ADVERTISEMENT

UCLA officially in the Big10

I can't imagine UCLA having a wrestling team.

Hell they can't even get 5k spectators at a football game.

FbwTIcWWQAIhUPV
 
  • Like
Reactions: LetsGoHawks83
I can't imagine UCLA having a wrestling team.

Hell they can't even get 5k spectators at a football game.

FbwTIcWWQAIhUPV
They average around 40,000 fans per game. Not quite USC numbers but still pretty good. Unfortunately there isn’t much of a market for wrestling in LA county. Been dealing with that reality for over 30 years.
 
Ok now I have a couple minutes.

Yes football brings in the money. Nobody is questioning that.

The rules are what they are and even the NCAA was smart enough to figure out how to balance it.

Track and Field and cross country...men are allowed 12.6 scholarships for men, 18 for women.

Rowing...men get 0, women get 20.

Field hockey women get 12.

Basketball, men get 13 women get 15.

Tennis, men get 4.5 women get 8

If a school wanted they could have equestrian and beach volleyball...women 21, men 0

Golf men get 4.5, women get 6

Soccer, men 9.9, women 14

Swimming, men 9.9, women 14

Hell I didn't even know that triathlon athletes could get scholarships...6.5 women, 0 men

Gymnastics, men 6.5, women 12.



All the above makes up for the extra opportunity for men through football. Might even seem unfair to some, but not to me. Hell I hate that there is only 12.6 scholarships for track and cross country for men. Have known guys that didn't get put on scholarship until they won a NCAA championship. A decent distance runner is going to compete in 3 seasons a year (CC, indoor, outdoor) and probably will not get a scholarship chance. Even with women it's similar as a normal track team will be around 40 people.

Full disclosure, I was a distance runner...the extra scholarships would have personally meant something to me. Would have been a difference maker if men where allowed 20.

Such is life.


All that said, a school already more or less in compliance is not going to get dinged for adding wrestling for both men and women. The room to be able to do so is already built into the amount of scholarships allowed per sport...and the extra womens sports that men do not have.

Just not going to happen.

You are hung up on the first test of Title IX. There is wiggle room on the other two tests. A school adding more opportunities for women is not going to get nailed to the wall if they add the same opportunities for men.
Athletic Directors are also completely hung up on the first test of Title IX. I know of one school (hint: They've dropped wrestling twice in this century alone) that specifically said "the survey costs too much to do Prong Three, and since we've dropped women's sports before, we're not eligible to do Prong Two (never mind that that's absolute horse-hockey)"...and I can imagine that (now former, thankfully) Athletic Director is not alone in the mindset of Prong Three.

To their credit, and I will mention them specifically by name, Missouri does use Prong Three. If they hadn't, wrestling would have likely gone poof the instant they joined the SEC.
 
Athletic Directors are also completely hung up on the first test of Title IX. I know of one school (hint: They've dropped wrestling twice in this century alone) that specifically said "the survey costs too much to do Prong Three, and since we've dropped women's sports before, we're not eligible to do Prong Two (never mind that that's absolute horse-hockey)"...and I can imagine that (now former, thankfully) Athletic Director is not alone in the mindset of Prong Three.

To their credit, and I will mention them specifically by name, Missouri does use Prong Three. If they hadn't, wrestling would have likely gone poof the instant they joined the SEC.

Personally I think it should become a Big Ten requirement to offer every sport available. The extra revenue should be able to cover the expenses.

I am all for more opportunities for every athlete in every sport.

Not sure where we play beach volleyball though :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: el dub
Ok now I have a couple minutes.

Yes football brings in the money. Nobody is questioning that.

The rules are what they are and even the NCAA was smart enough to figure out how to balance it.

Track and Field and cross country...men are allowed 12.6 scholarships for men, 18 for women.

Rowing...men get 0, women get 20.

Field hockey women get 12.

Basketball, men get 13 women get 15.

Tennis, men get 4.5 women get 8

If a school wanted they could have equestrian and beach volleyball...women 21, men 0

Golf men get 4.5, women get 6

Soccer, men 9.9, women 14

Swimming, men 9.9, women 14

Hell I didn't even know that triathlon athletes could get scholarships...6.5 women, 0 men

Gymnastics, men 6.5, women 12.



All the above makes up for the extra opportunity for men through football. Might even seem unfair to some, but not to me. Hell I hate that there is only 12.6 scholarships for track and cross country for men. Have known guys that didn't get put on scholarship until they won a NCAA championship. A decent distance runner is going to compete in 3 seasons a year (CC, indoor, outdoor) and probably will not get a scholarship chance. Even with women it's similar as a normal track team will be around 40 people.

Full disclosure, I was a distance runner...the extra scholarships would have personally meant something to me. Would have been a difference maker if men where allowed 20.

Such is life.


All that said, a school already more or less in compliance is not going to get dinged for adding wrestling for both men and women. The room to be able to do so is already built into the amount of scholarships allowed per sport...and the extra womens sports that men do not have.

Just not going to happen.

You are hung up on the first test of Title IX. There is wiggle room on the other two tests. A school adding more opportunities for women is not going to get nailed to the wall if they add the same opportunities for men.
Sorry but after all that you said. It just isn't so. The scholarships were apportioned decades ago and were based on an approximate 50/50 split in men vs women in the campus makeup. If the schools are now at 60% women and 40% men which is the national average, then adding wrestling for both wouldn't make it in compliance. The truth is that in all likelihood they are not 100% compliant. The NCAA allows schools to compete if they are moving towards compliance. Anyway, if they added both wrestling programs, they could add less than 7 scholarships for men if they added the maximum of 10 for women. You won't be competitive at the men's level and the NCAA isn't going to let you intentionally become farther out of compliance.
It's nowhere near as simple as you made it.
 
Sorry but after all that you said. It just isn't so. The scholarships were apportioned decades ago and were based on an approximate 50/50 split in men vs women in the campus makeup. If the schools are now at 60% women and 40% men which is the national average, then adding wrestling for both wouldn't make it in compliance. The truth is that in all likelihood they are not 100% compliant. The NCAA allows schools to compete if they are moving towards compliance. Anyway, if they added both wrestling programs, they could add less than 7 scholarships for men if they added the maximum of 10 for women. You won't be competitive at the men's level and the NCAA isn't going to let you intentionally become farther out of compliance.
It's nowhere near as simple as you made it.

Fine.

You all win. I will never advocate for the addition of Wrestling programs again.

I will just get stuck in the reality that's its just to hard to figure out a way to do it.
 
Personally I think it should become a Big Ten requirement to offer every sport available. The extra revenue should be able to cover the expenses.

I am all for more opportunities for every athlete in every sport.

Not sure where we play beach volleyball though :)
Wow. This isn't even remotely true. Men's football and in some places men's basketball pay all of the bills. Iowa some years may be able to add wrestling but that would be way outside the norm. All other sports generally run in the red financially. Heck women's basketball actually lost more money than any other women's sports at around $4.5 million due to higher expenses than other sports. like travel, and salaries and lower ticket prices.
 
Wow. This isn't even remotely true. Men's football and in some places men's basketball pay all of the bills. Iowa some years may be able to add wrestling but that would be way outside the norm. All other sports generally run in the red financially. Heck women's basketball actually lost more money than any other women's sports at around $4.5 million due to higher expenses than other sports. like travel, and salaries and lower ticket prices.

Um, I was speaking about the extra TV money from football.

Yes every other program outside of football and men's basketball loose money.

And I was being a bit tongue in cheek. It would probably cost north of 50 million a year to add every sport....and even the new income will not cover that much
 
Don’t understand why anyone would think that USC or UCLA should add any sports. As it stands, USC currently sponsors eight BigTen sports for men, the same as Iowa, Maryland, and Northwestern. UCLA sponsors nine, the same as Minnesota. Both schools also sponsor two sports that the BigTen does not, volleyball and water polo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: el dub
I would say add both men's and womens...problem solved.

Would actually hurt our womens recruiting a bit as Chun seems to get alot of girls from Cali and Nevada
Short term pain. Cali and Nevada has just been ahead of the curve on womens wrestling for a while....numbers help (read, population).... with the expanse and eventual quality growing, it soon will not matter geographically. Give it 3-4 years and you will see national recruiting, akin to mens wrestling
 
Personally I think it should become a Big Ten requirement to offer every sport available. The extra revenue should be able to cover the expenses.

I am all for more opportunities for every athlete in every sport.

Not sure where we play beach volleyball though :)
If that were a requirement, of course, the Big Ten would have exactly two institutions (Michigan and Ohio State), and only Penn State is one sport away (women's rowing). Every single other Big Ten institution would have to add at least four sports to stay compliant. (I'm only counting the 28 sports sponsored by the Big Ten, for those wondering)
 
If that were a requirement, of course, the Big Ten would have exactly two institutions (Michigan and Ohio State), and only Penn State is one sport away (women's rowing). Every single other Big Ten institution would have to add at least four sports to stay compliant. (I'm only counting the 28 sports sponsored by the Big Ten, for those wondering)

Well I was joking as it would be financially impossible....but getting to 28...that's do able. What ten, 15 million extra a year?

Yes I know it isn't going to happen. Will just keep dreaming of a day where there are more opportunities for those who excel in minor sports.

...and hell if the NAIA can do womens flag football, why not the Big Ten?

😀
 
Athletic Directors are also completely hung up on the first test of Title IX. I know of one school (hint: They've dropped wrestling twice in this century alone) that specifically said "the survey costs too much to do Prong Three, and since we've dropped women's sports before, we're not eligible to do Prong Two (never mind that that's absolute horse-hockey)"...and I can imagine that (now former, thankfully) Athletic Director is not alone in the mindset of Prong Three.

To their credit, and I will mention them specifically by name, Missouri does use Prong Three. If they hadn't, wrestling would have likely gone poof the instant they joined the SEC.
I coached at a school that dropped wrestling and they did take a survey. The results were overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the men's sports as there was not enough interest in creating a women's team in anything.

The survey never saw the light of day. It got buried because the women in the administration wanted men's sports gone and the AD wanted to give more money to football.

Thank goodness some schools have ADs that do not hate wrestling and the women are not calling the shots. Although I will say this - the women in sports do not seem to hate men as much as they used to. I guess it is a different generation.
 
Ug, for the last time, adding/subtracting any sports these days are all about Title 9 and finances. It's not my opinion whether I like it or not, it's reality.

Iowa balanced out it's numbers problem by adding women's wrestling. Barta could not care less about wrestling of any gender. It was a vehicle that made sense based on the Iowa fan base. It had nothing to do with, "Hey, let's be cool and lead the world with a women's wrestling team". That is secondary bi-product

Live in the world you'd prefer, I'm just pointing out reality

PS Did you run for Wiz?
A lawsuit decided Iowa should have women's wrestling not Barta. I still love it.
 
A lawsuit decided Iowa should have women's wrestling not Barta. I still love it.
Not true. There was a lawsuit and later settlement. Womens Wrestling added to get closer to the 60/40 proportionality. Women's wrestling did not exist and was not part of any lawsuit. It was Barta and clan that piggybacked on the men's program and new announced facility to solve their problem.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT