For my first AgTag post on the soccer board I'm starting a new topic.

What are the chances the SEC ever picks up Men's Soccer and A&M gets a team?

the Big XII had no teams with Men's Soccer but the SEC already has 2. When the SEC signs a new TV deal the conference might have so much cash they choose to start up a few more sports. I think if any Men's Sport is added it would have to be Soccer.

Just a fun idea to dream about our Alma Mater having Men's Soccer.

not until Title IX is overturned.

Sometime a long time from now when the economy isn't in the ****ter.

I believe Kentucky and South Carolina already have programs, A&M or anyone else could do it, too. I'm sure C-USA would welcome them with open arms. When 6 or 7 schools have picked the sport up, I'm sure the conference will look at it.

quote:

---

not until Title IX is overturned.

---

That'd be never.

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 8/1/2012 5:14p).]

After all the SEC schools have 120k seat football stadiums and gold plated weight rooms.

quote:

---

After all the SEC schools have 120k seat football stadiums and gold plated weight rooms.

---

So 2014?

Lawl.

No I get it, SEC states aren't big on soccer (you can make a case that Texas is sort of)

But I think it could happen, isn't our TV deal supposed to bring in like eleventy billion dollars? Texas A&M is actually a little more progressive than some of the other SEC schools so I could see it happening eventually.

I think that the first public school with a men's Soccer program would do really well. We could recruit the hell out of this state and win a NC, no kidding.

We don't need the SEC. Like I said earlier, I'm sure C-USA would welcome us with open arms.

Ok, should have just said A&M. I think/hope it will eventually happen. Seeing how well we draw on the women's side I bet we could draw 10k for men's games.

A&M is moving towards world class everything. How can we be world class in sports if we don't have soccer?

Texas has way more money than anyone else and a fantastic all-around athletics program... but even they aren't adding sports. That's just the way its going to be for a long time for schools with major football programs. Everyone is trying to keep up with the Joneses so who wants to lose money on another soccer team plus whatever women's team you have to add also?

I think public schools are more likely to drop sports than add them.

Soccer would be a logical addition to the athletics department with good recruiting area and not much local competition. The facilities are already in place for the women's team, but A&M would need to add a women's sport to offset Soccer. FWIW gymnastics is the only women's sport in the SEC the Ags don't participate in.

quote:

---

That's just the way its going to be for a long time for schools with major football programs.

---

I don't know if I'd necessarily agree with that. D-1 has lost programs over the past decade since a huge boom in the 90s and early 2000s, but it fluctuates. D-1 had a net gain of 19 in 2008-'09, and a net gain of 36 from 2004-2006. (This doesn't include schools that added or dropped D-1 membership)

Oregon baseball, Florida lacrosse, some of the additions are at major, football loving schools.

Once A&M gets Kyle Field taken care of, and once they can establish what should be growing revenues...I could see A&M being one of those schools that grows its athletics program. I'd guess women's gymnastics and then a men's program sometime after that, although that may take awhile.

That's just a 100% complete guess, but I am fairly confident that A&M's athletic department is headed in a good direction. We've got to win a little in football and preferably men's basketball for it to happen, though.

quote:

---

but A&M would need to add a women's sport to offset Soccer.

---

Is that set in stone? Are we cutting compliance that close? There have been some cases where a school adds a men's sport without the addition of a women's sport (at least any time in the recent past).

quote:

---

I don't know if I'd necessarily agree with that. D-1 has lost programs over the past decade since a huge boom in the 90s and early 2000s, but it fluctuates. D-1 had a net gain of 19 in 2008-'09, and a net gain of 36 from 2004-2006. (This doesn't include schools that added or dropped D-1 membership)

---

Where do you see those number? I see 207 teams in 08 and 209 teams in 09 (203 last year btw, which is down 1 from the year before). I'm not saying my numbers are wrong, just wondering where you got yours (mine are from ncaa.org)

quote:

---

Oregon baseball, Florida lacrosse, some of the additions are at major, football loving schools.

---

Oregon is a weird situation, everyone else in their conference already played baseball and Oregon previously had a baseball team for a long time. Plus Nike probably told them to re-establish the team just so they could showcase their cleats.

Florida add women's lacrosse which makes it a little bit more cost effective (can share everything with women's soccer) than men's lacrosse. Plus lacrosse is the fastest growing team sport in the country so I think schools that can find a cheap way to add it might do so. But I still think it'll be pretty rare at major football universities.

quote:

---

Once A&M gets Kyle Field taken care of, and once they can establish what should be growing revenues...I could see A&M being one of those schools that grows its athletics program. I'd guess women's gymnastics and then a men's program sometime after that, although that may take awhile.

---

I think so too, but I think it'll be a long time... at least 20-30 years. We've got more than just Kyle to take care of.

quote:

---

That's just a 100% complete guess, but I am fairly confident that A&M's athletic department is headed in a good direction. We've got to win a little in football and preferably men's basketball for it to happen, though.

---

I think we're headed in a good direction too, but I don't think that means adding sports. I think it just means getting better at the sports we have.

Doesn't the female male distribution of a school have an impact on title IX compliance? I believe A&M is a 50/50 split (which is rare, most schools have more females) so I think that we might be fine on the women's sports front.

A&M's combined sports roster has 260 men and 232 women.

A&M can offer 141.7 scholarships across our men's sports and 118 across our women's sports.

There is more to Title IX than just those numbers, but the other factors aren't going to tip the scale back towards the women. We're a bit heavy on the men's side to be slipping in another men's sport without adding a women's sport.

South Carolina gets away with it somehow though.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/PR2012.pdf

Page 237. Hope I posted the right numbers.

I'll be disappointed if college athletics can't rebuild some programs and we can't join in on the fun with a gymnastics team IF the economy ever has another sustained, good run.

I think much of the SEC currently sponsors more sports than we do. I'd like to think we'll be able to build our revenues and that we will still treasure having a diverse and successful athletic department. Maybe it takes 20-30 years for the economy to get right, but sweet Jeebus, I sure hope not.

quote:

---

South Carolina gets away with it somehow though.

---

I would guess they've done it with a lot of carefully worded reports aimed at meeting prong three (the "meeting the interests and abilities of the two sexes")

quote:

---

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/PR2012.pdf

Page 237. Hope I posted the right numbers.

---

Nice link. I'm still not sure where you're getting your numbers from though. If you look at page 244 you can see the growth of each sport by year. The DI men's chart is a bit grim.

quote:

---

I would guess they've done it with a lot of carefully worded reports aimed at meeting prong three (the "meeting the interests and abilities of the two sexes")

---

I think so too. It looks like they try to pass Track and Cross Country off as two different sports and don't offer men's Cross Country. But that shouldn't affect the number of scholarships. Although their women's Track team is much larger than their men's team.

The last move we made was dropping archery (women's) as a sponsored sport.

It would be tough to justifying the addition of another men's sport without balancing it.

Byrne often said the next sport he'd add would be women's bowling.

quote:

---

quote:

---

South Carolina gets away with it somehow though.

---

I would guess they've done it with a lot of carefully worded reports aimed at meeting prong three (the "meeting the interests and abilities of the two sexes")

---

Maybe Hyman can help with this

Women's bowling? I hate title IX, I don't care if that makes me look like a bigot, it's a stupid rule.

Women's bowling? I hate title IX, I don't care if that makes me look like a bigot, it's a stupid rule.

This thread and the quality responses reiterates my belief that the soccer board is the one of best on TexAgs

Indeed

Wasn't Equestrian recently picked up by the SEC? Would that provide the "other" women's sport?

It's all about scholarships right? Not necessarily # of players?

It's scholarships, yes. That's why women's basketball has 15 scholarships while men's has 13.

Equestrian was already counted in the numbers I gave.

And it's not all about scholarships, its about opportunities. It's not an exact science, it's an overall feel of the women's athletic department compared to the men's which include participation, scholarships, facilities, support, how much food money they get, what tutors and academic assistance is available. You can't put Quilted Northern in the men's bathrooms and that recycled sandpaper from the dorms in the women's bathroom.

Title IX is why the softball stadium is going to get an upgrade, because Olsen got an upgrade. Can't just upgrade men's facilities.

But like I said, not an exact science. So don't expect a $300m soccer stadium after Kyle is done :p

Maybe we can play soccer at Kyle?

Wouldn't that be something.

I know you're joking, but most people don't realize that Ellis Field is wider than Kyle Field. You could squeeze it in, but you'd have to turn the rubber track around Kyle into grass.

If Title IX got us a $300 million dollar soccer stadium you would turn this hater into a believer!

quote:

---

Maybe we can play soccer at Kyle?

---

What do you think they're going to do with old Kyle Field when they build new Kyle Field on West Campus...

quote:

---

It's all about scholarships right? Not necessarily # of players?

---

It's not just about scholarships. That's why football participation is limited to 105 (they used to have unlimited walk-ons in the days of the 12th Man kickoff team) and participation is limited in other sports (I think baseball is limited to 33).

Although Title IX will never be repealed, the rules governing sports are merely regulations issued by the Department of Education. If you got a Republican White House and a conservative Congress that was willing to stand aside and see it happen, those regulations could be rewritten to something much more sensible, such as having scholarship and participation levels for scholarship sports reflect participation for intramurals (as a proxy for female interest in sports). If we ever got away from the kind of quota being used now, men's soccer would be an obvious, and relatively cheap, sport to add.

Byrne said he add woman's bowling in joke, because he said it was a cheap sport. He then discussed that the most expensive sports where wrestling and gymnastics. Mostly because they have a lot of costly injuries.

I don't see us adding men's soccer. Personally I'd like us to add m/w lacrosse. But don't know if any other SEC have either of those programs.

Lacrosse has a tenth of the popularity of soccer, that would be stupid for A&M to add a sport that most Texas high schools don't even sponsor when Soccer is so popular.