Notre Dame offers the exact same number of football scholarships as ISU does. Money makes no difference in title IX. Its also based off of their student body percentage of females. And even if they don't comply with Title IX, they are ok as long as they don't make any changes to the number of scholarships they have. If the make a change, it would have to get them closer to being in complience with Title IX.
Men's Gymnastics
- Thread starter galles15
- Start date
Notre Dame offers the exact same number of football scholarships as ISU does. Money makes no difference in title IX. Its also based off of their student body percentage of females. And even if they don't comply with Title IX, they are ok as long as they don't make any changes to the number of scholarships they have. If the make a change, it would have to get them closer to being in complience with Title IX.
Here is how it works and what happens: in order to be in compliance with Title IX, you have to have equal opportunity (scholarships) to men and women (based on population). Schools had a bit of time to become compliant. In order to do that, they had to create womens' teams (such as soccer, rowing, riflery, you name it) to offer more scholarships. That costs more money, so to stay even with the budgets they had, they would cut a men's sport in its place, such as wresting, gymnastics, or baseball. If you have a big budget, you are able to just keep your men's teams and keep adding women's teams until your opportunities are equal, but most schools don't have that luxury.
ok, That explained it all. I understand it, but I just want to know when they did make this cut, why it wasn't Cross Country or Track nothing against those sports but to my knowledge they didn't have 3 national titles. They might have, but for me it would be hard cutting a good program like the men's gymnastics instead of maybe a less popular one such as those or golf.
In the scheme of things Title IX should be equal scholarships for men and women, not including football.
I agree with that, because there is no sport that needs the dept like a good football program has and with every single college in America having a football program you have to offer nice scholarship packages. Not like other sports where they are not all offered everywhere.
A few comments on the various rantings in this thread.
Title IX (sometimes referred to as gender equity) became law back in the mid 70's. Through time schools were mandated to comply. Most schools complied by either increasing the number of women's sports, decreasing the number of men's sports, or a combination of the two. ISU did the latter.
The real culprit in cutting sports (gymnastics, baseball, whatever) is a poor football program. It's tough to "budget" when you have very small revenues. At nearly all D-I schools, the only two revenue generating sports are football and basketball. Typically, the football revenue dwarfs the basketball revenue with a few exceptions (Duke for example). That means that football and basketball are paying for all of the other sports to exist since they cost more to operate than the revenue they generate. At the big football powerhouses (Ohio State, Michigan, Tennessee, LSU), the athletic department is typically self sufficient (they don't get any funding from the university or the state) because the football team produces such a tremendous revenue stream. At LSU for example, the athletic department nets about $3,000,000 for each home football game that is played.
The bottom line here is that a healthy football program can bring back and even add sports. This is why it was so important to get a high quality football coach to build our program into a great football program. I believe Chizik will do this! If you want to blame anyone for not having a gymnastics or baseball team...blame Dan McCarney, Jim Walden, Jim Criner, and Donnie Duncan.
By the way, back in the 80's we had tremendous track and cross country teams (both men's and women's). Some of you may recall Danny Harris dueling with Edwin Moses in track and I believe the women's cross country team finished first or second in the nation at some point also.
As for men's gymnastics, I'm not sure when that was axed but I am pretty sure that the coach of those National Championship teams was Ed Gagnier. As you may recall, Ed gained fame by being the emcee for the "Shoot Five for Five" promotion at halftime of the men's basketball games.
Title IX (sometimes referred to as gender equity) became law back in the mid 70's. Through time schools were mandated to comply. Most schools complied by either increasing the number of women's sports, decreasing the number of men's sports, or a combination of the two. ISU did the latter.
The real culprit in cutting sports (gymnastics, baseball, whatever) is a poor football program. It's tough to "budget" when you have very small revenues. At nearly all D-I schools, the only two revenue generating sports are football and basketball. Typically, the football revenue dwarfs the basketball revenue with a few exceptions (Duke for example). That means that football and basketball are paying for all of the other sports to exist since they cost more to operate than the revenue they generate. At the big football powerhouses (Ohio State, Michigan, Tennessee, LSU), the athletic department is typically self sufficient (they don't get any funding from the university or the state) because the football team produces such a tremendous revenue stream. At LSU for example, the athletic department nets about $3,000,000 for each home football game that is played.
The bottom line here is that a healthy football program can bring back and even add sports. This is why it was so important to get a high quality football coach to build our program into a great football program. I believe Chizik will do this! If you want to blame anyone for not having a gymnastics or baseball team...blame Dan McCarney, Jim Walden, Jim Criner, and Donnie Duncan.
