National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Letter - Nothing has changed but the numbers
|
Sent by Bill Brill
Retired sports editor Roanoke (Virginia) Times
Retired sports editor Roanoke (Virginia) Times
After reading the article titled “The opportunities and challenges of Title IX” (May 21 issue of The NCAA News), I was reminded of the time nearly 15 years ago when I wrote a column for the News stating that Title IX and diversity were at loggerheads with each other.
At the time, in the early ’90s, the NCAA had reduced scholarships in men’s sports, essentially a minimum of 10 percent. The reason for the reductions is that the NCAA, then as now, had no answer for football, which had 85 grants after the cut from 95, and no comparable sport for women. As a result, in almost every sport, women now have more grants available than men.
The real problem with those cuts — men’s basketball was trimmed to 13 while the women remained at 15 — is that football and men’s basketball were where the most minorities were. Reducing football by 10 grants annually meant that more than five African-Americans did not get scholarships, every year, at all Division I-A schools. In basketball, with more than 300 teams in Division I, there was a cut of two scholarships in a sport in which 62 percent of the players were black.
Shortly thereafter, the NCAA named eight “emerging sports” in which women could get scholarships. I wrote another piece for The NCAA News in which I pointed out that almost all of these opportunities would go to white girls.
Three years later, there were 2,300 additional women scholarship athletes in Division I-A. Of that total, 92 percent were white, 2 percent black, and the other 6 percent were Europeans, who were mostly white. There was nothing racist about any of this. The facts were that almost all schools already had basketball and track and field — sports high in minority athletes. But precious few participated in synchronized swimming, rowing, field hockey or softball.
About that time, NCAA Executive Director Cedric Dempsey professed amazement, and concern, over a reduction in percentage of black athletes. The answer was obvious. Sports had been added in which blacks did not participate in high school, and scholarships were reduced in football and men’s basketball, where most participants were African-American.
Nothing has changed since then. Women continue to get more and more of the pie, but given football’s huge number of participants, they never will catch up.
It also is puzzling that critics continue to hammer away at salaries paid to football and men’s basketball coaches. In particular, football salaries have gone out the roof.
James Moeser, chancellor at North Carolina, was a member of the NCAA presidential task force studying these salaries. The task force, understanding that the issue had to be dealt with by individual institutions, stated that it wanted to see the salaries controlled.
Moeser then returned to Chapel Hill, where the school hired a new football coach, Butch Davis, at nearly $2 million annually — triple the salary of the deposed John Bunting. It certainly wasn’t his fault. Football and basketball salaries are marketplace driven, headed by Alabama’s hiring of NFL coach Lou Saban for more than $4 million annually, a decision that trickled down to other coaches who had contracts assuring them comparable pay to the top gun. UNC basketball coach Roy Williams signed a long-term deal worth $2.6 million in its final year.
But Anita DeFrantz (quoted in the May 21 News article) ignores what has happened in women’s basketball, where salaries have escalated in recent years. When Gail Goestenkors went from Duke to Texas, she became the third coach (Pat Summitt, Geno Auriemma) to make more than $1 million. Coaches of other high-profile programs are certain to pass that barrier in upcoming years, no matter how much money their school loses.
Let’s be realistic. I can’t imagine anything that would slow down the price war in football and both genders of basketball. If one school is willing to pay, most others will follow. When Chuck Amato was hired as football coach at North Carolina State, he became the first in the ACC with a $1 million staff. When he was fired six years later, every team in the expanded 12-team conference had a seven-figure staff. That has become the price of doing business at the highest level.
Title IX has been great for women athletes and I applaud that. But the continuing challenges should not include concern about how much the football coach is being paid.
Bill Brill
Retired sports editor
Roanoke (Virginia) Times
At the time, in the early ’90s, the NCAA had reduced scholarships in men’s sports, essentially a minimum of 10 percent. The reason for the reductions is that the NCAA, then as now, had no answer for football, which had 85 grants after the cut from 95, and no comparable sport for women. As a result, in almost every sport, women now have more grants available than men.
The real problem with those cuts — men’s basketball was trimmed to 13 while the women remained at 15 — is that football and men’s basketball were where the most minorities were. Reducing football by 10 grants annually meant that more than five African-Americans did not get scholarships, every year, at all Division I-A schools. In basketball, with more than 300 teams in Division I, there was a cut of two scholarships in a sport in which 62 percent of the players were black.
Shortly thereafter, the NCAA named eight “emerging sports” in which women could get scholarships. I wrote another piece for The NCAA News in which I pointed out that almost all of these opportunities would go to white girls.
Three years later, there were 2,300 additional women scholarship athletes in Division I-A. Of that total, 92 percent were white, 2 percent black, and the other 6 percent were Europeans, who were mostly white. There was nothing racist about any of this. The facts were that almost all schools already had basketball and track and field — sports high in minority athletes. But precious few participated in synchronized swimming, rowing, field hockey or softball.
About that time, NCAA Executive Director Cedric Dempsey professed amazement, and concern, over a reduction in percentage of black athletes. The answer was obvious. Sports had been added in which blacks did not participate in high school, and scholarships were reduced in football and men’s basketball, where most participants were African-American.
Nothing has changed since then. Women continue to get more and more of the pie, but given football’s huge number of participants, they never will catch up.
It also is puzzling that critics continue to hammer away at salaries paid to football and men’s basketball coaches. In particular, football salaries have gone out the roof.
James Moeser, chancellor at North Carolina, was a member of the NCAA presidential task force studying these salaries. The task force, understanding that the issue had to be dealt with by individual institutions, stated that it wanted to see the salaries controlled.
Moeser then returned to Chapel Hill, where the school hired a new football coach, Butch Davis, at nearly $2 million annually — triple the salary of the deposed John Bunting. It certainly wasn’t his fault. Football and basketball salaries are marketplace driven, headed by Alabama’s hiring of NFL coach Lou Saban for more than $4 million annually, a decision that trickled down to other coaches who had contracts assuring them comparable pay to the top gun. UNC basketball coach Roy Williams signed a long-term deal worth $2.6 million in its final year.
But Anita DeFrantz (quoted in the May 21 News article) ignores what has happened in women’s basketball, where salaries have escalated in recent years. When Gail Goestenkors went from Duke to Texas, she became the third coach (Pat Summitt, Geno Auriemma) to make more than $1 million. Coaches of other high-profile programs are certain to pass that barrier in upcoming years, no matter how much money their school loses.
Let’s be realistic. I can’t imagine anything that would slow down the price war in football and both genders of basketball. If one school is willing to pay, most others will follow. When Chuck Amato was hired as football coach at North Carolina State, he became the first in the ACC with a $1 million staff. When he was fired six years later, every team in the expanded 12-team conference had a seven-figure staff. That has become the price of doing business at the highest level.
Title IX has been great for women athletes and I applaud that. But the continuing challenges should not include concern about how much the football coach is being paid.
Bill Brill
Retired sports editor
Roanoke (Virginia) Times
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy