Research Blog #8

My chief example for this argument is the decision made by then Rutgers athletic director Bob Mulcahy; to cut six great sports from the athletic program to "save money in a period of budget crisis." We see that these changes actually did nothing more but bring attention to the NCAA about regulating the Title IX effects hat were supposed to be put in place, and increased the amount of money dished out to mostly female sports. However, it also made it much easier to ignore proper allocation of funds to the other men's programs (apart from football and basketball), because although funds are to be split "equitably" among male and female programs, it does not say that every sport in each gender gets the same amount of money. In my opinion, that was the plan all along, and it seems to have worked so far. Those teams cut were no less competitive in their respective domains compared to other schools in their conferences, but they were apparently not good enough to stay. If we look at what those teams offered to the student body, school's athletic recognition, and their academic prowess, we see what a curious decision it was to take them away if not for one reason..



https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/rutgers-revisited-coalition-to-save-our-sports-responds-to-rutgers-media-statement/

http://www.onthebanks.com/2015/6/28/8761051/rutgers-athletics-title-ix