2015 NCAA Top College Revenue

[RockEyeState]

Wonder if Minnesota relates to the rental of the stadium to the Vikings

Without the Taxpayers of Minnesota subsidy, IOWA would be ahead of the Gophers of course.

Other interesting items: IOWA more revenues than : UCLA, Nebraska, Fla State, UNC, Kansas..

And some of these programs get over 50% from Taxpayer subsidies: Colo State, Houston, Rutgers, UCONN (40%)!

 

[ichawk24]

Not sure why Iowa gets student fees for a profitable operation.

Iowa does not use student fees to support athletics.

Here are the current fees:
http://registrar.uiowa.edu/mandatory-fees

 

[5Fan5]

Iowa does not use student fees to support athletics.

Here are the current fees:
http://registrar.uiowa.edu/mandatory-fees

This is not accurate.

 

[ichawk24]

The university's own web site is inaccurate to the fee schedule?

What is inaccurate about it? I'll call Bruce Harreld with your changes.

 

[RockEyeState]

The university's own web site is inaccurate to the fee schedule?

What is inaccurate about it? I'll call Bruce Harreld with your changes.

Student Fee schedule has ZERO implication in the Athletic revenue numbers reported here.

Another Tough guy going after President Harreld, here?? LOL

 

[5Fan5]

The university's own web site is inaccurate to the fee schedule?

What is inaccurate about it? I'll call Bruce Harreld with your changes.

I am not sure where your confusion lies here. At one time, the three public universities domiciled in Iowa made use or dollars from the general fund (read: taxpayers) to help meet anticipated shortfalls in athletic operations. Along about 2011, the State of Iowa mandated that those universities find other means of support. The University of Iowa had already weened itself from having general fund monies funneled to its athletic department - others continued the practice of using general fund money until the imposed deadline.

Currently the University of Iowa and at least one other state institution uses student fees to supplement athletic facilities and operations. I believe that to be explained within the resource information (link) that you provided. Read it once more and tell me/us what you see there.

 

[ichawk24]

The University of Iowa uses student fees to pay for the Campus Wellness and Recreation Center, a fee that was voted on and approved by the student population. The Athletics Department oversaw the planning and construction of the CRWC, since they are experienced in the building of athletic facilities. When you see the USA Today claim that Iowa receives $683k in subsidies, those are not actual subsidies. That is money that is allocated from student fees to the AD as it pays down debt servicing on CRWC.

Student fees do not support the athletic department or any of it's facilities. Not directly, nor indirectly (telecommunications and other infrastructure).

 

[5Fan5]

The University of Iowa uses student fees to pay for the Campus Wellness and Recreation Center, a fee that was voted on and approved by the student population. The Athletics Department oversaw the planning and construction of the CRWC, since they are experienced in the building of athletic facilities. When you see the USA Today claim that Iowa receives $683k in subsidies, those are not actual subsidies. That is money that is allocated from student fees to the AD as it pays down debt servicing on CRWC.

Student fees do not support the athletic department or any of it's facilities. Not directly, nor indirectly (telecommunications and other infrastructure).

And that is nothing more than a argument of semantics. The Campus Wellness and Recreation Center, as well as other facilities serve the general student population at the University of Iowa. That includes all students. Were it not for the CWCR, there could be demands from those very same students for use of alternative athletic facilities for classes, fitness, recreation and the like.

If it makes you feel any better, call the $683K whatever you like. It will not change the fact that Iowa, similar to several other universities utilizes fees charged to students to allow the Athletic Department to operate without the need to rely on general fund dollars.

 

[ichawk24]

Whatever. Troll.

 

[seiowaisufan]

I am not sure where your confusion lies here. At one time, the three public universities domiciled in Iowa made use or dollars from the general fund (read: taxpayers) to help meet anticipated shortfalls in athletic operations. Along about 2011, the State of Iowa mandated that those universities find other means of support. The University of Iowa had already weened itself from having general fund monies funneled to its athletic department - others continued the practice of using general fund money until the imposed deadline.

Currently the University of Iowa and at least one other state institution uses student fees to supplement athletic facilities and operations. I believe that to be explained within the resource information (link) that you provided. Read it once more and tell me/us what you see there.

The other state institution that no longer uses public funds is ISU, its ok to say it. The board of regents never had a problem with schools using public funding for athletics until Iowa, thanks to the money flowing in from the new BTN, got off the dole. Then for the first time, its brought up. ISU stopped using public funds within two years. It has quietly been dropped as a talking point, by the BOR, UNI will never get off the public dole, TV money is just now there for it to happen. I have always wondered why the BOR never had a problem with the practice until Iowa became self funded, and went quiet about the idea after Iowa State did.

 

[5Fan5]

Whatever. Troll.

Your welcome.

(And thank you for your tacit admission of being wrong.)

 

[5Fan5]

The other state institution that no longer uses public funds is ISU, its ok to say it. The board of regents never had a problem with schools using public funding for athletics until Iowa, thanks to the money flowing in from the new BTN, got off the dole. Then for the first time, its brought up. ISU stopped using public funds within two years. It has quietly been dropped as a talking point, by the BOR, UNI will never get off the public dole, TV money is just now there for it to happen. I have always wondered why the BOR never had a problem with the practice until Iowa became self funded, and went quiet about the idea after Iowa State did.

The sole reason isu does not any longer take taxpayer dollars from the general fund is because the clock expired on them being able to do so. If the BOR never had a problem, why was it continually a point of contention to the extent that some wanted others to believe it really did not involve taxpayer monies at all?

isu stopped using general fund dollars because isu was no longer allowed to use general fund dollars. Up to that point in time, isu made full use of these funds to support its athletic department. The information from the link indicates that isu used nearly $11 million dollars from 2008 to 2011. It has only been three years since isu was on that dole provided by the State of Iowa. The BOR 'went quiet' (or was public until) when isu finally got the message and stopped using those funds per the mandate.

The underlying question has to be why? Why did isu need to rely on non-athletic generated revenue right up until the last second of it being available. isu is not faced with serving an over abundance of athletic opportunities to its student body. Quite the opposite, isu offers less than several other schools in terms of number of sports offered and numbers of athletes served.

Most importantly, what did isu receive for its over-spending administration of athletics?

 

[seiowaisufan]

The sole reason isu does not any longer take taxpayer dollars from the general fund is because the clock expired on them being able to do so. If the BOR never had a problem, why was it continually a point of contention to the extent that some wanted others to believe it really did not involve taxpayer monies at all?

isu stopped using general fund dollars because isu was no longer allowed to use general fund dollars. Up to that point in time, isu made full use of these funds to support its athletic department. The information from the link indicates that isu used nearly $11 million dollars from 2008 to 2011. It has only been three years since isu was on that dole provided by the State of Iowa. The BOR 'went quiet' (or was public until) when isu finally got the message and stopped using those funds per the mandate.

The underlying question has to be why? Why did isu need to rely on non-athletic generated revenue right up until the last second of it being available. isu is not faced with serving an over abundance of athletic opportunities to its student body. Quite the opposite, isu offers less than several other schools in terms of number of sports offered and numbers of athletes served.

Most importantly, what did isu receive for its over-spending administration of athletics?

5 you are trying to rewrite history here. The reason that Iowa stopped using state money was BTN started and the money started to flow in, then Iowa stopped using state funds for athletes. It was at this point when the BOR stated the goal of having all state funded schools also stop using state funds. But ISU repeated that they would be self funded within two years, and that is what happened. After ISU became self funded, through money from the Big 12, the BOR dropped the idea, or at least put it on the back burner. Why BOR not have a problem with state schools using state funds for athletes for years, with no problem and why did it become a problem only after Iowa became self funding, is a question we will never know. The BOR has always until last year been very pro Iowa at the expense of ISU and UNI. For an example just look at the state funding each school was receiving, for each student from Iowa. Was a very pro Iowa deal.

 

[cidhawkeye]

5 you are trying to rewrite history here. The reason that Iowa stopped using state money was BTN started and the money started to flow in, then Iowa stopped using state funds for athletes. It was at this point when the BOR stated the goal of having all state funded schools also stop using state funds. But ISU repeated that they would be self funded within two years, and that is what happened. After ISU became self funded, through money from the Big 12, the BOR dropped the idea, or at least put it on the back burner. Why BOR not have a problem with state schools using state funds for athletes for years, with no problem and why did it become a problem only after Iowa became self funding, is a question we will never know. The BOR has always until last year been very pro Iowa at the expense of ISU and UNI. For an example just look at the state funding each school was receiving, for each student from Iowa. Was a very pro Iowa deal.

So you are saying that Iowa was never self supporting prior to the Big Ten Network starting? Just want to make sure I understand.

 

[seiowaisufan]

So you are saying that Iowa was never self supporting prior to the Big Ten Network starting? Just want to make sure I understand.

