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
Parents
Former Member
Chris,
Well.... for one thing USS is an entirely different flavor of the sport than Collegiate swimming. I have never seen a USS team with the intensity of support and team unity like that of a collegiate team at NCAAs. It's just not the same thing. Yes great swimmers come from both areas, but colleges probably won't make the shift to support local teams in their name. Too much ego at stake in the athletic dept.
Geek,
Now the article that Paul posted has conflicting data with you. It says there's only a 30 % increase in membership for boys since the late '80s. That would mirror the general population growth of the US if that is true... i.e. a flat lining compared to the general population.
"Membership statistics for USA Swimming paint an identical picture. Nearly 20,000 more boys are members of USA swimming now than in 1988, a 30 percent increase, though the expansion from year to year has been uneven and dwarfed by the girls' 92 percent increase during that time. At present, girls outnumber boys nearly 2:1 (138,701 to 82,651). So, yes, Leonard is correct, competitive swimming in the United States is slowly but surely becoming womanized. But is this something new? And is it something to worry about? "
The issue isn't in my opinion a "womanizing of the sport" ..... it's an imbalance of boys to girls that needs to be corrected just as Title IX sought to correct imbalances. Contrary to what happend after Title IX, the right answer here for US swimming is obviously not to negatively impact girls but to positively increase the number of boys.
John Smith
Chris,
Well.... for one thing USS is an entirely different flavor of the sport than Collegiate swimming. I have never seen a USS team with the intensity of support and team unity like that of a collegiate team at NCAAs. It's just not the same thing. Yes great swimmers come from both areas, but colleges probably won't make the shift to support local teams in their name. Too much ego at stake in the athletic dept.
Geek,
Now the article that Paul posted has conflicting data with you. It says there's only a 30 % increase in membership for boys since the late '80s. That would mirror the general population growth of the US if that is true... i.e. a flat lining compared to the general population.
"Membership statistics for USA Swimming paint an identical picture. Nearly 20,000 more boys are members of USA swimming now than in 1988, a 30 percent increase, though the expansion from year to year has been uneven and dwarfed by the girls' 92 percent increase during that time. At present, girls outnumber boys nearly 2:1 (138,701 to 82,651). So, yes, Leonard is correct, competitive swimming in the United States is slowly but surely becoming womanized. But is this something new? And is it something to worry about? "
The issue isn't in my opinion a "womanizing of the sport" ..... it's an imbalance of boys to girls that needs to be corrected just as Title IX sought to correct imbalances. Contrary to what happend after Title IX, the right answer here for US swimming is obviously not to negatively impact girls but to positively increase the number of boys.
John Smith
