No sand v-ball in San Diego

Bucking national trends that show further increases in the number of women attending college, San Diego State University has seen its numbers of enrolled female undergraduates drop in the past few years. The decrease (to just under 57 percent of the total enrolled undergraduates) means SDSU's plans to add two women's sports have changed. The university planned to add women's lacrosse and sand volleyball in order to decrease the gap in scholarship dollars between male and female athletes (based on the percentage of undergraduate enrollment). Like all CSU institutions, SDSU must remain in compliance with the 1993 Cal-NOW settlement that requires equitable distribution of scholarship dollars (or grants-in-aid) within 5 percentage points.
But with the decrease in women attending the university*, plans for the addition of sand volleyball have been shelved. The athletic department believes it can close the gap by adding only women's lacrosse. A coach has already been hired.


* Might be a good time to remember the investigation into the allegations that some colleges are discriminating against female applicants in an attempt to keep their undergraduate population even(ish).

Student fees funding athletic departments

A while ago we mentioned that San Diego State University raised its student athletic fee by a fairly large percent in order to, among other things, add two women's sports.
This article notes that the raising of student fees, sometimes with student support, sometimes unilaterally, has become a trend as many college athletic departments struggle to balance their budgets.
It lists the schools that have employed the tactic and touches on the somewhat touchy subject of putting the burden of funding athletics on students.

Sand volleyball recalled

Somehow we missed the news that sand volleyball, the newly named NCAA emerging sport, has been called back to the drawing board.
It seems San Diego State University had been planning to add sand volleyball along with women's lacrosse. SDSU must meet the gender equity standards established for all California state universities. In particular SDSU must raise the number of scholarships female student-athletes receive.
But it won't be doing it with sand volleyball (though lacrosse is still a go) because of concerns raised over the costs of sand volleyball (not sure the specifics of this concern) and that it would essentially turn into an additional season for indoor volleyball players and thus not in the true spirit of adding opportunities for women. And so the Division I Championships/Sports Management Cabinet has put on hold plans to develop, well a plan, for sand volleyball. The fate of sand volleyball will not be decided until next year.

Don't even think it--let alone write it

The Union Tribune in San Diego has stirred up a bunch o' trouble with a recent editorial by a sports writer calling for the elimination of football at San Diego State University. The program is economically strained and economically draining. Recently the university raised its student fee to cover some of the athletic department's budget deficits.
But people, including SDSU president Stephen Weber, are not happy. Weber wrote his own letter to the SDSU community because the paper would not give him the same amount of space they gave their own writer to respond--though the paper did invite him to respond. Weber is firm in his stance that football will remain at SDSU for as long as he is president.
But even that unequivocal statement has not stemmed the responses pro and con to the editorial which were numbering close to 150 when the paper published what it called the most representative letters.
Of course Title IX has been invoked in various ways.
But surprisingly there are a lot of self-described football fans who support the initial argument against retaining the program. In fact the majority of the letters received were supportive. The poll the paper has put online shows a majority of people support retaining the team. Neither the letters nor the poll will reveal any kind of true community sentiment, of course. It is clear that strong sentiments exist on both sides and they are not likely to dissipate.

SDSU raises fees to support athletics

San Diego State University has been contemplating for a while now a fairly dramatic increase in one of its student fees. An increase that would support their cash-strapped athletic department.
When I first read about the story a while ago the increase was being presented as a way to fund an additional two women's sports that SDSU needed to add to meet the gender equity standards for CSU schools.
This presentation was disturbing because it painted a picture of women's sports as sucking dry athletic departments and then asking the general university population for help.
The latest news from SDSU has confirmed a fee increase of $80 per semester. But it also clarified that the increase would be going to support a student spirit initiative, the general athletics budget, club sports, and two women's sports. The list reflects the many needs of the department and that the increase will support more than just student-athletes. It also provides evidence to contrast the nonbelievers who say football is able to support women's athletics and thus should be exempt from certain rules and regulations.

Add to the settlement column...

...former San Diego State University swim coach Deena Deardruff Schmidt.

