Below are the number of entrants for each event at the Junior Nationals for 2008. What do these figures mean for men's swimming long term? The number of boys in the sport trails girls quite siginficantly in many events. In relays where a team tends to show its depth, boys are out numbered by girls nearly 2:1
If things continue or get worse we've got problems ahead of us in 2 Olympics.
It's a good thing collegiate budgets aren't cutting mens swimming these days.... :-)
ncsassociation.homestead.com/PsychFINAL.htm
.............Women Men
1650/1000... 78.. 75
Med. Relay... 97.. 51
100 free... 264.. 140
100 ***... 179.. 102
200 back... 173.. 111
200 fly... 149.. 91
800 fr rly... 81.. 43
50 fly... 170.. 106
50 ***... 151.. 82
200 free... 252.. 159
400 IM... 183.. 106
400 free rly... 84.. 45
100 back... 194.. 152
500 free... 188.. 112
200 ***... 152.. 82
100 fly... 242.. 161
200 fr rly... 84.. 45
50 back... 135.. 115
200 IM... 268.. 169
50 free... 282.. 153
800/1500 fr... 98.. 67
400 med rly... 105.. 54
This may help make a bit more sense of what I've been trying to articulate:
www.usaswimming.org/.../ViewMiscArticle.aspx
It is an interesting article, though a little less alarmist than some of what I hear in this thread; maybe I'm reading too much into some posts. Some interesting points about potential advantages in separating boys and girls, though that seems a little extreme to me.
Many of the "problems" have been around for a long long time, as the article itself says.
About the effect of Title IX, which has been :dedhorse:. There are fewer men's programs, no question. Title IX has contributed to that as an unintended side effect, I'll grant. That doesn't make it Title IX's "fault," it is still the decision of university administrators about what to do with their resources. For a variety of reasons, men's swimming is a big target.
But Title IX was (and remains) a good idea, and it is wrong to blame it. Very few policies will have all positive results, and I think Title IX has succeeded very well at its intended goal.
Here is another question: swimming and school are largely separated until college. Why should they suddenly be joined? Why can't college students still swim for USS teams? It is less convenient, granted, but there are many many good sports out there that are not common varsity sports. Why should our educational system bear even part of the burden of training this country's future Olympians?
This may help make a bit more sense of what I've been trying to articulate:
www.usaswimming.org/.../ViewMiscArticle.aspx
It is an interesting article, though a little less alarmist than some of what I hear in this thread; maybe I'm reading too much into some posts. Some interesting points about potential advantages in separating boys and girls, though that seems a little extreme to me.
Many of the "problems" have been around for a long long time, as the article itself says.
About the effect of Title IX, which has been :dedhorse:. There are fewer men's programs, no question. Title IX has contributed to that as an unintended side effect, I'll grant. That doesn't make it Title IX's "fault," it is still the decision of university administrators about what to do with their resources. For a variety of reasons, men's swimming is a big target.
But Title IX was (and remains) a good idea, and it is wrong to blame it. Very few policies will have all positive results, and I think Title IX has succeeded very well at its intended goal.
Here is another question: swimming and school are largely separated until college. Why should they suddenly be joined? Why can't college students still swim for USS teams? It is less convenient, granted, but there are many many good sports out there that are not common varsity sports. Why should our educational system bear even part of the burden of training this country's future Olympians?
