Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, May 23, 1993 TAG: 9305230037
SECTION: SPORTS PAGE: D-11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: BILL BRILL
DATELINE: DURHAM, N.C. LENGTH: Medium
The gender equity report is out, and with it, a planned minority response. Does that tell you not everybody agrees on what should happen in the future?
Also, check out the members of the minority group: the Pacific 10 Conference, Notre Dame, Colorado, Baylor and Southern Methodist. Detect any football schools there?
Let's get one thing straight: I'm aware the public - that's you, the readers - aren't enthralled by the issue of gender equity. "Who cares?" said an acquaintance. "You better," I replied.
It's not so much the issue of gender equity as much as how the NCAA members respond to it.
At the heart of all the problems is the same one that concerns most American families - finances, or how to pay the bills.
That is getting increasingly difficult these days, and colleges are responding in different ways.
Nobody likes cutbacks, but, in many cases, they are inevitable. Since revenues are anticipated to fall at the worst and remain stagnant at the very best, money is a major issue.
If it will cost more to fund women's sports in the future, reasonable people can ask where the big bucks will come from.
But there is another factor here, and that is big-time football and basketball. There is growing resentment with efforts to cut back the two sports that provide almost all the revenue. Take note: I did not say profit, because there isn't much available except in ACC basketball.
One example of how a problem can lead to another one: Division I-AA, strapped for money, may reduce its football scholarships from 70 to 45.
Southern Conference schools do not like that idea. Some of them will attempt to bolt to Division I-A if that happens.
Now the Southern Conference plays good football, likely on the level of the Mid-American and Big West, which are I-A. But what I-A needs is not another mid-major league. The MAC and Big West actually shouldn't belong.
The legitimate I-A football schools number no more than 80, and they also include all of the prominent basketball programs with the exception of Big East members Georgetown, Seton Hall, Providence, Connecticut, St. John's and Villanova.
One thing seems certain. Regardless of who the next NCAA director is, or what the stance on gender equity is, the big-time athletic schools are not going to go along with anything they perceive would be injurious to football or basketball.
Schultz promoted the idea of federation the past few years. That clearly is the way to go, which means that only schools with like programs should be voting on issues that affect them.
Could a federation by sport work within the NCAA? Certainly, but not without agonizing by the membership.
One thing the majority must realize. Like it or not, we are talking about big business here. That should not be viewed with contempt, as it is in some quarters. The fact is that it takes money to run these programs, and that has to be generated where it can be found, even in beer ads that make Dean Smith uneasy.
No matter how you view the situation, the players aren't going to be paid. That is a popular notion in some quarters, but even if you endorse it, understand there isn't a means to that end.
You can't just pay football and basketball players. If they merit a stipend, legally so does the field hockey player.
There is an irony here. Schools with the $15 million to $20 million budgets are the ones who can afford to pay for the women's programs.
The ACC is far less militant than the Southeastern Conference, which will fiercely fight any proposed football reductions.
But, as one ACC official said, "Our schools will give only so much. They'll abide by the rulings of their peers, but not by a [far larger] group with which we have nothing in common. The NCAA has got to pass some rules that make sense."
Understand that CBS doesn't care. If the big schools bolted, the television network would telecast their basketball championship. The football bowls would select the same schools they've always picked.
If the big schools feel threatened, a revolt during the '90s is assured.
by CNB