<p>
[quote]
Why does creation of opportunity for girls have to go hand-in-hand with destruction of opportunity for boys?
[/quote]
they don't ... while the 100 or so biggest football schools have chosen to make this so (cutting men's programs while adding women's programs) ... another 2500 or so colleges have managed to add a ton of women's teams with little to no impact on the men's teams. Schools make choices ... Title IX does not in any way require the cutting oif men's programs.</p>
<p>If you use the $$$ to provide women services & opportunities they want & will use, then it is win-win. If women's crew is wildly popular, and dozens of girls are being turned away each season, wouldn't it make sense to add to the program? Well, under Title IX, improving a popular, successful women's program does not count toward compliance. So women lose. If athletic women would prefer self-defense courses, rather than a new varsity sport, that won't count toward compliance. So women lose. Instead of trying to engineer some artificial equity balance, why don't we ask women what they want and then give it to them?</p>
<p>Administrations are forced to cut men's programs because of the rash of lawsuits being filed. They can't afford to fight. Where should the $$$ to fight come from? Science departments? The arts? Of course the non-revenue sports will be the first to go. Most services & activities provided by colleges are non-revenue producing. If the school can't afford the service, it will be cut.</p>
<p>Title IX has prevented schools from enhancing opportunities where it was appropriate because of rigid, agenda-driven regulations.</p>
<p>Yes, the bottom line is always the bottom line.</p>
<p>Reminds me of the first year my daughter tried out for a mite (6-7 year old)house team in Suburban Detroit at a 1-year-old 3-sheet (private - no Title IX here) facility that didn't have enough ice time for girls because they couldn't even take but 2/3 of the boys who tried out. With so much unmet boys demand, why bother putting effort into marketing to girls?</p>
<p>My daughter was the only girl taken in the coach's draft besides one of the coaches' daughters. </p>
<p>About 1/2 way through the season I asked the coach (volunteer) why he selected my daughter and he said that when she missed a cone on one drill she immediately stopped, went back and re-did the drill without being asked. Coachable!</p>
<p>He never thought of it as a girl/boy thing and let her play her game. When he discovered that as a winger, she was always covering for her defensemen (young boys only have eyes for the puck) and decided to let her play defense full time (her choice). </p>
<p>Point here is that the bean-counters and the coaches/athletic people have very different perspectives about girls participation.</p>
<p>PS - In the years since I moved away from there, a girls organization has developed at that facility. More of a 2nd tier girls organization. I guess they found some ice time as more and more rinks went in around them. No committment to excellence still, just to fill the ice.</p>
<p>I still don't understand why events such as marching band should provide equal play for all sports, especially since many band members are female.</p>
<p>Due to the academic load, no marching band can provide enough members to play at all football games and an equal amount of female sports. This could mean the demise of marching band. How does that help females?</p>
<p>RE: Post 69</p>
<p>Can none of you address anything in there? Cheerleading? T9 lawsuits against schools that would use surveys? Women wrestlers counting as men?</p>
<p>Goaliedad, can you not believe that there is a possible saturation of women's sports? Thiel College, D3, in PA last year had to beg enough girls to come out to keep their soccer team from forfieting games. Soccer is at the top of wome's sports for popularity. The school has about 1600 undergrads, yet they had to drag girls out to keep their team alive? Anecdotal, but in many cases these women clamoring for more and more sports teams just do not exist. </p>
<p>Any of you who have followed the situation at Fresno St where they dropped wrestling and where wrestling was finally reinstated at Bucknell will see the latest scam, holding a sport hostage. Fresno St told the wrestling supporters after it dropped wrestling that to keep wrestling they needed to come up with $2M a year to support wrestling (budget about $400K, and 2 yet to be determined women's sports with the other $1.6M) and Bucknell took a $5M endowment to get wrestling back from a wealthy donor, with most of it earmaked again for 2 women's sports. Are there women out there willing to put up $5M at a school to add some sports (and tag one on for men)? If the men's sport is fully funded from outside sources, that still isn't good enough. They must fund women's teams, and in some cases go recruit girls to play on them, or drop to club level, which now has over 135 men's teams.</p>