Correct that is what I am saying, I am not ripping on Iowa. All three schools were using tax payer money to support athletics. No one had a problem with it, including the BOR. But once Iowa started receiving money from the BTN, and were in the black, the BOR expected every school in the state system to do it. Iowa St. said they would be in the black in two years, and were. The BOR then stopped talking about it, why did they not keep pushing the idea, because it would destroy the UNI program. But they seem to be more than willing to destroy ISU before that along with UNI.

 

[cidhawkeye]

Correct that is what I am saying, I am not ripping on Iowa. All three schools were using tax payer money to support athletics. No one had a problem with it, including the BOR. But once Iowa started receiving money from the BTN, and were in the black, the BOR expected every school in the state system to do it. Iowa St. said they would be in the black in two years, and were. The BOR then stopped talking about it, why did they not keep pushing the idea, because it would destroy the UNI program. But they seem to be more than willing to destroy ISU before that along with UNI.

In their 2003 strategic plan they announced a 5 year plan to become self sufficient, did they know at that time the Big Ten Network was a reality and what the revenue stream would be? It wasn't in their projections or mentioned.

 

[seiowaisufan]

I googled the report you listed, and Iowa was in the black five of six years before BTN came on line. My point is the BOR never had a problem with supplying extra money until BTN came online and then they expected all three schools to be. After two years ISU was also in the black, and then we never heard anymore about it. My question is why? UNI is still in the red, but nothing is said about it. Now, I do not have a problem with the state giving money to UNI, I do have a problem with the BOR playing favorites in the past. All three universities should be treated the same, not favoring one over the other two, and that is what has happened until this past year.

 

[cidhawkeye]

I googled the report you listed, and Iowa was in the black five of six years before BTN came on line. My point is the BOR never had a problem with supplying extra money until BTN came online and then they expected all three schools to be. After two years ISU was also in the black, and then we never heard anymore about it. My question is why? UNI is still in the red, but nothing is said about it. Now, I do not have a problem with the state giving money to UNI, I do have a problem with the BOR playing favorites in the past. All three universities should be treated the same, not favoring one over the other two, and that is what has happened until this past year.

So UNI should be the same as Iowa and ISU? Please explain how that would work? Equal expenditures? Why should a program that is more successful and in the black 5 of the previous 6 years be treated the same as a less successful program?

 

[seiowaisufan]

So UNI should be the same as Iowa and ISU? Please explain how that would work? Equal expenditures? Why should a program that is more successful and in the black 5 of the previous 6 years be treated the same as a less successful program?

That is not what I am saying at all. No, UNI should not be expected to be in the black, they never will be. My point goes to the BOR, they never said a word about schools athletic budget in the red, until Iowa was off the dole. Then they wanted all three schools to be, ISU achieved that, and the whole thing is dropped. They were going after Iowa State plan and simple, when they saw that ISU was also going to be off the dole, they let the whole thing drop. My question is why was even brought up, when all three schools had been receiving money for athletics for years.

Look at the OP list, the BTN has been a money making cow for the conference, which is great, I am just saying the BOR needs to start treating all three schools as equals, instead of favoring Iowa. That does not mean with equal athletic budgets or anything like that. They started that last year with the change in school aid that each school receives for an instate student. That should have been changed long ago.

 

[5Fan5]

I googled the report you listed, and Iowa was in the black five of six years before BTN came on line. My point is the BOR never had a problem with supplying extra money until BTN came online and then they expected all three schools to be. After two years ISU was also in the black, and then we never heard anymore about it. My question is why? UNI is still in the red, but nothing is said about it. Now, I do not have a problem with the state giving money to UNI, I do have a problem with the BOR playing favorites in the past. All three universities should be treated the same, not favoring one over the other two, and that is what has happened until this past year.

That is an overwhelming majority of your bias and problem... relying on google and wiki for your information and pretending that it is always factual and correct.

Stop beating around the bush here. Put some actual dates and time frames in the context of your utter nonsense. When you do that you will quickly see how foolish your conjecture on this matter is. The 'woe is me.... everyone is out to get poor little ole isu' is comical.

The BOR never favored Iowa - that is something you have construed as an isu fan. Both Iowa and isu were informed that the practice of utilizing general fund (taxpayer) dollars to fund athlectic department operations needed to cease. In a general sense (without bias toward either school) people within Iowa were beginning to more carefully scrutinize where tax expenditures were actually being spent. Many were questioning and voicing stronger opinions on the issue of taxes being ultimately appropriated/directed to athletic operations. The issue was a topic here annually with several isu fans trying very hard to convince others that the general fund really did not include monies derived from state income taxes. It was hilarious to see unfold.

