The Demise of Mens Swimming in the US

We never had high school events, all the swimming done in Canada was cub swimming. I don't think high school swimming in Canada is of any conseqence.

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?

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!

1986 - 170K members, 2600 clubs 2007 - 251K members, 2700 clubs There's your figures, again. I also said I extrapolated the m/f figures so that was my best estimate. There is no disputing membership gains for males in the past year, where there are stats kept. Why don't you read for yourself, dang it! So, let me get this straight. You hate Title IX because it unfairly got rid of men's swimming (which it absolutely did not as Chris has pointed out). Then, to remedy the situation, let's call it Title Smith, you want a program that will boost men's swimming. So, on one hand you loathe programs that level the playing field (for women) while on the other you propose a program to level the playing field (for men). Hello, McFly. When do you think you might stop blaming women for wanting to participate and start blaming the ADs at your school for having 85 scholarship football players? That might be a better place to start than berating the fairer half.

It is my OPINION that many colleges with smaller swim teams would have done away with both men's and women's swim teams had Title IX not pressed them to keep a women's team. Swimming simply does not generate revenue, which seems to drive so many athletic departments these days. Again, this is only my opinion. It is also my opinion that boys in high school, at least the naturally athletic boys, are pulled toward more mainstream sports. Which boy is more popular in high school, the star quarterback or the star swimmer? Chances are that the kid who is a great football player would make a damn good swimmer (maybe not as much with the big guys - although I'm not taking away anything from their athleticism - I'm talking about the guy that's 6'-4" and runs a 4.4 40). And tell me that Division I football players don't put in as much time as swimmers perfecting their skills, strength and knowledge of their position. Girls lack a numbers-intensive sport like football and are left with fewer choices. Perhaps that can explain a higher growth rate for women than men in swimming.

And...I've seen some pretty fast boy's HS swimmers in the very recent past. One that competes in a nearby HS has a couple of Trials QTs and I've seen several other Trials QTs by HS swimmers here in Virginia. Just because we haven't seen the next Phelps yet, doesn't mean that there isn't going to be one. You never can tell when the local USS kid that has some fast times will hit a little growth spurt and swim some REALLY fast times.

The trigger was Title IX in the end and you know it. The pot of athletic revenue in a school is finite. title IX was a great idea in its conception that was implemented very poorly and allowed ADs to crush men's secondary sports in order to meet its requirements. Its plain and simple. Title IX is part of the problem in mens secondary sports. No one said it was the entire problem. So, this discussion has diverged from the original topic a bit. I can agree with you that there is a disparity between the girls and boys at this meet. Without much context though, it's kind of a useless set of numbers. What were the numbers like last year? If this year's numbers are an anomaly, then perhaps it's because the QTs were set too high for boys or too low for girls. I don't know, I'm just asking questions. I will however, disagree with you that Title IX triggered the demise of men's swimming at the University level. Like I said in my last post, many of those programs would have probably done away with both men's and women's swimming. ADs were forced to keep a women's program to comply with Title IX scholarship numbers.

Like I said in my last post, many of those programs would have probably done away with both men's and women's swimming. ADs were forced to keep a women's program to comply with Title IX scholarship numbers. Like UCLA right?! No storied program there...of and big coincedence...the AD that cut swimming there did it to at least one other Div I school he was at. dailybruin.ucla.edu/.../ No one "forces/forced" any of these AD's to cut secondary sports programs...it was simply the quickest/easiest way to create "balance". More interesting discussion by Phil Whitten: bringingbackohiotrack.blogspot.com/.../phil-whitten-of-college-swimming.html

I've never seen two grown men cry and carry on for such a long time about something so old. There is no crisis in boy's swimming, the numbers are irrefutable, no matter whose numbers you use. Twice as many girls at a meet versus boys means nothing without some historical context. Here's an example. I understand the criteria for Scholarstic All American in HS changed in the past year. There are fewer All Americans I am told with the new higher standards. Using your methodology, such as it is, we would assert that kids are dumber and slower this year. Really pointless debate to use one year as an example. What is your solution?

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. John, part of the reason for my suggestion -- speculation, really -- is to suggest that just because things have been done a certain way in the past, it doesn't mean it has to always be that way. And that there is no God-given "right" to have men's swimming represented at the collegiate level. USA Swimming certainly has no reason to just expect that taxes meant for public education, donation from alums and tuition from non-swimming students should support their efforts to field competitive national swim teams. And I agree totally that college swimming is a different beast. I had a blast at college dual meets, conference champs and NCAAs. And it can be easily argued that NCAA D1 championships are the most competitive meet in the world, with the possible exception of US Olympic Trials. But there is no fundamental reason that such things -- mostly having to do with team unity/identity, etc -- couldn't be done at the club level. At least at that point they would be supported by the participants themselves, those are deriving benefit from the activities, rather than many others who have little or no interest. Again, this is just "thinking aloud outside the box" kind of stuff, rather than a serious suggestion at this point. Anna, I certainly agree with you about NBA/NFL. It seems to me that the NBA is the worse offender in this regard, clearly regarding college basketball as a de facto NBA minor league system. It seems to me that the NFL has much more justification for insisting on a minimum age (20? I can't remember), and at least MLB takes responsibility of developing its own players. The college football players I have dealt with here have all been motivated students, though sometimes a few get in over their heads (which is more a fault of lowering admission standards for them and not any lack of work ethic on their part). I have dealt with very very few male basketball players, which is telling in and of itself (ie, they avoid chemistry classes). Wasn't I pleasantly surprised to hear about a player at Belmont who was planning on med school! (As if I needed a reason to cheer for them to beat Duke.) I honestly can't recall a single instance of one in my 15 years here. I've had plenty female basketball players in my classes, though, and they perform just fine. Hmmm! Granted, the U of Richmond is not exactly a hotbed of future NFL/NBA/MLB players, though we've definitely had some who have gone on to each of those leagues.