Reader comments
De-flated: With soccer popular among boys, why only one NCAA-sanctioned men's team in Utah?

Title IX and Economics... If it doesn't pay, they don't play.

Ah, yes...political correctness reigns. Chris Hill knows full well that Title IX is the culprit, and so does every other university AD in the state. And it's not just soccer. Although BYU has never fielded an NCAA-level men's soccer team, it used to have stellar programs in men's wrestling and gymnastics. As Mr. Hill notes, it's very costly to gen up a program from scratch, but these were two programs that were fielding highly competitive teams year after year that fell prey to Title IX "equality". BYU made the decision in 1999 to terminate those programs because other Mountain West schools dropped their programs to balance the slate. Any one who says otherwise needs to check their history.

I think it's truly exciting to see the rise in women's NCAA sports, but we didn't need to toss out the baby with the bath water. This doesn't need to be a "zero sum" scenario, where you have to hurt men's sports to boost women's. The point the article makes is spot on--college-bound men who are wrestlers, gymnasts or soccer players have dramatically reduced choices when it comes to scholarships, which saddens me. They're all great sports with great athletes.

What about baseball?
They don't make much money

Most sports in college do not make any money, so the excuse cannot be economics, since other money loser sports are played. It all has to do with Title IX. The story says that it isn't all title IX since many other leagues do not offer mens soccer. They do not offer mens soccer due to title IX. Soccer is popular across the country, but until we do something about the arcane Title IX, mens soccer will not be played in college.

Westminster gives mens soccer scholarships. My son currently has a soccer scholarship at Westminster. At the time he graduated from High School, Westminster was the ONLY mens program in the state that gave scholarships for mens soccer. That changes this year with the advent of the NCAA D-2 Dixie College program.

Even though Westminster is NAIA, they are not associated with a conference, and their coach puts together their schedule each year such that they not only play NAIA teams but also several NCAA programs. The team currently has players who have transferred from playing for NCAA D-1 programs for a variety of reasons, e.g. desire to be closer to home, out-of-state costs, etc.

My son had several NCAA programs offer him scholarships (D-1, D-2), but as noted in the article, the scholarship money for mens soccer doesn't cover a large percentage of the out-of-state tuition and living costs.

Westminster has been generous with academic money as well as the soccer money. They are a phenomenal academic institution. It's been a great college choice for my son, both academically and athletically.

It's sad that the most popular sport in the world has so little support here in the united states. The main problem is that Division IA schools can offer 85 football scholarships. That is such a huge number for the schools to try to provide equal opportunity in order to comply with title IX. The schools just use the excuse that these programs don't make money, when really they don't even want to give them a chance. You can't tell me that 11 of those 85 scholarships couldn't be taken from football and given to soccer, and both programs couldn't still have success. Especially if they did this in all universities.

i didn't even need to read the article:

title IX.. not that hard to figure out!

Back in the day, BYU had a wrastling and gymnastics team too but they were also 86'd by Title IX.

Here is what I believe it used to cost to have NCAA soccer at BYU: uniforms, use of a van or two for 3 or 4 road trips, gas, cheap motel rooms (or dorms at the school we played), and a coach. The coach was also a PE person if I can remember right and ran a camp in the summer. It doesn't seem that expensive.

Is it possible that there aren't enough women's sports or sports interest to enable equality with men's sports? Is the issue that we have to be equal, even if it means that men's sports have to be dropped so that there aren't more men's sports than women's sports?

Yes, Title IX and Economics. The cost of Football and Basketball is incredible. Coaches, travel expenses, team expenses, and a new stadium carry a huge price tag.

Why do sports need to be NCAA? Perhaps it is time to look at what BYU Idaho did. They cut all NCAA sports and put the money into intramural sports and other student activities. Now instead of one basketball and one football team that benefits only a handful, every student can participate on a team. I believe their model is the future of college sports where everyone competes and benefits. The side benefit is they no longer have all the academic problems and other problems caused by NCAA sports.

