In Reply to: Re: you think Football subsidizes all because of women's sports???? posted by SehornBlew on January 30, 2024 at 09:33:07
You initially wrote a response to women's hoops being a huge 'money suck' believe you called it. Anthem responded and you wrote this:
"You completely missed my point. The point is to evade Title IX implications not exacerbate them. As I said below, why should football subsidize everything else? The only reason is Title IX."
Sehorn, you're a guy who posts what you're thinking - just fine with that of course - but i don't think you consider what it is you actually wrote. You know what you mean to say and if others respond to what you actually wrote rather than what you feel and meant to convey, you get all bent out of shape.
You're a football guy. Good for you. But for a university to have a sports program, an Athletics Department, that has to encompass all students.
You would rather that football be a separate entity entirely - its own financing, its own fund raising its, own NIL and all that. At a university - where a large number of people don't really care that much about sports, it's not just football that needs to try to be self-sustaining but the entire athletics department. For a university to have a department focused solely on athletics, they have to raise money. When they have one sport that makes a lot of money, they are going to ride that sport.
imo you have the cart before the horse - football was the driving force in college athletics long before Title IX. i read what you wrote, i just don't believe "The only reason is Title IX." The main reason is that Football is where the Athletic Departments raise the bulk of their money to support their sports. Title IX didn't change that in any way at all;; Title IX changed how the money raised by football was distributed within the athletics department - and which sports could be supported. Different thing.