A solution to Title IX

I say that if we keep 'em barefoot and pregnant all this hoo-haw about women's sports will go away. After all, don't they realize that if they do stuff like running, their uterus could fall out and drag in the dirt? Sports also makes women more masculine and then they become lesbians and start practicing witchcraft and then ... pffft.... there goes democracy and civilization. Honestly... It is unfortunate that some men's programs get cut "due to title IX", but in reality there has always been a finite pool of money for sports and historically the men have absorbed this pool. The emergence of women's interest in sport now cuts into the finite pool and something has to give. I'm sorry, but it's only right that if a women wants to lose her uterus...errr... do sports, she should have the same right/opportunity as a guy to do so, sorry for the collateral damage. Here's another idea to perhaps save some of the "lesser" sports: Have the colleges that are interested, "divvy" up the sports. In other words, stop trying to have any one college be all sports to all people and just keep the sports that have a good chance of survivng at a college. I realize that this is done that way now, but it is currently an organic process and sloppy. Rather, have the colleges meet and try to promote an equitable dissemination of the sports, both economically and geographically, among them with the idea that this will concentrate the talent, keep interest up where there will be funding and stabilize the situation for each sport, even if it means an initial contraction in overall number of programs. Each college would rank their sports into three tiers. For most colleges, tier 1 would be the "usual suspects": Football, basketball. Tier 2 is a strong program that the college, for whatever reason really wants to keep. e.g: track, soccer, etc. Tier three are "red-headed stepchildren" of most schools: e.g. lacrosse, rowing, etc. Assume that they colleges will keep tiers 1 & 2 and a few tier 3 sports, then try to find a best fit for seeing that each of the tier three sports have "adequate" coverage on a national basis by getting them 'adopted" by the colleges. Second proposal: Have the orphan sports move down to Division II and III schools in a manner similar to the above. This has 2 possible benefits: it keeps the sports viable and it gives a college with, say, a focus on swimming, a concentrated pool of applicants to draw from. I understand that many of the smaller colleges are competing hard for students, but with a fewer number of schools doing a sport, this will allow the colleges to specifically target a group who will, by definition, be interested in them. In reality, I've never understood the focus of colleges on sports. I thought it was supposed to be an academic experience. I went to Penn State for graduate school and the focus on football always struck me as very odd, even though I will give huge props to the football program for their emphasis on making the football players be regular students as well. We, as a society, have strange priorities. -LBJ

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: I actually picked my college for academic reasons, but wanted to swim because I loved swimming. Your proposal, while very interesting, would have eliminated swimming/orphan sport as an option for me. I assume it would have eliminated race walking as well. I would then have been forced to take witchcraft. Are the colleges competing for the students or are the students now competing for the colleges? I thought the college admissions process was turning all high school students into stressed out nail biters who post on college admission blogs. You are already a practitioner of the dark arts. i.e. A lawyer. :smooch: Racewalking is almost non-existant in colleges. A few NAIA schools have it as an official part of their track program and that is it. I realize that this would have some serious repercussions, but if we continue down the path we are currently, some of these things may shrivel up and die anyway. Not sure, but I thought that I heard that colleges were really stretching for students. Maybe I misunderstood. Surely, Harvard isn't, but maybe East Dogbreath State is. -LBJ

And yet another swimming program is cut: www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/.../14840.asp Once again, everyone and their brother is blaming Title IX instead of football and basketball. But those football players are getting a brand new stadium, after all.

Yes , but the amount of money produced by those sports carry almost all the rest.Most “Revenue Generating sports” are not profit making sports. Game admissions and TV do not cover the cost of the programs. Very few Division 1 football programs show a profit and most are costing significantly more in one year than a swim team costs in 10 years. However, any real solution doesn’t blame Title IX or football or basketball. The real solutions need to come from the inside out. College swimming programs need to look upon themselves as a business unit of the university. If they are a well run division, producing results and benefit to the university then the likelihood of being cut is greatly reduced. Swim programs will not often get cut if they have their scholarships fully endowed, are active in the community, are positively visible within the school (academically and athletically) , have strong alumni support, and are connected to local USA Swimming and Masters programs. Blaming Title IX or football won’t save swimming; swimming needs to save swimming.

Well, if swimming wants to help save swimming, here is a petition to sign protesting Syracuse's decision to cut swimming. www.thepetitionsite.com/.../850963259 I didn't attend Syracuse, obviously, but I understand they have a strong tradition in swimming and have sent swimmers to the NCAAs. I hear ya, Rob. It's easier said than done. Alumni support did save my college swim team, but you don't always get the support. I'm just really tired of endurance sports being the ugly stepchildren of college sports. And as you point out, football is not usually even profitable. I won't watch college football anymore.

I go to Rutgers. It is really pointless for them to cut the men's swim team. They have the same coach, practice times, and facility as the girls team. They don't give out alot of scholarships. Ther AD's reasons for cutting swimming and the other 5 sports do not make sense. The school board of governors will not even consider reinstating the team even though about 5 million was already raised and they got pledges for a couple of more million dollars if it is brought back.

And yet another swimming program is cut: www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/.../14840.asp Once again, everyone and their brother is blaming Title IX instead of football and basketball. But those football players are getting a brand new stadium, after all. Yes , but the amount of money produced by those sports carry almost all the rest.

Swimming is cheap compared to other sports. Major universities are rolling in money these days. There is no need to cut swimming. Last year, Stanford had 1 billion in alumni donations. Cornell had 1/2 billion. I'm sure Syracuse has huge support too judging from the Syracuse-crazy alums I know. Major universities do not pay property taxes, have huge returns on their investments (think Stanford and real estate), and hugly jacked up tuition. I'm sure somewhere in all those dollars there's room for swimming, which is usually only a few hundred thousand a year. Compare that to football.

Swimming is cheap compared to other sports. Tell that to our school board and district administration. We've been trying to get high school swimming for several years. We're the only 4A school in the state that does not have a swim team. All we hear is how much it wil cost. Of course just about every one of the administrators are former football or basketball coaches so that is all they care about. It is so frustrating. :frustrated:

Blaming Title IX or football won’t save swimming; swimming needs to save swimming. Rob: I agree. However, swimming is a small sport with high overhead. It would behoove the swimming industry and the elites to "give back". Normally, I'm not one for requiring a give back system, but without it the up-and-coming won't be there.