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
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.
Chris....John has a flair for the dramatic as has been seen many times on this forum so when he starts a thread with this title take your advise and don't read quite so much into it...he (and I) certainly think there are red flags out there and as such need to get more people looking at and thinking about why and what can be done to ensure we don't have a major crisis down the road.
Now back to your quote above...I agree that the intention of Title IX was good and that something needed to be done...and I agree that the rule as written was never intended to be implemented the way it has by so many loser AD's.
BUT, all to often rules/laws with good intentions are not written with "exit" clauses that allow modifications to address poor implementation that allows for things like cutting men's programs. This has been a horrible thing for minor men's sports and I don't think even the most rapid feminist would feel that the end justifies the means as it has with Title IX.
Bring it on Fort!
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.
Chris....John has a flair for the dramatic as has been seen many times on this forum so when he starts a thread with this title take your advise and don't read quite so much into it...he (and I) certainly think there are red flags out there and as such need to get more people looking at and thinking about why and what can be done to ensure we don't have a major crisis down the road.
Now back to your quote above...I agree that the intention of Title IX was good and that something needed to be done...and I agree that the rule as written was never intended to be implemented the way it has by so many loser AD's.
BUT, all to often rules/laws with good intentions are not written with "exit" clauses that allow modifications to address poor implementation that allows for things like cutting men's programs. This has been a horrible thing for minor men's sports and I don't think even the most rapid feminist would feel that the end justifies the means as it has with Title IX.
Bring it on Fort!