Club sports is another great model. The BYU soccer club uses it effectively. UVU has a fantastic Hockey team that is a club. Great attendance and exciting play.

Collegiate soccer is an exciting event. Tens of Americans can't be wrong.

Title IX is absolutely the reason Utah's colleges don't have mens programs. What are you going to see BYU drop their nationally dominant Volleyball team to pick up school sponsored Soccer? No way. How bout give up their wrestling program? O wait, they already did that and they stil don't have room for soccer, or rugby, or any other sports where locally Utahns excel.

Soccer is a hard add on because who are you going to compete against? Nobody has the programs, and the reason nobody has the programs is because of Title IX.

Now tell me where the equality is when 70% of boys participate in sports actively while only 20% of girls do, yet college sports need to offer an equal number of scholarships to boys and girls?

College sports and scholarship requirements should be up to the university. It should be based on demand for the sport, the amount of success and revenue it could bring to the University, and not because of some government regulation.

Title 9 promotes discrimination, not equality.

Sad, but true.

Title IX. Men's Soccer could probably pay for itself with the right marketing. The problem is all the women's sports that don't generate ANY revenue, but have to be there because of title IX.

More than anything I think soccer isn't an NCAA sport because too many administrators are "old school". They gre up on baseball and football and they just can't wrap their minds around soccer. Let's hope the next generation which has grown up on soccer makes better decisions.

The fact we don't have more NCAA men's soccer teams is getting ridiculous. So many talented soccer players are losing out because of this. It's the most played youth sport in our country. Let's get with the times!

BYU did play NCAA soccer back in the day. Coach Dusara led that team in the 70's and 80's.

I agree with Soccer Bob. Title IX is the primary cause of the reduction of certain men's sports at Universities. That is the cost of equality. Wrestling was another sport that went by the wayside at many institutions.

Most all universities are very careful to show a balance between the number of men and women's sports so as to avoid even the appearance of preference. What university wants to be exposed to the wrath of the NCAA and negative national publicity.

A school could add another men's sport to its program by either adding another women's sport or deleting one of the men's. Life is full of choices.

That being said it allows my family of girls to play Division 1 soccer.

Is it fair?

The truely great American men players coming out of high school go to Europe and if they are good enough play in the European circuit. Most guys I know even in college,UCSB, UCLA, Duke, etc. Stay maybe a year or two in college and jump to the pros. These guys in college don't plan on staying long.

I've coached high school soccer, collegiate soccer and club soccer for 25 years. I've worked closely with athletic directors of three major univerisities, two of which are Utah schools.

I appreciate the reasoning Chris Hill gives for not sponsoring men's soccer. They are legitimate excuses. Money, facilities, employees. However, there is one important factor that neither Chris nor this article addressed.

Instiutional Bias.

Boiling just under the radar are over forty years of it. In the late seventies and early eighties when the soccer movement began its thirty year explosvie growth among youth and high school aged players, football coaches saw the sport as a competitive drain on their programs. They were losing a few good athletes. Players with coodination. Players with speed. The bias continued into the professional ranks where the sport was viewed as a potential revenue loss if allowed to grow.

Football coaches were very cool to any ideas that would allow the growth of men's soccer in colleges. Women's soccer, on the other hand, is a savior. Allowing a sport with large rosters and scholarships to offset the football rosters.

Across the country most College ADs are former football coaches.

You can connect the other dots.

BYU got rid of Wrestling because they wanted to, don't blame it on title IX. If that were the case why does, Iowa, Oklahoma, Penn State, Michigan, Boise state, Iowa State, Lehigh, Oklahoma State, Ohio State, Stanford, Wisconsin, Arizona State.... I can go on and on, still have wrestling, why didn't title IX affect hundreds of other schools.
Athletic directors use title IX for any program they want to get rid of. That way they don't take any heat. BYU could have kept wrestling, no problem, as a matter of fact being a private school they don't even have to follow the title IX rules as much as state funded universities. ASU tried to drop wrestling two months ago and the people of Arizona threw such a fit they kept it. Title IX or no title IX.