<p>Wrestling is one of the cheapest sports there is, and also the most frequent cut and has the lowest ratio of NCAA programs to HS teams by far. Why? T9 and the lack of a female companion sport, and you can argue there are ways around it, but that's the cause. Don't tell me that 500 ADs were all to dumb to figure out how to use student surveys in the past 30 years. The amount amount of work it would take to combat T9 is just not worth it for any one single University. And no one wants to stick their neck out for the political correctness factor. No one wants to spend 10 years and $10M in court to prove it, whether it is wrestling (a JMU casualty) or ony other men's sport.</p>
<p>father05</p>
<p>I can't speak to Thiel College's problem recruiting soccer players. Division 3 sports tend to fill rosters with walk-ons (as opposed to recruited players), so there are a lot more factors to look at including whether the women students at Thiel are actually interested in playing soccer. I don't know what their degree offerings are, but maybe they don't appeal to soccer players. I dunno. And maybe the other womens sports offered in that season are more popular (a victim of their own success?) with their women students.</p>
<p>My knowledge of womens sports is fairly narrow, (womens hockey) but I can tell you that it is easier for Division III programs to start womens hockey than Division I just because the jump from club to Division III is doable on a competitive basis in a reasonable amount of time. Jumping from club to Division I (as would be required for Division I insititutions) is a whole other thing, if you want to be reasonably competitive.</p>
<p>I know that some places (notoriously Michigan) seem to have a substantial defeceit in womens hockey opportunities proportional to the hockey-playing population of the area, whereas some areas (Ohio) seem to have more opportunities than local player participation. </p>
<p>I don't think ADs are dumb, but ill advised on how to manage the situation. If they can get that lawyer out of their ear and the head football coach and a few other politically connected people out of their ears and listen to the students they might make some market based decisions on what sports to offer.</p>
<p>The ADs don't design the survey (most of them wouldn't know how). It is usually somebody with an axe to grind that designs the survey to get the result they expect or want to see.</p>
<p>Goaliedad, one thing for sure. For your D and my S, opportunites are few and far between. If wrestling in college was at the same relative participation level as HS, S would have easily been able to earn a full D1 ride instead of going to a D3. But with only 82 or 83 D1 schools left in wrestling, and something like 10,000 HS teams, that's not real good odds. Your chances are better making the NFL from D1 football than making D1 wrestling from HS, per capita.</p>
<p>At least it made the college search simple. 90%+ of all colleges were eliminated before the college search began - no wrestling. My D is in track - no such luck there!</p>
<p>At my law school, women are really trying to improve the sports situation. There's a definite disparity in IM sports - and it's not because women don't want to participate. Many times, we aren't told about opportunities with undergrads (law school fields a team to compete against the sororities), or told about 2 days ahead of time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Goaliedad, one thing for sure. For your D and my S, opportunites are few and far between.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Given the cost to society per athlete of those "opportunities," perhaps that's a good thing.</p>
<p>To take James Madison's athletics budget as an example: their athletics department report states that there are about 300 varsity athletes in a pool of 16,000 students. According to the newspaper link I posted earlier, those 16,000 students cover 84% of the athletic budget with fees they pay, amounting to $18 million.</p>
<p>Dividing that $18 million by the 300 athletes means that the cost per athlete of these "opportunities" is $60,000 per year. (I guess that counts an athletes's prorated share of salaries for coaches, trainers, administrators, travel, equipment, uniforms, facility maintenance, insurance, scholarships, tutors, etc.)</p>
<p>That's a lot of money for those 16,000 students to be pitching in for the benefit of a select few, male or female.</p>
<p>"S would have easily been able to earn a full D1 ride instead of going to a D3"</p>
<p>So is it about being able to continue to play or about paying for college?</p>
<p>The odds of any kid in any sport getting a full ride are minimal anyway. If that was your motive, did you steer him into the wrong sport possibly?