Again, there was no master plan on the part of isu. The State of Iowa said there would be an end to the practice and isu was left will no real say in the matter. isu had to comply. Yet, the most important point is that isu continued to utilize those monies right up until the point that the state said no more.

Show the facts you think you know. Give us dates and time lines here. Otherwise, take your nonsense back over to CR/CF where at least you will have someone to support your notion.

[Hey, is/was not the current head of this mean, isu-hating BOR cited recently for a 'business' deal he attempted with isu? Tell us how that one favored Iowa.]

 

[5Fan5]

That is not what I am saying at all. No, UNI should not be expected to be in the black, they never will be. My point goes to the BOR, they never said a word about schools athletic budget in the red, until Iowa was off the dole. Then they wanted all three schools to be, ISU achieved that, and the whole thing is dropped. They were going after Iowa State plan and simple, when they saw that ISU was also going to be off the dole, they let the whole thing drop. My question is why was even brought up, when all three schools had been receiving money for athletics for years.

Look at the OP list, the BTN has been a money making cow for the conference, which is great, I am just saying the BOR needs to start treating all three schools as equals, instead of favoring Iowa. That does not mean with equal athletic budgets or anything like that. They started that last year with the change in school aid that each school receives for an instate student. That should have been changed long ago.

Why should isu not be striving to be self sufficient? Why should isu, a big 8/big xii member institution not be able to better manage its resources to fund an athletic department? What is unique or special about isu, particularly in comparison with Iowa that they should be able to use general fund dollars each and every year until just three years ago (2012)?

isu came off the dole because the State of Iowa dictated so - not the other way around.

At the time of the inception of the BTN we all heard and read from isu experts on the issue what a boondoggle it would be. No one would watch its programming. It would be destined to fail. Fans were already exiting the mid-western states in alarming numbers - how could an enterprise like the BTN ever be successful.

The facts are that Iowa has long managed its AD in a more sensible fashion than has isu. The University of Iowa offers more sports participation to more student athletes and does it more efficiently than does isu. For some unknown reason, isu struggled to maintain the minimal level of activities offered to significantly fewer students and still needed to have state support from the general fund coffer until it was no longer available to them. The question is why?

 

[cidhawkeye]

Iowa comes up with a strategic plan prior to the BOR mentioning it, implements plan and is successful. BOR says 'hey that's a good idea, we should have ISU do that as well' ISU is forced to do so, takes advantage of the general fund until the last possible moment and then complies. BOR says 'mission accomplished' and doesn't mention it again because the process is over and that shows favoritism to Iowa? Do you want the BOR to bring it up each fiscal year with a news release 'as it has been for the past 4 years both Iowa and Iowa State athletics don't receive general fund money' do they do that for all of the projects they complete?

To wrap it up a little. Do you think that if ISU had come up with the strategic plan in 2003 to achieve this goal and had accomplished it that the BOR would have made Iowa do the same? Or since it is so unfair the BOR would have said 'Iowa don't worry about being self sufficient like ISU, you are our favorite so keep taking that general fund tax money'. Feel free to spin this part away without being disengenuos.

 

[Lone Clone]

Iowa comes up with a strategic plan prior to the BOR mentioning it, implements plan and is successful. BOR says 'hey that's a good idea, we should have ISU do that as well' ISU is forced to do so, takes advantage of the general fund until the last possible moment and then complies. BOR says 'mission accomplished' and doesn't mention it again because the process is over and that shows favoritism to Iowa? Do you want the BOR to bring it up each fiscal year with a news release 'as it has been for the past 4 years both Iowa and Iowa State athletics don't receive general fund money' do they do that for all of the projects they complete?

To wrap it up a little. Do you think that if ISU had come up with the strategic plan in 2003 to achieve this goal and had accomplished it that the BOR would have made Iowa do the same? Or since it is so unfair the BOR would have said 'Iowa don't worry about being self sufficient like ISU, you are our favorite so keep taking that general fund tax money'. Feel free to spin this part away without being disengenuos.

Good Lord. That isn't even close to what happened. Wow.

 

[seiowaisufan]

That is an overwhelming majority of your bias and problem... relying on google and wiki for your information and pretending that it is always factual and correct.

Stop beating around the bush here. Put some actual dates and time frames in the context of your utter nonsense. When you do that you will quickly see how foolish your conjecture on this matter is. The 'woe is me.... everyone is out to get poor little ole isu' is comical.

