ASU Men's Swimming/Diving Cut

Football takes a huge number of athletes to field a team. Title IX, or rather... its draconian interpretation..., is absolutely a factor in this because schools are required to keep the number of male and female athletes in line. I'm an avowed feminist, and I scream at the top of my lungs that feminism is the "radical" notion that men and women are equal according to the law. But it's time that there be some give and take regarding Title IX's implementation. First, though, we must address the fact that boys/men are seriously lagging behind women in getting accepted to universities. In other words... the concentrated effort for equal rights has worked so well that men are actually falling behind women at the undergraduate level. En masse. Part of that is due to "male privilege" and laziness for some boys. But for minorities and lower economic class boys it has everything to do w/ major social issues that allow boys to fall off the college-bound track. In other words: whereas Title IX fought to make sure that women weren't getting short-changed when it comes to public funds, there now is a need to incorporate men in order to make sure they aren't getting short-changed. (Personally, I find it shocking to say that!) **To complicate these issues further: the trend begins to reverse itself when it comes to graduate education; and in the professorship ranks... it's still an Old Boys' Club w/ a major glass ceiling. I understand your point. But it sounds like you're talking high school academics, not sports or Title IX, when you're speaking of being "college bound." Perhaps girls, now having more opportunities, are just smarter or work harder. Boys seem to need better study habits. With respect to the Title IX issue, boys already have their fair share of athletic scholarships. They're not getting short changed. Maybe they should be systematically discouraged from playing football when young. (I never signed my son up for football and he's not socially or athletically hindered.) Besides, obsession with football can't be used as an excuse to bump girls from girl sports to enable boys to continue playing BOTH football and other boy sports at the collegiate level. You need to fix the American obsession with football. IT'S EQUITY AMONG SPORTS, not among men and women, that needs correction. But large universities fail to spread the wealth. And why should girls take the hit for football? Look how much men (like Smith) are screaming when they take the hit! And it's only of recent vintage for them. They've really not experienced much discrimination or suffered from glass ceilings. I don't see how penalizing women and effectively returning to the prior status quo advances the ball. It would only stop evilsmith's tantrums and erode progress women have made in sports. If football can't be de-prioritized, I don't think Dolphin 2's idea of sponsorship is so bad.

Football takes a huge number of athletes to field a team. Title IX, or rather... its draconian interpretation..., is absolutely a factor in this because schools are required to keep the number of male and female athletes in line. I'm an avowed feminist, and I scream at the top of my lungs that feminism is the "radical" notion that men and women are equal according to the law. But it's time that there be some give and take regarding Title IX's implementation. First, though, we must address the fact that boys/men are seriously lagging behind women in getting accepted to universities. In other words... the concentrated effort for equal rights has worked so well that men are actually falling behind women at the undergraduate level. En masse. Part of that is due to "male privilege" and laziness for some boys. But for minorities and lower economic class boys it has everything to do w/ major social issues that allow boys to fall off the college-bound track. In other words: whereas Title IX fought to make sure that women weren't getting short-changed when it comes to public funds, there now is a need to incorporate men in order to make sure they aren't getting short-changed. (Personally, I find it shocking to say that!) **To complicate these issues further: the trend begins to reverse itself when it comes to graduate education; and in the professorship ranks... it's still an Old Boys' Club w/ a major glass ceiling. I understand your point. But it sounds like you're talking high school academics, not sports or Title IX, when you're speaking of being "college bound." Perhaps girls, now having more opportunities, are just smarter or work harder. Boys seem to need better study habits. With respect to the Title IX issue, boys already have their fair share of athletic scholarships. They're not getting short changed. Maybe they should be systematically discouraged from playing football when young. (I never signed my son up for football and he's not socially or athletically hindered.) Besides, obsession with football can't be used as an excuse to bump girls from girl sports to enable boys to continue playing BOTH football and other boy sports at the collegiate level. You need to fix the American obsession with football. IT'S EQUITY AMONG SPORTS, not among men and women, that needs correction. But large universities fail to spread the wealth. And why should girls take the hit for football? Look how much men (like Smith) are screaming when they take the hit! And it's only of recent vintage for them. They've really not experienced much discrimination or suffered from glass ceilings. I don't see how penalizing women and effectively returning to the prior status quo advances the ball. It would only stop evilsmith's tantrums and erode progress women have made in sports. If football can't be de-prioritized, I don't think Dolphin 2's idea of sponsorship is so bad.