volfanhill
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2011
- Messages
- 34,825
- Likes
- 60,568
Title 9 is the reason we dominate women’s soccer. This isn’t me saying I am pro title 9. But it’s why we dominate.
It also happens to be where the best female athletes go. For the men there are at least three other sports in front of soccer.In a way, yes, we have been funding it for far longer than anyone else. Also, many of the best female players grew up playing with boys from young ages, in the neighborhood, with older brothers and their friends, even in clubs to a certain age.
They have had the luck that we are America, and we had organized soccer with funding and ODP. We also have the best and most available "training" from camps to training centers to work on speed and agility and strength to sports psychology.
Soccer is a young man's game. Prime for most ends at about 28-30. This works in favor of the powerhouses who have depth and works against countries like us.
I thought Big Ang had passed?World Cup winner Allie Long is ROBBED: Thieves 'steal US star's $15,000 wedding ring and NYC key to the city' from her room at the LA Ritz-Carlton
World Cup winning soccer star Allie Long's Los Angeles hotel room was burgled on Thursday, with her wedding ring, money and honorary key to New York City stolen.
World Cup winner Allie Long is robbed as thieves steal $15,000 wedding ring from her hotel room | Daily Mail Online
Revenue minus expenses equals profit. Taking on funding of unprofitable women's sports equals added expenses. Expenses greater than revenue equals no profit. Try to keep up.
WTF? There are at most at any time 3 revenue positive sports at UT. If you got rid of the rest of the programs (men and women) the AD would stay in the black. I'll let you guess which ones those are. By your analogy getting rid of your wife would be the equivalent of getting rid of everyone of the programs with the exception of the 3 that I am talking about.The football program would still be profitable, the AD wouldn't. I've got it figured out. It's like you saying your employment isn't profitable because your wife spends beyond your means. Your employment is profitable, your household is not.
That's indistinguishable or subjective based on placement of large pools of revenue with or without specificity to sport. You could make those numbers say whatever you'd like, but when you generally have one sport making more than it spends and take all of that money to spend on Title IX compliance, that sport is not really profitable. If I'm a Farmer's Market and make loads of money on watermelon sales, and I spend all of that money on beets because I want to prop up their sales and my beet farmer friend, my watermelon sales are not really profitable in the general scheme of things.The football program would still be profitable, the AD wouldn't. I've got it figured out. It's like you saying your employment isn't profitable because your wife spends beyond your means. Your employment is profitable, your household is not.
WTF? There are at most at any time 3 revenue positive sports at UT. If you got rid of the rest of the programs (men and women) the AD would stay in the black. I'll let you guess which ones those are. By your analogy getting rid of your wife would be the equivalent of getting rid of everyone of the programs with the exception of the 3 that I am talking about.