deadbq03 said:
Title IX
You need a ton of women's sports to offset 85 football scholarships (or whatever it is now, I'm out of the loop). And then on the flip side, schools have to create even more women's programs to offset men's soccer if it exists (and they have football)… which is why a lot of the schools that have men's soccer are small schools with no football. Most other sports have a women's version, so things are same-same across the board - but football is 85 scholarships that have to be offset by stuff like soccer, equestrian, volleyball where there's almost never a men's version.
It's the biggest reason why the US is a world powerhouse for women's soccer but the men's game never found success.
I posted on the other thread that I don't think this is a viable excuse anymore. Texas A&M, like the rest of the SEC, have the most money but sponsor fewer sports than almost all of their peers.
The example I used in the other thread is that Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan all sponsor 14 men's sports including men's soccer. A&M sponsors 8 men's sports.
A&M doesn't have men's soccer because it doesn't want to. Or, maybe more accurately, doesn't care enough to do it.
More broadly, the Big Ten sponsors and has 11 men's soccer programs. The ACC sponsors and has 15 men's soccer programs. Their schools almost all have more sports than SEC schools. The SEC just doesn't want to do it. It's got nothing to do with a lack of money or Title IX handcuffing anyone.