By the way, back in the 80's we had tremendous track and cross country teams (both men's and women's). Some of you may recall Danny Harris dueling with Edwin Moses in track and I believe the women's cross country team finished first or second in the nation at some point also.
As for men's gymnastics, I'm not sure when that was axed but I am pretty sure that the coach of those National Championship teams was Ed Gagnier. As you may recall, Ed gained fame by being the emcee for the "Shoot Five for Five" promotion at halftime of the men's basketball games.
I agree with the post that Title IX needs to be revised. I think it would be a better program if we did not include any revenue producing sports. So at ISU we would not include FB, MBB, WBB and may be wrestling. As programs rise and start paying for them self, then they are no long part of the program. No sports would be axed, and more could be added if team keep producing.
Cross Country and Track have a more recent history of success than men's gymnastics. In the 80s-90s, we had a great coach, here's a little info:
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]In 1981, five years after Bergan assumed the duties of head track coach, the Cyclones won their first conference track championship in 36 years. When Bergan retired in 1995, he had guided Iowa State to 25 Big Eight conference team championships and two NCAA titles.
[/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Bergan coached 16 Olympians from six different nations, including intermediate hurdler Danny Harris and distance runner Yobes Ondieki. Harris won a silver medal at the 1984 Olympics following his freshman year at Iowa State, and Ondieki won a world title in the 5,000-meter run for Kenya and set a world record in the 10,000 meters.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Iowa State won NCAA cross country titles in 1989 and 1994 and finished second in 1990 and 1991. John Nuttall (1989) and Jonah Koech (1990) won NCAA individual titles for the Cyclones.[/FONT]
The way to get gymnastics and baseball back is to improve the income for the existing sports, especially football and M & W BB. The schools with the most programs are the schools with the strongest fan support and most post season appearances for the revenue generating sports. However, every paid admission to any sport helps pay the bills, not just the major sports. It appears to me Pollard is on track in every respect. Hopefully, it will eventually lead to more sports being added.
No offense, but I would bet my next paycheck that women's basketball at ISU is not a positive revenue generator for the athletic department.
And although the men's basketball team does generate positive revenue, the key my friends is FOOTBALL!
And although the men's basketball team does generate positive revenue, the key my friends is FOOTBALL!
Just received word from Pollard that at the time of our National Titles there were 150 schools with a Men's Gymnastics team, now there is only 18 so he said with the decrease in popularity the less sponsors were interested and the less money we had for a sport that was loosing popularity.
Only 18 Div I Programs
There are only 18 Division one Men's Gymnastics programs left, my guess is we would never bring one back with that few. Also, 7 of those programs are in the Big 10, and only 2 in the Big 12, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. In comparison, ther is 20 Mens Div 1 Fencing programs. Go to NCAA.org, there is some interesting things there.
There are only 18 Division one Men's Gymnastics programs left, my guess is we would never bring one back with that few. Also, 7 of those programs are in the Big 10, and only 2 in the Big 12, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. In comparison, ther is 20 Mens Div 1 Fencing programs. Go to NCAA.org, there is some interesting things there.
title IX is the most worhtless proposition passed that affects college athletes. I understand equal number of sports for girls and boys but equal money?? Name how many girls sports out there need the financial support as football? Hell I'd be surprised if all the girls sports didn't equal what football needs. Thanks to title IX many schools dont offer common sports like boys soccer. (and people wonder why the U.S. can't ever succeed in the world cup and international play? think about it)
The reason we don't succeed in the world cup is that our best athletes are playing football, basketball, and baseball. It has nothing to do with Title IX.
i disagree. high school soccer players dont have the same options as high school basketball, football, and baseball players. Why? because there are less # of schools and scholarships that they are eligible for. Thus the "pipeline" we have in those other sports aren't there. Without that pipeline, you can't expect a established system. that be like college fb or bball without recruiting.
Title ix tries to be good it has given women a better opportunity but it is a false statement to say Title names is about giving equal scholarships. title nine gives scholarships based on porportionality meaning that if a schools total population was 51% female then 51% OF THE ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS WILL BE FEMALE not that it will be 50/50 regardless it is the one flaw in that piece of legislation get rid of the porportionality clause and that would be a great piece of legislation with that clause it is sexiest and unequal
The good news is, in relation to baseball, is that if you look at Pollard's Facillities Master Plan, it includes a design for the Gateway Complex which would include new baseball and softball fields. So I assume that Pollard envisions bringing baseball, also my favorite sport, back to Iowa State.
But it definately comes down to all the money for sure, not Title IX. Baseball was definately loosing more money than the bad football program could account for.
But it definately comes down to all the money for sure, not Title IX. Baseball was definately loosing more money than the bad football program could account for.
