ASU Men's Swimming/Diving Cut

Absolutely tragic! The bottom line cause of every title nine loss--tennis, wrestling, lacrosse, swimming and diving--is football. If you get rid of football, you gain up to 5 sports (for both men and women). See UMBC's offerings for athletes. The answer is to dump football--the supposed money getter for the AD.

The answer is to dump football--the supposed money getter for the AD. That's what I'd opt for. Football, not Title IX, is the chief culprit. Athletic departments are really just becoming football departments nowadays. Forget the concept of "athletes." My college cut both men's and women's swimming a few years ago. It was reinstated with an alumni endowment. I feel bad for the athletes who will have to transfer if they wish to continue swimming. Notice that the form letter was not even signed by the football-loving AD.

Geek - not all SEC schools field men's swimming. Arkansas, Mississipi St., Mississippi, and Vanderbilt do not have men's swimming. I'm not a great researcher but from what I can tell, only Vandy in your list above has ever had a men's swimming program. I could be wrong about this. I did not see any of the other above mentioned programs in any SEC results going back to 1937. Wait - Miss State did have a team in 1937 but I don't see them competing again after that. Guess all the water holes dried up in '38. Fearing some schools haven't been in the SEC since 1937 I have confirmed that Miss and Miss St were charter members back in 1932. Arkansas joined in 1991 from the SWC. I can't find any history of Arkansas men's swimming but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. SWC is a bit hard to dig up info on.

I think the school itself is still open. They can attend classes and get their degree, permitting them to pursue a prosperous career. Nice! Glad I went to a school where the alumni appreciated swimming.

UCLA had the funding to endow the program and it was rejected, as in the case with ASU its not so simple. Even if they can endow the men's program and keep it funded and alive per Title IX then an equal number of women's opportunities must be made available. One reminder, this is a school that started a women's crew program by posting flyers on campus a few years back saying "try out, scholarships now available, no experience needed". I'm all for womens sports and what Title IX did, I'm not for wimpy AD's who choose the "easy" way out and screw Olympic sports/men's programs to try an obtain parity. As in the case with Michigan when the coach departs the swimmers at a university where the program is dropped can be released and go elsewhere without losing eligibility.

Paul, not true. It appears that tennis and wrestling is also being cut. So it was a fill-in-the-blanks letter!

As in the case with Michigan when the coach departs the swimmers at a university where the program is dropped can be released and go elsewhere without losing eligibility. That's really not the case at all. When a coach leaves it is usually unlikely that an athlete will be granted an additional year of eligibility (or that same year) if they transfer. If that was the case, you'd see a whole lot more transfers. The rule was actually put in place to specifically discourage athletes from hopping around schools or chasing a coach. I think the ability to retain that year upon transfer is pretty tightly controlled, and rightly so. Obviously, dumping a program would probably get you a pretty quick and EZ hearing. The irony of this is that non revenue sports are extremely dependent upon football for their existence. So, in effect, the more you spend on football and the more successful it becomes, the more likely you are to have a well rounded slate of athletics. This could very well be why Smith chose to get a teenager-esque tat of the longhorns on his aging bedraggled body.

One or two more and the PAC 10 will look like the Big 12. It'a joke. Budget crunch.... AD's with no focus or experience beyond football..... Title IX...... it's all a disaster for mens collegiate swimming. John Smith

Geek, Get a grip and get off your high horse on this subject. Your holier-than-thou attitude about women's sports and Title IX is nauseating. To think that any functioning budget could withstand a split down the middle between mens and women's sports without financial impact to one or the other is pathetically naive. Everyone agrees Title IX was beneficial to women's athletics and rightfully so. But just because someone states something negative abouts its implementation doesn't mean they're women haters and whiny male chauvinists. Even though you selectively ripped that one item out of my quote, I did NOT say Title IX was the only cause for the demise of men's swimming. John Smith

I think this is primarily a financial decision, but Title IX clearly affected how ASU chose to deal with it. ASU probably concluded that they needed $2M (just my guess) or so. They could have dealt with it any number of ways: 1. take it out every sport's budget proportionally 2. kill a few sports that would save the necessary $$ 3. raise revenue They obviously chose #2 - so the decision comes down to which sports. If they had killed any women's sports they probably could not satisfy TitleIX: - that the percentages of male and female athletes are substantially proportionate to the percentages of male and female students enrolled; or - that it has a history and continuing practice of expanding athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex; or - that its athletics program fully and effectively accommodates the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex. ASU could also have chosen to cut more $$ somewhere else - like football or basketball. But they didn't do that. Duh...... TitleIX clearly contributed to the decision.