How are his classroom scores? </p>
<p>So if he can't rassle, can he rugby? can he waterpolo? can he LAX? One door closes and another opens.</p>
<p>But with only 82 or 83 D1 schools left in wrestling, and something like 10,000 HS teams, that's not real good odds. Your chances are better making the NFL from D1 football than making D1 wrestling from HS, per capita.</p>
<p>At least it made the college search simple. 90%+ of all colleges were eliminated before the college search began - no wrestling. My D is in track - no such luck there!"</p>
<p>It's worse in women's gymnastics.</p>
<p>From a purely dollars and cents perspective, it is hard to justify almost any college sport. Some Division I football and basketball programs make money. A handful of womens Division I basketball make money. </p>
<p>What we miss here is the mission of athletic competition in school life - a place where character and discipline are developed, where a sense of community is built, and where many a young person finds a healthy diversion among other bad choices to be made with their free time.</p>
<p>I think despite the low odds of continuing at a varsity level at college, none of you would have your kids not play their sport as they probably have all experienced all of those benefits through high school.</p>
<p>And it doesn't matter whether you child is a man or a woman, almost all benefit from participation in sports or the sense of community that sports brings to a school.</p>
<p>I think women's gymnastics is dying because most serious level gymnasts peak before they hit college age. Tough to stay 5 feet 95 pounds in college.</p>
<p>mini</p>
<p>Really? Worse in gymnastics?</p>
<p>There are 340,000 HS boy wrestlers vying for about 830 spots in wrestling at D1. There are no subs. There are 10 weights per team and one starter and that's it for "playing" time. </p>
<p>How many girls gymnastic participants at HS?</p>
<p>Opie</p>
<p>We knew from the day he started wrestling that a D1 scholarship was highly improbable. That's the sport he loves, and wants to coach. No problems here.</p>
<p>aries</p>
<p>At your law school, do they have a class to explain why women wrestlers count as men?</p>
<p>wisteria</p>
<p>At recently cut fully funded (max scholarship) Fresno St, the cost was 340K for 34 kids. Wrestling is cheap. I am sure JMU was cheaper, as I believe they are not close to fully funded.</p>
<p>ANYONE - CHEERLEADERS?????????????????????????</p>
<p>"Really? Worse in gymnastics?</p>
<p>There is only about half the number of D1 scholarship-awarding schools, and fewer scholarships for each one.</p>
<p>"I think women's gymnastics is dying because most serious level gymnasts peak before they hit college age. Tough to stay 5 feet 95 pounds in college."</p>
<p>Few do, and they don't have to try. Club gymnastics at the high school level is generally speaking (with the exception of maybe 10 schools) more competitive than college gymnastics. So? They still want to compete, and they're certainly no worse at their sport than the overweight, lumbering tackles at JMU are at theirs.</p>
<p>The alumni bit for JMU football is a scam. I'm sure there are scads of JMU female alumnae who just swoon every year to for the opportunity go to a JMU/Appalachian State tailgate party and get plastered.</p>
<p>Look - I think it is great that big, beefy guys get the opportunity to eat well for four years. All that Title IX says is that females get to eat too, to the level of their interest. If schools feel it is okay to diss both their female students and their female alums, they've got what's coming to them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At recently cut fully funded (max scholarship) Fresno St, the cost was 340K for 34 kids. Wrestling is cheap.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Depends on exactly how you do the cost-accounting. I'd like to see the budget. Does it count the prorated share of facility maintence and utilities for the spaces in which they practice and compete, the amount of administrator time dedicated to dealing with NCAA paperwork compliance issues related to the team, their prorated share of other joint costs (e.g., sport-medicine clinic, etc.)</p>
<p>Even at $10K per kid, I wouldn't call it a "cheap" opportunity. </p>
<p>Fresno State can't afford to give every enrolled kid the opportunity to do an EC that costs the school even $10K per kid.</p>
<p>$340K a year isn't cheap--that's over a million dollars every three years (plus more with inflation.)</p>
<p>That's a LOT of money for a student organization involving 34 students!</p>
<p>With the $340K in annual savings from the wrestling team, they could afford to hire a few more professors, or they could refurbish and modernize some science labs, or they could run a mentored summer research program for close to 100 students, or a zillion other things that would more directly impact the educational mission of the school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And it doesn't matter whether you child is a man or a woman, almost all benefit from participation in sports or the sense of community that sports brings to a school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The college I attended had a wonderful sense of community (derived mostly from traditions that had absolutely nothing to do with sports, the best of which involved the entire school getting together and singing together in the evenings in special places outdoors.) </p>
