I think it’s basically offer them. No one says you have to have quality coaches or good facilities. I’m not promoting that option just pointing out.
2025 Athletics Update
- Thread starter IcSyU
- Start date
.jpeg?auto=webp)
Mission XII by UCF Knights
To fully support our student-athletes in their NIL endeavors. To provide championship-caliber services to our student-athletes in their educational and career pursuits. To position UCF Athletics to win conference and national championships. To successfully transition UCF Athletics into the Big...
.jpeg?auto=webp)
ucfknights.exposure.co
Always thought this was interesting once you scroll down to the part about donors (data is from 2019)
I can only assume it's on the chopping block legally, the money at stake needed to accommodate it is extremely high and ever-growing. Either it falls out of being federal law entirely, or something weird happens like a "football carve-out" where that sport's resources don't apply.
At some point, the powers that be will start throwing money at politicians to make it happen, and it'll be explained as being better for NIL or something to that extent. Every dollar spent on non-rev sports is another dollar that could've been spent on football instead!
There's some varying conference level rules that can apply too, but I'd expect conferences to start toning those back in the near future. Whatever they can do to focus all available resources into football. That's where the conference media contract money comes from.
I do wonder how long before conferences split on the minor sports (iirc the ncaa only allows football to be split from the other sports if your conference offers that sport, but that can change).
Nationwide conferences make revenue sense for football and maybe mens basketball, for everyone else it really doesn't. it'd make a lot more sense if the minor sports were split off into more regionally-based conferences where travel expenses can be minimized.
As much as I hate to admit it, they are just making it easier and easier to not go to games. The reasons not to go are really starting to outweigh the reasons to go.
Yeah, during the season there was a discussion here about the cost for a family to go to a game, and I was surprised when I saw how good of a deal the Junior Cyclone Club is.
I think it's important that Iowa State has an affordable "get-in" price for fans--the Junior Cyclone Club and season tickets that don't require donations help do that. But I don't think that anyone is entitled to keep their seats at the 50-yard line at the same price just because they've had those seats for a long time.
We were one of those $99 dollar season tickets fans, we started with 4 in the old South end zone, got up to 6, and then when they bowled in the S. end zone we went back down to four. Moved over to the East side when they moved the students and was grandfathered in for three seasons at the same price. I would have dropped the tickets this past season but a friend of our boys wanted to purchase tickets for him and his family, and I sold him tickets for three games. Already told him, if he wanted, we would do the same this next season, but after that, I may drop them all together.
Reaching a point in life that going to three or four games is plenty for me, it get more expensive each fall. I get that ISU needs money now more than ever, but its also a lot easier to go downstairs and watch it on the 77 inch OLED TV, and drink all the beer that I want, while I watch the game.
I would think the title 9 lobby is more powerful than the college sports lobby. Plus I can't see too many lawmakers voting to "take opportunity away from women".
I think Title IX is about opportunity and scholarships and not about funding. But it is never a good look to dump on any women's sport (see NCAA WBB Tournament accommodations a few years ago).
You can't? I certainly can, we're talking billions in media deals. It's a business for football. Other sports aren't a business, they're an extracurricular.
Pretty easy to frame it away from opportunities. This is money. Supply and demand -- the demand is for football.
Here are your options. FB and MBB are the profit centers so no there. Track counts for 2 so no there. You know JP isn’t cutting XC. That leaves golf or wrestling.
Not to mention, nobody has to vote on anything. All it takes is one challenge from an athletic department that sues and has the funding to see the appeals through until SCOTUS takes it up. It'll be gone in no time.
I feel like all this is going to end up in court some how....with a lot of institutions having issues.
once players are university bankrolled, I am sure there will be all sorts of fairness issues with pay.
that being said, that conversation cutting ISU sports to 16 is a mess. Would almost have to be a sport in both genders like Cross country or Track, etc.
I would like to see the breakdown of the effect of title 9 financially has on athletic departments though.
I can't imagine the amount of money it cost to run Womens only Swimming and Diving or women only Tennis with their own faclities, etc. and now you got to think about paying them also.
not sure what the answer is to all this, but I am sure it will get figured out.
is it the sports or scholarships spots? I thought the reason there is 10 womens and only 6 mens was because Football had 85 scholly's?
Athletic scholarships have to be split equal to the general student body so if you're 60/40 female/male, 60% of the scholarships are supposed to go to female athletes.
You literally can't cut women's sports. Wrestling and Golf would be the only two that make sense. Outdoor/Indoor Track and XC are basically 3 programs running on 1 budget.
You literally can't cut women's sports. Wrestling and Golf would be the only two that make sense. Outdoor/Indoor Track and XC are basically 3 programs running on 1 budget.
