend the law. And not by that much. Stop thinking provincially. Think nationally, even globally.

Who doesn't agree with equity for men and women sports? Shouldn't those sports be rewarded that attract paying customers and become self-sustaining? They end up not costing the university anything to operate and therefore do not affect the budget. They should be exempt.

This includes everything from Oregon football to Connecticut Women's basketball.

Are we at agreement?

 

[Pounder]

The law is not going to be changed. A GOP congress couldn't be bothered to change it, which should tell you something. In short, this HAS been suggested. It didn't go far.

The timing of this is hilarious... bigger events are currently overriding. Baylor, Idaho schools, North Carolina, Syracuse, back to Penn State. The backlash to the average athletic department's war on students is a war on sports. Then consider the NFL's transgressions (the movie Concussion was apparently required viewing for high school students in several places last winter), and professional stadium money issues all over the country.

The overall American athletic community has screwed the pooch. Portland State isn't any different than lots of places.

 

[BroadwayVik]

_________________________________

My gosh, everyone has addressed all kinds of things but failed to provide the sought-after feedback.

Just tell me what you think of the idea of having equality between the sexes as far as athletics programs go while excluding those that pay for themselves (and even others) from the balancing equation.

This provides incentives and rewards for program success. For example, Women's Soccer at UP would have gained exclusion from the balancing equation. This is not a battle of the sexes; it is equal opportunity and its market-driven.

I'm looking for opinion feedback on the idea. Whaddaya think? I'm not looking for what's happening currently politically or historically. Stick to economics, please.

Your conditioning is evinced in how you regarded the question. Overly-politically. Value left unchanged.

__________________________________

 

[Alan1]

Broadway, is there data backing-up your assertion that Women's Soccer at UP paid for itself?

 

[Pounder]

_________________________________

My gosh, everyone has addressed all kinds of things but failed to provide the sought-after feedback.

Just tell me what you think of the idea of having equality between the sexes as far as athletics programs go while excluding those that pay for themselves (and even others) from the balancing equation.

This provides incentives and rewards for program success. For example, Women's Soccer at UP would have gained exclusion from the balancing equation. This is not a battle of the sexes; it is equal opportunity and its market-driven.

I'm looking for opinion feedback on the idea. Whaddaya think? I'm not looking for what's happening currently politically or historically. Stick to economics, please.

Your conditioning is evinced in how you regarded the question. Overly-politically. Value left unchanged.

__________________________________

At the schools where football has the heavy hand, many sports (men and women) would die. That would also continue the football arms race (which is already leaving Portland State somewhat in the dust) and more established football schools could break out even more.

So it's a very bad idea.

 

[BroadwayVik]

_____________________________________________

I think you're blinded by the politics again. It's understandable because Portland's pie has traditionally been so small that the only thing left was to squabble over the pieces.

No, the funding would not change. The money that profitable football programs made would remain in the Athletics coffers. The budget would not change. So, the other programs would remain funded as before.

The programs that become self-sustaining economically would be removed from the balancing equation between sexes. So, additional men's programs could be added at, say, Oregon, while additional women's programs could be added at, say, Connecticut.

Do you guys only know politics? Don't you know politics are the basis of all economic distortions and welfare losses to society?

 

[BobWoodshed]

Just tell me what you think of the idea

Alright, I think it's horrible. I don't care how much money one team makes over another in collegiate athletics.

 

[Alan1]

BroadwayVik, you have used the terms “self-sufficient” and “profit” interchangeably, for the sake of understanding, let’s talk about university athletic programs that make a “profit.” I don’t understand whether under your plan an athletic program that “made a profit” would be removed from the Title 9 equation or would it only be the use of the profit that would be removed from that equation?

Then there is the question of how you determine if a program made a profit (which is why I asked the question about the Women’s Soccer program at UP). In the real world if a program made a profit that would mean the university was made whole for direct and indirect institutional subsidies, student fee assessments, and direct government aid to that program. Is that what you have in mind? Or, does program revenue in the under your plan allow “some” direct and indirect institutional subsidies, student fee assessments, and direct government aid as well as program generated revenue like ticket sales? If the latter is your plan, how do you determine what and how much “some” is?

I think the idea may have some merit and am sure that it is clearly developed in your mind. But, in your messages that is not made very clear.

Finally, “Atlas Shrugged” is not an economics textbook and the objectivist school of economics is not settled science.

 

[BroadwayVik]

___________________________________________

Okay, economics is positive, politics are normative meaning that economics deals with objectivity, whereas politics deals with subjectivity. I am interested in the economics, not political subsidies and the like. Start by finding agreement at the simple stage first, without all the complexities and nuances that come later.

The idea is that if an athletics program pays for itself, it does not need to tap public funds. The profits from selling tickets and concessions for all the events covers the costs of running the particular athletics program.

Any excess profits (profits beyond breaking even) go into the budget and defray the cost of programs that do not pay for themselves. Since programs that pay for themselves do not need to tap public funds, they should be exempt from the balancing equation. Programs other than those exempt need to balance.

Example, if football paid for itself, then it should be exempt and there should be equal numbers of men and women sports beyond football. Example, if W basketball paid for itself, then it should be exempt and there should be equal numbers of men and women sports beyond W basketball. Equal opportunity.

The balancing should be ONLY for those programs that need to rely on public funds, that can't pay their own way, need to be subsidized, etc. Fair rule, fair outcome.

 

[Alan1]

Broadway, what you are proposing is a solution to a problem that does not exist. There and maybe a dozen or two profitable athletic programs all of them NCAA Division I and all but one football and all male; and, that is out of the thousands of programs sponsored by NCAA Divisions 1, 2, and 3, and NAIA institutions and tens of thousands of high school programs. Put that mind to work on a problem that does exist, lack of attendance at PSU athletic events.

 

[BroadwayVik]

Broadway, what you are proposing is a solution to a problem that does not exist. There and maybe a dozen or two profitable athletic programs all of them NCAA Division I and all but one football and all male; and, that is out of the thousands of programs sponsored by NCAA Divisions 1, 2, and 3, and NAIA institutions and tens of thousands of high school programs. Put that mind to work on a problem that does exist, lack of attendance at PSU athletic events.

No, not all male. Some women's programs are also self-supporting. The universities that have profitable programs need to have their policies rectified first. Once the unfairness is excised, there is strong motivation for other programs to become self-supporting. This idea works from the top-down.

* * * * *

I like the idea of working on how to solve the attendance puzzle. We had the same problem at the UO in the late '70s and early '80s. Where did we begin? Rick Bay, the AD at the time, received a letter from me saying that we needed to show more pride, to paint in the faded endzones, for example. That summer, they replaced the whole field. Later, upgraded uniforms were presented by Nike featuring the Duck-through-the-O on the upper sleeves with numbers transferred to the upper shoulder. That was a big development. That year, we went 5-6, up from 2-9 the previous year.

So, that is where I would start at PSU. Find bases of pride and promote them up. Can you think of ways in which this can be done? I have some ideas, but I want to hear yours first.