<p>I can't imagine that adding a wrestling team to our school would have added an incremental "sense of community" worth $340K.</p>
<p>wisteria, I appreciate that you feel this way. I really do and I'm glad you found a place that welcomed you. I do believe you are sincere and you are entitled to your opinion . It's all about fit....and I'd have thrown a ringtail tizzy of a fit if somebody had tried to get me to sit in a circle and sing "Cumbaya" or "Michael Row Your Boat Ashore". I'd have rather had my toenails pulled out with catfish pliers than have to spend four years with kids who thought that was fun. </p>
<p>My D seems to feel the same way. Basketball conditioning and two tough pickup games a week against the returning players wasn't enough physical competition for her so she has joined (and is playing several minutes for) Rhodekill - Rhodes' Ultimate Frisbee Club Team. Amazing only when you realize that to my knowledge she had never thrown a Frisbee before and the first game she saw , she scored in!! They played and beat Ole Miss, next up -Itchfest Tournament at Vandy this weekend. She'll be easy to pick out. She'll be the girl who will appear to the untrained eye to be trying to turn herself and her opponents into one giant bruise. Can you foul out of Ultimate? ;) I'm sure she'll find out.</p>
<p>Wait a minute: If sports are very costly to colleges, why not dump most of them, other than the alumni favorites such as football, and basketball, and make all of the rest team sports? This is especially true if only a small percentage of students participate in varsity sports. This way there would be a lot more money for other needs such as better dorms, more scholarships etc.</p>
<p>wisteria and taxguy,</p>
<p>While we are out cutting programs like athletics, why don't we just cut all cultural spending as well? (I am being facetious here)</p>
<p>Your odds of going from high school football to the NFL are about as good as going from HS Orchestra to playing with a professional Orchestra. I have a brother who has been there.</p>
<p>And music schools, theatre programs, and art galleries are very expensive to run as well.</p>
<p>Now getting back to reality, high level sports, like high level arts are an integral part of a society whether we enjoy them or not. Universities are not trade school and have traditionally expanded their scope to include all of the life aspects of the community, from athletics and arts to economic development and public health.</p>
<p>They are generally not for profit institutions whose spending priorities are a social decision, not a profit and loss analysis. The values of the society are generally reflected in their educational institutions. And with the expanding equality of women in athletic competition (look at the growing number of female Olympic sports), it is only reasonable to expect the universities to reflect those changes. </p>
<p>Now, I understand that people are upset that some mens sports are cut while womens sports are expanded. There are a lot of things that go into these decisions that shouldn't (i.e. the lawyers about to sue). And it is a shame that a small number of vocal outside people have the ability to what seems run a university's athletic department. But the gains for all women at universities (even women who don't participate in athletics benefit from the feeling of empowerment that having competitive womens teams brings) from the expansion of women's athletics need to be acknowledged.</p>
<p>wisteria, if you want to cout out all school sports at all levels (HS), then I can understand your point. I think that's wrong, but I can understand it. I assume, of course, that you want to cut out all other non-academic spending by an institution as well. Dump the wellness centers, the marching band, and all the other ECs not part of a credit course.</p>
<p>If not, then I have a problem. For instance, where do you think the coaches that are coaching HS wrestling get their training? Most are collegiate wrestlers. CA has over 700 HS wrestling teams and somewhere around 20,000 HS wrestlers. FSU was the best CA college wrestling program. It is now gone. There are only about 8 or 10 NCAA teams left in CA now. </p>
<p>Is the Educational mission of FSU to teach HS students summer programs? Or is it to teach the students that attend it, some of whom are being educated to be HS teachers and coaches to be, well, HS teachers and coaches? Of the 34 wrestlers attending there, there were 9.9 scholarships. I believe that other than a Sr or two that didn't want to transfer, the rest are all gone. Is that loss of students, and revenue from the paying students good? I know, maybe they can replace their spots in admissions with some CHEERLEADERS or POM-POM GIRLS. Of course, 34 less men means the M/F ratio changes, so maybe you need to get rid of some more men's sports, or roster spots.</p>
<p>Wisteria, I am guessing you are not much on sports. You might be surprised to find that you don't have to be a superstar to have sports impact you in your education, in your career and in your life. Participation teaches a lot.</p>