Further cuts to come for men's sports

"......And you can't blame that on feminists for god's sake. They are the last ones watching football." Your right. It's the lawyers that drafted the ruling. A one sided solution with little foresight to address anything but female numerical inequities as opposed to safeguarding the existing sports for women AND men. Title IX should have been drafted to help prevent the slash and burn decisions of athletic departments during it implementation as well as the ever present football budgetary favoritism. Unfortunately, it was only written to protect women. Title IX may fall on it's own sword eventually. It could've been drafted to leverage football AD decisions during budgetary constraints. The problem with reducing the football # scholarships in half may backfire. Who's to say ADs would be willing to spread the remaining scholarship money to secondary men's sports or women's sports. They'd probably just eat it in salary and other budget areas which would result in a net loss of scholarships for women. John

Apparently, this is the criteria used by the Department of Education to determine whether equal treatment exists: 1) Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes; (2) The provision of equipment and supplies; (3) Scheduling of games and practice time; (4) Travel and per diem allowance; (5) Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring; (6) Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors; (7) Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (8) Provision of medical and training facilities and services; (9) Provision of housing and dining facilities and services; (10) Publicity. Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the Assistant Secretary may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex. A male could have a strong argument that in providing fewer sports for males, a particular university is not meeting criterium #1 mentioned above - the selection of sports .

However as I pointed out when you post as your doing you make Phil's point about femists shouting down an calling anyone who may want this situation to no longer be abused sexists...and with regard to me your dead wrong about that. Out of curiosity, what would you call someone who has posted on this forum dozens of times that women are ruining men's sports? I don't consider myself a feminist but as the father of two girls, I do consider these continued rantings to be offensive. At some point swimming is irrelevant in the conversation. Eventually, reasonable people will move beyond Title IX and into today's issues. There is always going to be some gasbag that people will line up behind.

In a bizarre twist, Bradley University in Peoria (private, Div 1, no football program but an awesome BB show) cut both men and womens swimming a few years back. They still allowed local age-group programs to use their pool for practice and meets. Recently, they spent millions to demolish the old buildings and re-build a rec complex, complete with weightrooms, BB-courts, Sauna, and a pool! However, during the design, they deliberately built a 25 yd 6-lane pool ( complete with bottom lane markers and a set of lane ropes ) but with deck space to only one side and a small set of bleachers. Presumably, too small to hold even a tri-meet. Even worse, they told local age-groupers to stay away. Seems odd to me.... for a few more dollars, the facility would have been there to support a program, but I don't believe they wanted to be in a position to even consider such an option. Matt, the U of I never allows the age group teams to use their pools, and rental for practice is 80.00 an hour, so that is out as well.

All, If you're concerned about saving men's college swimming, but also relish the idea of "beating some kids," then I highly encourage you to consider coming out to Tempe/ASU for the Swimming World Magazine Cactus Classic meet over Memorial Day weekend. A portion of the meet fees will go to the "Save ASU Swimming" Foundation, a foundation set up to help self-fund the men's swimming program at ASU. I've attached the flyer over in the Events forum. Can you think of a better way to start your LCM season?

Amy...did you read the link to the article I posted with Whitten? I think he's pretty clear on where he stands regarind football and has made some great suggestions about how it should be addressed. As for demoninizing Title IX I'm not sure who/what your talking to so maybe provide a quote to show me what your talking about...the problem is that AD's (mainly men, but not in ASU case) do use Titile IX as the rationale to cut men's sports and I think everyone here who has posted their frutrations about them and the misuse of the law has been very clear that they don't want anything taken away from women's sports oppurtunities. However as I pointed out when you post as your doing you make Phil's point about femists shouting down an calling anyone who may want this situation to no longer be abused sexists...and with regard to me your dead wrong about that. This makes sense: "Unethical administrators and athletic directors are using the excuse of Title IX to cut men's programs when that isn't what is really driving their decisions. What's maddening is that there would be no need to cut men's teams, and all of the dissembling, obfuscation and plain old lying would be unnecessary if these guys would only use a little creativity, if they'd think outside the box or invite the participation of their Olympic sports coaches in dealing with budgetary issues. The total lack of imagination is depressing and, frankly, bewildering. Are these guys really such rigid thinkers?" This does not: "What is happening with Title IX is that the radical feminists have taken it to the limit and beyond. In conception, Title IX was a good thing – equal opportunity for men and women. Who could be against that? But remove football from the equation and men are now the under-represented sex. It's men who are being discriminated against." The first paragraph says what we all agree on. AD's are using the legislation as an excuse. The second paragraph, however, is nonsense. And it's sexist. Which radical feminists, exactly, are at fault for how AD's are using Title IX as an excuse to cut sports? And why, again, are we to remove football from the equation? We are to simply ignore 85 scholarships exclusively for men for what rational reason? Title IX should have been drafted to help prevent the slash and burn decisions of athletic departments during it implementation as well as the ever present football budgetary favoritism. Unfortunately, it was only written to protect women When Title IX was drafted it was to protect women. Why? Because women weren't afforded athletic opportunities. My mom was not able to play sports in high-school or college. I think NCAA Division I Women's Swimming only came into existence a couple of years before I went to college. Women had NOTHING in the way of athletic opportunities only 30+ years ago. The law was written to rectify that. There was no way those writing the law could foresee that NCAA Division I football would become the mega-dollar business it has. To imply that Title IX was somehow a feminist conspiracy because "it was only written to protect women" is dumb. That's exactly who it was written for. And the reason was that women were getting zilch. To complain and whine that the law wasn't looking out for men is absurd. At the time men had it all! And, as geek points out, constantly harping on a legislation that evened the playing field for women as if it were the problem (and not those who abuse it for their own ends) seems sexist. Sorry if I actually like what Title IX allowed me to experience as a female college athlete! That's it for me on this thread. I'm worn out. If ya'll don't get it, I can't think of anything else I can say that will change your minds...

