ASU Men's Swimming/Diving Cut

Let's be honest, ASU had 36 years to adjust to Title IX. Not really. The interpretation of Title IX has evolved, and the problem is that it hasn't evolved to accommodate social changes and the fact that women now have the opportunity to compete in sports. We're not in the '60s! I'd prefer that some money be spent on getting women through the glass ceiling that still exists for women, instead of offering more and more sports that women just aren't interested in. Put $100K into programs for female graduate students w/ children so that they can finish their degree in a timely manner. Put $100K into programs for female graduate students that will enable them to have children if they so desire and still reach tenure when they become a professor, which is a MAJOR issue. Or put $100K into programs that link female business leaders w/ undergrads so that they can network, learn about which battles to fight and when, foster female solidarity in the business world, etc. The reality is that women nowadays have played sports and take what they want from them. The reality is that there are better ways to spend money on a student-body that reflects their true needs, not the standards put forth by an outdated, archaic piece of legislation. Midas - good points. I think schools hide behind Title IX so as not to admit to financial stupidity. To a degree. But just like there's a knee-jerk reaction to blame everything on Title IX, so is "financial stupidity" a red-herring. To say that football is a revenue producing sport is WRONG at almost all schools.I was told by a semi-reliable source that 6 Div 1 teams actually made money. It's a loss-leader. The reality is that w/o a football team, alumni just won't give nearly as much money per year.

Let's be honest, ASU had 36 years to adjust to Title IX. Not really. The interpretation of Title IX has evolved, and the problem is that it hasn't evolved to accommodate social changes and the fact that women now have the opportunity to compete in sports. We're not in the '60s! I'd prefer that some money be spent on getting women through the glass ceiling that still exists for women, instead of offering more and more sports that women just aren't interested in. Put $100K into programs for female graduate students w/ children so that they can finish their degree in a timely manner. Put $100K into programs for female graduate students that will enable them to have children if they so desire and still reach tenure when they become a professor, which is a MAJOR issue. Or put $100K into programs that link female business leaders w/ undergrads so that they can network, learn about which battles to fight and when, foster female solidarity in the business world, etc. The reality is that women nowadays have played sports and take what they want from them. The reality is that there are better ways to spend money on a student-body that reflects their true needs, not the standards put forth by an outdated, archaic piece of legislation. Midas - good points. I think schools hide behind Title IX so as not to admit to financial stupidity. To a degree. But just like there's a knee-jerk reaction to blame everything on Title IX, so is "financial stupidity" a red-herring. To say that football is a revenue producing sport is WRONG at almost all schools.I was told by a semi-reliable source that 6 Div 1 teams actually made money. It's a loss-leader. The reality is that w/o a football team, alumni just won't give nearly as much money per year.