The BOR never favored Iowa - that is something you have construed as an isu fan. Both Iowa and isu were informed that the practice of utilizing general fund (taxpayer) dollars to fund athlectic department operations needed to cease. In a general sense (without bias toward either school) people within Iowa were beginning to more carefully scrutinize where tax expenditures were actually being spent. Many were questioning and voicing stronger opinions on the issue of taxes being ultimately appropriated/directed to athletic operations. The issue was a topic here annually with several isu fans trying very hard to convince others that the general fund really did not include monies derived from state income taxes. It was hilarious to see unfold.

Again, there was no master plan on the part of isu. The State of Iowa said there would be an end to the practice and isu was left will no real say in the matter. isu had to comply. Yet, the most important point is that isu continued to utilize those monies right up until the point that the state said no more.

Show the facts you think you know. Give us dates and time lines here. Otherwise, take your nonsense back over to CR/CF where at least you will have someone to support your notion.

[Hey, is/was not the current head of this mean, isu-hating BOR cited recently for a 'business' deal he attempted with isu? Tell us how that one favored Iowa.]

5 you lost me when you said the BOR never favored Iowa, that is an outright lie. Until last year the BOR gave more money for instate students that attended Iowa than they gave ISU or UNI. That formula was changed just last year, there were plenty of people complaining about it, and how the BOR was taking 11 million dollars a year away from Iowa and giving it to ISU and UNI.
Did these occur or not? Do not come on here and say the BOR has not favored Iowa over the other two schools.
You want another example, during the 80's ISU was forced to sell off WOI-TV from the university, at the time, ISU was the only university in America that owned a tv station in a top 50 market, the tv journalism program at ISU was one of the three best in the country along with Syracuse and Missouri. The sale of WOI destroyed that part of the journalism department.
The idea that Iowa state would be the university of iowa at ames, and uni would be the university of iowa at cedar falls, is another example of favoritism by the BOR.

Maybe the University of Iowa should be forced to sell the hospital to say Mercy Medical, I am sure that it would bring in much needed revenue for the state, what do you say there 5?

 

[seiowaisufan]

Why should isu not be striving to be self sufficient? Why should isu, a big 8/big xii member institution not be able to better manage its resources to fund an athletic department? What is unique or special about isu, particularly in comparison with Iowa that they should be able to use general fund dollars each and every year until just three years ago (2012)?

isu came off the dole because the State of Iowa dictated so - not the other way around.

At the time of the inception of the BTN we all heard and read from isu experts on the issue what a boondoggle it would be. No one would watch its programming. It would be destined to fail. Fans were already exiting the mid-western states in alarming numbers - how could an enterprise like the BTN ever be successful.

The facts are that Iowa has long managed its AD in a more sensible fashion than has isu. The University of Iowa offers more sports participation to more student athletes and does it more efficiently than does isu. For some unknown reason, isu struggled to maintain the minimal level of activities offered to significantly fewer students and still needed to have state support from the general fund coffer until it was no longer available to them. The question is why?

ISU has been praised for doing more with less for years, Iowa has always had a bigger budget, and I do not have a problem with that. My problem was with the BOR, having a plan to be in the black and getting there are two totally different things. Iowa can offer more sports because of the larger budget, plan and simple. Iowa has a football stadium that holds 10,000 more fans, Iowa for years has been charging higher prices and making people pay a ton of money to keep their seats. These things are not necessary bad, but a lot of Iowa fans I know, feel the university is and has in the past been putting a squeeze on the fan base for quite awhile.

 

[seiowaisufan]

Iowa comes up with a strategic plan prior to the BOR mentioning it, implements plan and is successful. BOR says 'hey that's a good idea, we should have ISU do that as well' ISU is forced to do so, takes advantage of the general fund until the last possible moment and then complies. BOR says 'mission accomplished' and doesn't mention it again because the process is over and that shows favoritism to Iowa? Do you want the BOR to bring it up each fiscal year with a news release 'as it has been for the past 4 years both Iowa and Iowa State athletics don't receive general fund money' do they do that for all of the projects they complete?

To wrap it up a little. Do you think that if ISU had come up with the strategic plan in 2003 to achieve this goal and had accomplished it that the BOR would have made Iowa do the same? Or since it is so unfair the BOR would have said 'Iowa don't worry about being self sufficient like ISU, you are our favorite so keep taking that general fund tax money'. Feel free to spin this part away without being disengenuos.