Out of curiosity, what would you call someone who has posted on this forum dozens of times that women are ruining men's sports? Who? I may be missing something here but I don't recall anyone blaming women unless a "law" is considered "female"? Title IX isn't the culprit, nor are women...but a law that was written poorly that gives the powers that be (AD's, University Presidents) an "out" to balance their budgets under the guise of "equality" which I challenge everyone yelling "sexist" to show me hasn't been unfairly applied to men's sports is wrong for everyone.

I am in favor of cutting football at marginal schools. UMBC cut out football and they have wonderful programs for both men and woman--something like 16 healthy athletic programs WITH scholarships. It doesn't make sense for huge schools or even DIII schools that are competitive, but for schools with poor records and programs that are barely hanging on, cutting the football program is a real option. It opens a whole world of collegiate sports! Water polo, fencing, crew, and of course men's swimming. Football--huge rosters, huge travel expenses, huge training tables, huge equipment, huge support systems, and huge money. This for a sport that to participate in will likely shorten, and subtract value, from your life.

This makes sense: This does not: The first paragraph says what we all agree on. AD's are using the legislation as an excuse. The second paragraph, however, is nonsense. And it's sexist. Which radical feminists, exactly, are at fault for how AD's are using Title IX as an excuse to cut sports? And why, again, are we to remove football from the equation? We are to simply ignore 85 scholarships exclusively for men for what rational reason? When Title IX was drafted it was to protect women. Why? Because women weren't afforded athletic opportunities. My mom was not able to play sports in high-school or college. I think NCAA Division I Women's Swimming only came into existence a couple of years before I went to college. Women had NOTHING in the way of athletic opportunities only 30+ years ago. The law was written to rectify that. There was no way those writing the law could foresee that NCAA Division I football would become the mega-dollar business it has. To imply that Title IX was somehow a feminist conspiracy because "it was only written to protect women" is dumb. That's exactly who it was written for. And the reason was that women were getting zilch. To complain and whine that the law wasn't looking out for men is absurd. At the time men had it all! And, as geek points out, constantly harping on a legislation that evened the playing field for women as if it were the problem (and not those who abuse it for their own ends) seems sexist. Sorry if I actually like what Title IX allowed me to experience as a female college athlete! That's it for me on this thread. I'm worn out. If ya'll don't get it, I can't think of anything else I can say that will change your minds... I've asked Phil to join in the conversation....we'll see if he does because I agree with you that he should give specifics vs. a general statement such as the one you detailed. John's an ass and just likes getting people worked up... My last comment (for know) Amy with regard to your posts is you constantly talk about the "past" with regard to Titile IX...we are all (I think) arguing for the here and the now and that means accept the positives that Title IX created but also the unintended negatives and let's try and get them corrected...when a law is adopted but found to have loopholes in it that allow others to misuse its still a poor law and because those of us who recognize this and want it corrected doesn't mean were all idiots and sexists.

The solution to this seems simple. A male needs to file suit under Title IX alleging discrimination due to the fact a given university does not offer equal opportunities to males in the selection of sport. I just did some research and saw that this has been done, but perhaps some clever strategies could produce a different result. One case is all it takes for athletic departments to change their policies. I guess this would mean that tuition would go up to accomodate equal number of sports for both sexes, but this may just have to be the way it is.