We can also add Schmidt to the million plus settlement club. SDSU agreed to a $1.45 million settlement in the case. Schmidt did not comment after the settlement was announced (her attorney called it a "fair and reasonable" result), but SDSU is patting itself on the back saying:
“The parties agreed that this settlement recognizes the substantial efforts by Schmidt to implement, develop and improve the women's swimming program at SDSU, and reflects her contributions as a coach,” SDSU said in a statement. “The case was settled at its early stages before any determination of liability was considered or reached.”
Of course had the university recognized her efforts and their own sexism earlier, they wouldn't be paying out $1.45 million. The article linked above breaks down the amount. It also does well to note the trend in settlements and jury awards going to coaches charging discrimination and retaliation.
You can read some of the history of the case in the article or our coverage of it here.

San Diego considering additions

San Diego State is considering adding women's teams to compensate for the continuing disparity between men's and women's grants-in-aid. SDSU has continually fallen short of meeting the maximum 5 percent difference allowed by the settlement between NOW and the CSU schools negotiated in the 1990s.

So, despite severe budget limitations, the athletic department is looking at options including adding two women's sports (perhaps gymnastics and lacrosse).

I find it somewhat disconcerting that the school thinks its most viable option is to find funding for two more sports rather than eliminate some of the scholarship dollars that go to, say, men's football. I am NOT suggesting cutting players. Number of opportunities is not the issue being presented here. It's student aid. There are plenty of football players who are on the roster who do not get scholarship money. Adding a few more to that list is going to do some huge amount of damage??

Because I worry about the quality of the experience that female student-athletes will have on teams that have been added in the midst of a budget crisis. I am all for adding opportunities for women but not if the institutional commitment to supporting them is absent. Because if it is, we might see, not too far down the road, some gender equity complaints.

Title IX Lawsuit Filed Against San Diego State

According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, Deena Deardurff Schmidt, recently fired from her position as head coach of the San Diego State swimming and diving team, has filed a Title IX sex discrimination suit against San Diego State, "alleging several years of mistreatment at the school, including being sexually harassed by an unidentified booster."

One example of alleged discrimination is the University's decision to close the pool for seven years during construction of a new facility. During that time, the swimming and diving team (a women's team) had to practice and compete in inconvenient and allegedly "dangerous" off-campus locations. She also alleges gender inequities in pay, practice times and administrative support, and that the university told her to "deal with" the sexual advances of a booster who promised to make a donation in exchange for sex.

The article points out that SDSU swimmers finished last in their conference for the last five seasons, which suggests that the University might defend its decision to fire Schmidt as performance-related. But further complicating the case is the fact that Schmidt has cancer and was scheduled for surgery when the Athletic Department told her that her contract would not be renewed. The department apparently lacked confidence that she would be able to take the team to the "national level."

Football Profit Claim Challenged at SDSU

Professors at San Diego State are not letting the athletic director get away with calling his football program "a profitable enterprise."

To be clear, the faculty supports football -- they unanimously rejected a resolution calling for the termination of the team -- but some are objecting to the the athletic department's mischaracterization of the program's profitability, which, they argue,"obfuscates" consideration of the merits of a football program.

According to this column in the San Diego Union-Tribune, SDSU football shows a positive balance because it includes a "seven-figure subsidy" from the University on the revenue side of the ledger. Moreover, the columnist points out, college athletic departments are generally not bound by Generally Accepted Accounting Practices. Things that most enterprises would report as costs -- office space, utilities, debt service on facilities -- may not appear (or may be understated) on expenditure side of the football program's budget. This might explain why an independent accountant concluded that SDSU's program ran a $1.6 million deficit last year -- which doesn't count the $890K in the football took in from the University itself.

I agree with the columnist that "profit...is not the only purpose of college football. Nor can its value be adequately conveyed on a spreadsheet." But that doesn't give athletics the right to obscure the true financial cost of football. One member of the faculty said he wished the AD would just be honest about the cost of football and then explain "why we think its worth it."

More faculties should question the accounting practices of university athletic departments. When they labor under the myth of football profitability, athletic departments are afraid to trim the football budget. Instead, they'll cut entire teams, usually other men's sports, because the law prohibits schools from taking away opportunities from the sex that is already underrepresented to begin with. But if it's the case that all sports are subsidized, then no sport should receive special treatment. All sports should eligible to do their share of cost-cutting, and no sport should have immunity form cuts based on false pretense of profitability.