Research Blog #9

My argument rests on the fact that athletic programs lean too much on their "staple sports" to bring in revenue for the rest of the sports, and big corporations are flocking to the sports that could make them the most money as well. The misallocation of funds among men's sports and females' sports is also slightly accentuated by the implementation of Title IX, which in a way allows this more favored behavior among sport programs.
A counter-argument is the rise of many female sports programs thanks to Title IX, and the amenities it brings to those teams so they can be able to perform at a higher level and compete against the best.
My thesis question was trying to find out if corporations could help change the tide around athletic funding, and if so how? Also finding out how Tile IX has affected the playing fields, and if that is really a concern for the future.

One opposing argument on this would be the actual dominance of football and basketball on a national scale compared to other sports, which is why these two sports are heavily publicized and pushed to generate more revenue. But, when we look outside of the U.S, these two sports are nowhere close to the revenue other sports bring in outside, and the same goes with their popularity. The universal sports are pulling in great numbers.

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

Research Blog #7

One major theory that helps me put my paper together is the corporation's involvement in athletic programs in general, and how it is affecting the monetary transactions of those universities.
Another theory that is guiding my paper is Title IX which was a result from women's rights and lack of support for female sports in general, and this changed the structure of college sports when serious implementations of the law started taking place.These two ideas basically help guide my paper towards its eventual conclusion which will be finding a possible culmination to this issue.
In "Title IX and Men's "Minor" Sports: A False Conflict," we see that although Title IX is in effect nationwide in the U.S, "female athletes [are] still [getting] the short end of the stick." It also mentions that Title IX is not to be viewed as the problem for men's funding for sports other than football and basketball, but it is rather the misallocation of these funds among men's sports that is to be seen as the main problem. This unearths many suspicions about the Title IX saga and why funds have been drastically cut from men's programs unlike female programs.

Research Blog #6

This is a visual showing how many men's scholarship the football program obtained in the 2013-2014 season. It helps us understand the monopoly of Football at Rutgers compared to all other men's programs (or lack there of), and shows the plain disregard other programs are shown because of their financial?revenue capacities

Research Blog #5

Carpenter, Linda Jean, and R. Vivian Acosta. Title IX. Champaign, Il: Human Kinetics, 2005

"Data: Cutting Sports Fuels More than Football." SportsBusiness Daily SportsBusiness Daily Global. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2017.

Finn Jr., Chester E. "The Cost of College Sports." American Jewish Committee. Oct. 2001, vol. 112, issue 3, p.53, 5p.

"Rutgers Revisited: Coalition to Save Our Sports Responds to Rutgers Media Statement." Swimming World News. N.p., 27 July 2014. Web. 14 Apr. 2017.

Sargeant, Keith. "Rutgers to Distribute Some Athletes $4K in Cost of Attendance Stipend." NJ.com. NJ, 28 July 2015. Web. 14 Apr. 2017. <http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2015/07/rutgers_ad_julie_hermann_cost_of_attendance.html>.

Schneider, Raymond G. "COLLEGE STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS ON THE PAYMENT OF INTERCOLLEGIATE STUDENT-ATHLETES." College Student Journal. June, 2001, vol 31, issue p.232

"The NCAA Division I Athletic Funding Crisis." ASHE Higher Education Report 41.5 (2015): 25-47. ASHE Higher Education Report. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Aug. 2015. Web. 12 Mar. 2017.

"Title IX and Men's "Minor" Sports: A False Conflict." National Women's Law Center. July, 2008.

Literature Review #1

     Carpenter, Linda Jean, and R. Vivian Acosta. Title IX. Champaign, Il: Human Kinetics, 2005.


The book is about male and female equality in sports and in social life through Title IX, and what implications this has on society in general. The book interprets policies and regulations of the Title IX saga, and it goes through the process of getting to this decision.

Carpenter has been involved in Title IX and gender equity issues in sport for over 30 years, and she is sought after after to speak at multiple conferences. She is also a professor at New York's Brooklyn College, and has received numerous awards for her work on sport equality and so on. Dr. Acosta is a former president of the NAGWS (National Association for Girls and Women in Sport), and has been involved in this kind of work for more than 30 years as well. She works with Carpenter at New York's Brooklyn College, and has written quite a bit on the topic as well.

One obvious key term defined in the very beginning of the book is Title IX, which basically states that "no person in the U.S shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance"
Specifically for higher education sports, allocation of resources should be distributed fairly equal for both male and females as a whole, and if institutions cannot prove that the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex are not being met then, they are liable for convocation with the board of NCAA to explain themselves.

"In providing financial assistance to any of its students, a recipient shall not on the basis of sex, provide different amount.. of such assistance, [or] limit eligibility for such assistance" (66).
"The policy interpretations tell us that financial aid dollars need to be distributed in "substantially equal amounts""(69)
"The policy interpretations graciously provide two acceptable excuses for not meeting the "substantially equal" yardstick: (1) imbalances created by non-discriminatory grants of in-state versus out-of-state-fees and (2) when not all financial aid available in a given year is distributed so that a new team is able to stagger grants over the first few years of the team's existence." (71)

So, what I would like to address is the lack of scholarships, or simply the lack of interest to fund scholarships for a Men's tennis program at Rutgers New Brunswick. I will attempt to break down all the pieces impeding this from happening, and find out why Men's tennis is one of the D1 collegiate disciplines that has taken a back seat to the football program (a lack-luster football program now to say the least).