Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Edit | View ]

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: non-scholarship and Title IX--Link from last week's news -- JC, 17:10:47 02/03/03 Mon

there's a difference between walk-ons and non-scholarship players.......believe me, a majority if not all of the players at FU are recruited by the NCAA definition of the word, therefore, would count toward title IX stats, so that info. doesn't apply here........this non-recruited walk-on issue deals mostly with big time IA football programs dealing with the true walk-on (the kid that shows up in september unannounced and decides he wants to play football).

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Its simple. -- Peacock, 01:15:34 02/04/03 Tue

Football is also an expensive sport to maintain outside of scholarships. Consider the equipment, the high number of coaches and their salaries, rental of the field etc. The amount of dollars there has to be matched on the woman's side to comply with Title IX. It forces the administration to match these funds for the ladies side of the ledger in the budget.

If you want to take a shot at your administration, there is a revenue side here that does not count. Each and every player contributes dollars either from his own paid tuition, or aid programs. Not all aid comes from outside, some comes from endowment programs, but no matter how you cut it, non-scholarship football brings in revenue to the school, even when you subtract the additional costs of more professors to teach this increased student body. It could be argued that many of these students get their tuition costs cut, but one might be surprised how many students in gen pop actually pay full tuition. Of course you could also argue that you give the aid to deserving non-athletes and would get the increased revenue without the need for budgeting dollars for athletics. Therefor the question revolves around the need for Faifield to obtain additional students with their money ( either aid or otherwise) to carry the financial burdens. If Fairfield can meet their requirements for the student body without needing the recruitment of football players, a case can be made for its elimination when Title IX squeezes.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Its simple. -- Joe Ivy, 23:05:24 02/04/03 Tue

You are the first person on this site who understands the issues.

However, this argument does not take into account many other issues, such as the educational value of football, the culture of a scoiety that keeps losing opportunities,as well as alumni relations and publicity.

This agument goes deep and has many layers. It is disheaetening that the trend in the northeast is to give up on this that so many people value and have benifited in so many ways.

If everything came down to dollars and cents, then what is the point of living in this country.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Its simple. -- Peacock, 10:48:03 02/05/03 Wed

I understand the extra that you put forth, but no matter how you slice it, you have to view it in the totality of the issue which takes into account views of the non-sport minded people who as just happens, are in the majority. The complexity of the various pros and cons never allows one to get to the bottom line impact and the decision always flows to the side that has the most power. I am reasonably anti-Jesuit and believe the Jesuit schools with successful programs are the product of powerful alumni programs who control substantial amounts of money, while the smaller (money wise) schools trend towards less athletic exposure favored by the Jesuits. Anyone who has read the discussions in the Jesuit Magazine "Reflections" (?) would see that even the pro side taken by a BC Jesuit shows that Jesuits at large have little feelings for athletic programs.

[ Edit | View ]