So each and every state school must be self funded in athletics, then why did they not say anything about it until Iowa had achieved that and why did they not follow through and make UNI become self funded? I do not care when Iowa had a plan, they said and did nothing about it until Iowa had, then dropped the idea two years later when ISU was also. I suppose its just a coincidence is what you are saying. Keep believing that, and how the BOR has never favored Iowa over the other two.

 

[Tiggerhawk]

Student Fee schedule has ZERO implication in the Athletic revenue numbers reported here.

Wrong. The Gannett/USA Today categorized data from the NCAA to reach a false conclusion, one that does have a clear, direct AND false implication in regard to the use of student fees to subsidize the Iowa athletic department. Iowa until a few years ago did allocate a share of the Student Activity,Student Services Fee to the athletic program (without any relationship to student ticket purchases). The decision to end this subsidization was in response to concerns voice by Regents, but more directly to extensive criticism within the University community, especially the Faculty Senate. Barta, Meyer & the athletic department administrators were in an extremely awkward position to oppose the pressure: The success of the football program, Iowa's share of BT television & bowl games plus NCAA Hoops tournament monies, and the desire of Presidents Skorton & Boyd to get rid of the payments to the athletic department brought focus on the fact that Iowa athletics were bringing in profits of over ten million dollars in the recent years.(BTN was NOT a factor: it had yet to reach the point it was returning profits).

The most glaring error of the USA Today distortion was that it misconstrued the data reported by Iowa to the NCAA. When the U undertook to build a new campus rec center the Athletic Dept was directed to administer the construction & initial operation of that facility (because of its expertise from building numerous similar sports facilities): administer, but not own or control. The rec center was facility for use by the general student body,When the athletic dept uses facilities at the rec center (for example, in hosting BT swim meets and gymnastic tournaments), it pays the university for the costs. Al registration, all students now pay an additional fee---the Recreation Facility Fee--giving them full use of programs, equipment, etc, some instructional courses with additional modest charges. Such a fee has long been a chosen means to defray the costs of new or upgraded facilities: in the 1940s, a $15 per semester fee was initiated to pay for a central library; in the 1950s a $13 fee for an expansion of the Student Union. But such fees have NEVER been added in reference to new athletic programs or facilities.

Hawkeye athletic programs operate in the black year after year, they receive no public funds nor student fees (they just occasionally raise the prices of student tickets). No state appropriations or other public monies, or diversion of general university funds is used for capital investments in arenas, playing fields, stadium, etc.The athletic department pays the university the tuition, fees, room & board (when relevant) for athletic scholarships.

On a last point, with reference to comments above about the possible addition at Iowa of hockey and the impact of Title IX. There is little doubt that the Hawkeyes will introduce a hockey program, perhaps quite soon (an entreprenour is proposing to build a private arena at River Landing in Coralville, seating between 6000 & 8000, hoping to arrange a lease with the Hawkeyes. One of the unresolved questions is whether the Iowa teams would be male or female as well (either or both would be welcomed by the BT to get to the required minimum teams to qualify for NCAA post-season play. Another possible expansion of Hawkeye athletics might be adding lacrosse. Again, either a men's program or women's or eventually maybe both (again, the BT would appreciate the help in meeting the NCAA minimum number for a conference to qualify for post-season tournaments)

And sometime in the near future the Iowa Athletic Department will be no longer able to avoid adding a male version of the world's leading sport. The women's soccer is on track to become a major player in the BT and NCAA. Like hockey, men's soccer has outgrown "club" status---maybe rugby as well.

A very real possibility is that Iowa begins a men's hockey program combined with women's lacrosse. This would enhance Iowa's splendid reputation for pioneering and complying with Title IX. The federal law requires not equity, but evidence of significant efforts to reach something close to gender parity of provision of and expenditure on sports programs.

 

[Lone Clone]

A very real possibility is that Iowa begins a men's hockey program combined with women's lacrosse. This would enhance Iowa's splendid reputation for pioneering and complying with Title IX. The federal law requires not equity, but evidence of significant efforts to reach something close to gender parity of provision of and expenditure on sports programs.

SUI is currently under investigation for problems in compliance with Title IX, so I would say its reputation is something less than splendid at this point.

And while you are correctly quoting the letter of the law, in practice you are wrong. Last time I checked there had NEVER been a school found in compliance with Title IX that did not meet the quota segment of the three-legged test.

Tigger, most of what you wrote was interesting and spot-on; I think you would enjoy reading a book called "Tilting the Playing Field" by Jessica Gavora about the history of Title IX.