Major Colleges Missing Softball Programs?

In 1972, Congress passed the Educational Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. One important section of this law, Title IX, changed the landscape of intercollegiate athletics, especially for women. It states: "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".

Title IX meant greater opportunity for women's participation in college athletics traditionally only available to men and effected women's lives in a positive manner.

In the 35 years following the passage of Title IX in 1972, the federal legislation that mandates equal opportunities for men and women, has prompted significant increases in participation opportunities for high school and college female athletes. Many advances have been made for girls and women in sport, but equity has yet to be achieved. However, major discrepancies still exist in the area of facilities, travel schedules, and support services, and equity in equipment provided. We have yet to reach the point of fairness in America's education sports programs.

The law has led to an explosion of women's sports and has given young women opportunities for athletic scholarships, higher education and professional careers.
Yet, soon after the Title Nine passed, opponents, including the NCAA and many high school administrators, warned that male sports teams would suffer if girls' sports had to be funded equally.
Title Nine is seen by many as a "quota system," undermining the integrity of athletic programs, causing many men's teams to be reduced or eliminated. At the same time, the number of girls participating in high school athletics has grown from 300,000 in 1971 to over 2.6 million today. Passing the law was a major step forward for women.

Yet, under the guise of Title IX, many males, and even some females, are increasingly prevented from getting access to those benefits. For instance, at the intercollegiate level:

- Ohio University -- recently dropped three sports, including women's lacrosse in 2007
- James Madison University -- Dropped 10 sports, men's and women's in 2007
The common denominator is not Title IX, but economics and choices that schools and universities are making, and the choice is not true equality: it is continuing to feed the monsters of football and men's basketball to the detriment of other sports.

Now the equity issue has come full circle.. Non revenue men's teams are being eliminated in some cases instead of adding women's teams. Only 10-15% of Div I major college athletic departments operate in the black.

Softball has a high start up cost, especially if it requires the building of facilities. Programs like (Duke Miami, WF, Clemson) all have wonderful baseball programs with great facilities. To start a softball program, besides the recruiting of players, purchasing of equiptment and uniforms, you need to build the facility.

Now we are back to MONEY....

This leads to decisions, on what to fund, and sometimes, what to eliminate.

The system is not broke, but it certainly is not perfect..
I think part of the blame should be focused on the NCAA... who's rules sometimes are counter productive and without common sense or merit...

Not sure if I confused you more, or helped.....
there is no clear answer, just lots of opinions..!!

 

since the issue is money therein you have the single most important reason the Ivy League has FP. The largest endowments in the world of higher education are in the Ivy League. I have been in a room where one Ivy recruiter told the audience that Harvard, Yale and Princeton all have enough money never to have to charge anyone tuition! You couple that with no athletic scholarships which I would assume are ledgered as an expense in any athletic program and therein lies the reason why the Ivy league has FP.

In fact Penn is building a huge new stadium complex... after having been there and seeing what they have to do to make this happen in terms of real estate acquisition I laugh at schools who may use the argument that there isnt enough land available!

 

Clemson University

Please see the attached link for some very interesting information regarding the revenue and expenses of major college athletic departments:


http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/

Clemson is not as well funded as people think. It is a small school with 15,000 students with a small alumni base (as compared to UT, UNC, OSU, Michigan, etc...). Clemson can not raise funds at the same clip as many of their opponents and, in trying to keep up and recruit with the big boys, they do not have a tremendous surplus.

Face it, the big boys in the NCAA are in a spending war - who has the nicest stadium, the biggest weight room, the best coaching, the nicest video rooms with the most comfortable leather chairs, etc... Clemson has to try and compete with the big boys in order to recruit against the big boys but they do not have the same money due to their size. How does a school of 15,000 (with 3,750 alumni entering the workforce every year) compete with a Tennesse (28,000), Florida (46,000 students), etc...

As you guys know, there are revenue sports and non - revenue sports. You are not going to get a university to add a non - revenue sport without eliminating another non - revenue sport. If they are at a headcount that meets Title IX guidelines, they are not simply going to add another sport that does not generate revenue - and lots of it.

So, in order to add softball, they would have to kill another female sport.

 

This may be a little off subject, but it is somewhat related. Why doesn't UNC and NCSU charge for softball games? I have seen upwards of 1200 people at a UNC game (Tennessee) and I know there are around 500 at quite a few games. If you charged 5 bucks per head that would be some real money. It would at least pay for the umpires, bats, equipment..etc. NCSU's new stadium has ticket booths built into it. Why build ticket booths if you are not going to charge for games? Perhaps I am missing something here...maybe there is some kind of rule that says they cannot charge or something. I know this...a 3 to 5 dollar charge to see a college softball game, especially an ACC game, would not deter me from going.

 

Thanks for the insight....

WndMllR,
Thanks for weighing in. Again, to your point, there are not clear answers to this subject, but it is interesting to at least hear different points of view from somebody that consistently lives in "the college softball world."

It never made sense to me why the big money schools didn't have softball, while some of the smaller, tighter budget schools did. Still doesn't.

Hopefully, the sport will continue to grow and prosper.....and girls will continue to receive academic opportunities as a result of this great sport.
DDD

 

...you've seen my work but you've yet to see the invoice I'm drawing for you right now!

 

I can't help but wonder if programs like Tennessee have not turne dthe corner and are starting to make money. With the facility they have running camps, t-shirts etc. They might be getting closer than many places. I often question the lack of effort from some coaches or ADs to look at ways to make a little. I agree about the charge at the gate. If UNC and UT draws 1500 three bucks ahead would be a positive move to pay some bills. I have paid more for a high school game.

 

....I may be mistaken, but I think that the vast majority, if not all of the camps/lessons profit goes to the coaches.

 

How could that be? That would be a disappointment if the money made in the name of a athletic program went to a private persons pocket. Is this a contract thing?

 

cmmguy, not really if you think about it...

... like most college baseball programs (probably even more so) the asst. coaches get paid almost nothing. As a matter of fact, I would imagine that except for the big, well funded schools that most head coaches aren't making much more than your average public school teacher. Ain't none of them on the "Butch Davis/Coach K Salary Plan"!

These folks dedicate their lives to teaching and coaching the game to our girls that make it to that level. The assistants do it for almost nothing in the hopes of one day becoming head coaches and then being able to make enough to live a decent life.
Most of these camps are held in the summer and around Christmas... the times we'd all like to have a few extra dollars in our pockets. I don't begrudge them at all for this, they earn it! If you think about it, in a way it does go to the programs. If there are no coaches then there is no program!

With that in mind, let me propose an idea to everyone. Think about the amount of money each travel ball player's family spends over the year on team fees, tournament fees, travel, accomodations, meals, gate fees, concessions, etc. It's actually scary when you think about it! Now, think about this... if every family of every travel player ages 8u to 18u gave the the cost of say one family meal (say $25) during a tournament weekend, to a college program each year... just how much better would those programs be funded? Let's say that there are an average of fifty teams in each age group in NC, with each team having an average of twelve players. So here's the math... 6 age groups (8u, 10u, 12u...) times 50 teams times 12 players times $25... that comes to $90,000 each year! Another way to look at it is this would fund about one full scholarship each year at every one of the state supported D-I universities here in North Carolina. Isn't this where our DD's want to be? If this is spread between all the schools (hint, hint tournament directors and coaches!) then there will be more opportunities for more girls to continue playing the game they love... right here in their home state.