<p>I think one thing to keep in mind regarding the Ivy League and D3's - there is no scholarship funds being utilized - and the Ivy's have huge endowments - tho that does not necessarily mean that the Ivy's and D3's have not experienced cuts of sports teams - they certainly have over the years.</p>
<p>Swimming has taken major hits all over the country - at all levels - not a money maker at all - so on the chopping block they have gone - some for the sake of Title IX - some for the sake of the financial status of schools (or states they happen to be in)</p>
<p>I just want to make some clarifications on this post. I didn't read anything past post #11 in this thread:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Rice's football team has been awful for about 45 years, BUT last year they made the New Orleans bowl (where Troy dismantled them like 41-17 or something[?]) and apparently the team is actually starting to gather more fans in the area.
Also, Rice does NOT compete in a league with Texas. Rice is in Conference-USA and Texas is in the Big XII. That game is scheduled because it's been a rivalry game, although I can't remember the last time Rice ever won that game. I think the over-under this year is already something like 54-0.</p>
<p>In reference to the NCAA officially sanctioning sports, many sports despise the NCAA's interference and compete outside of its influence.</p>
<p>Men's crew is one. And you can't say, with the US under-23 team just winning worlds, that men's crew is anything less than incredibly competitive in this country. But instead of having the NCAA govern their teams (which would require adherence to strict practice time limits and recruiting rules) the teams exist and USRowing is their governing body.</p>
<p>The one women's rugby team is by no means competing against lesser teams. They are just the only team that has officially designated themselves as DI.</p>
<p>SES - that is the case in many/most sports - there is 'another' governing body outside the college realm that they can compete in - that said tho - colleges and their sports under NCAA governing body - compete against other colleges as recognized sports for college students as varsity teams.</p>
<p>Club sports - many that do compete on national levels - recognized and supported sometimes by colleges (sometimes not) - under other governing bodies - nothing to do with NCAA at all - do exist - but they are 2 very different animals. College club sports tho - do have some constraints under the guise of being a college team none the less.</p>
<p>Recruiting and practice time limits are there for a reason for college students - outside the realm of the NCAA - under another governing body - they can do what they want - but college students under NCAA rules cannot - one of the reasons the NCAA exists.</p>
<p>"One of the more ironic outcomes of Title IX is the schools often least associated with college sports, DIII schools and DI schools like the IVY and Patriot League shools, now typically have way more varsity programs than most "big-time" sports schools like the SEC or Big-12 schools."</p>
<p>On the contrary, the very name "Ivy" is the moniker of an athletic conference, nothing more and nothing less. And my alma mater, #1 LAC, has won the Sears Trophy for #1 athletic Div. III school in the country something like 9 out of the last 10 years, and are very, very proud of that fact, together with the reality that a full 50% of the student body participates in intercollegiate varsity, junior varsity, or club sports. It's really not ironic at all.</p>
<p>JeepMOM- Club team implies, at least to me, a lack of funding from the school. This is not the case at most D1 schools. With the exception of a few programs, like Michigan and USC where crew is a Varsity Club sport, with some funding.</p>
<p>Mini ... I meant ironic in this sense. If we surveyed a bunch of people and asked them to name schools into sports the vast majority would probably name top-ranked DI football and basketball schools which tend to have very few varsity teams ... and virtually noone would name Williams and Cornell (although you and I might as we are aware of how many teams they sponsor)</p>
<p>I can't believe you guys don't think the high school ruling in the video is not unfair. Title IX says that there has to be equal funding for both the mens and womens sports who receive federal funding. Ok i'm fine with that... Well, the school provided equal funding and they are the ones who get the federal grants. If the parents and booster clubs want to get sponsors and put the time to get their field looking nice they shouldn't have it removed. They did it on their own and the softball team could have done it the same way. They aren't getting treated any different by the school. It the parents and athlete that are doing the extra work.</p>
<p>Well, you better start believing it. If they want it to happen, they know what they have to do. (Yes, I saw the video. Now show me a women's coach - in any sport - anywhere in the country, who thinks Title IX is unfair.)</p>
<p>One statement made in the Stoessel tirade went unrefuted by Stoessel, and by everyone else: just as soon as you offer women equal opportunity to play, they show up. It's unrefuted because it is true, as every school that has started new women's sports has discovered.</p>
<p>But these are schools who just start women's crew out of the blue. It's actually the fastest growing sport in America and has exploded in the last 10/15 years. And crew is the most walked-on sport at any college.</p>
<p>Title IX has simply meant that some of the top schools are a little random (Oklahoma? Wisconsin?) as opposed to just the Ivies or Stanford.</p>
<p>SES - many club sports - and I am not say 'varsity club' sports - have some financial backing from schools - it is not unheard of at all. Crew is a very expensive sport to start at a school.</p>
<p>BARRONS - seems to me that crew - at many schools - is a big walk-on sport as well. Alot of crew teams seem to be re-trained athletes from other sports also. </p>
<p>MINI - I pretty much agree with you on that - build it - and they will come :) as proven since Title IX started - all the more opportunities that came to be has meant that more females have more opportunities to participate in.</p>
<p>Mini- you keep using the same excuse and overlook the point i'm making. TO say that no women coaches are complaining is a given. Why would they be complaining when they are the ones benefiting greatly with title IX. </p>
<p>Well, what happens when the colleges build a mens team and than tear it down??? That seems fair to all the athletes that came for the team and had it taken away. Let me guess... you are going to say that the school doesn't have to be tearing the sport down, right? Title IX backs them into a corner.</p>
<p>"Some schools are having a tough time attracting enough women to crew. Hard sport with more practice than actual competitions."</p>
<p>Name one. I know of NO team that has started, and offered the requisite scholarships, that has had difficulty fielding a team. </p>
<p>Stoessel has 10 minutes and 18 seconds to try to refute the statement, and he couldn't find a single program in the country whereby he could do so.</p>
<p>"Why would they be complaining when they are the ones benefiting greatly with title IX. "</p>
<p>So having a bunch of crybaby men's coaches is a good reason to maintain a sport? No wonder administrations are making decisions that what they have to offer may just not be worth it. The school can do what it wants - it's their money, and if the men's coaches can't make their case, they're history.</p>
<p>There are always plenty of jobs in retail.</p>
<p>"Title IX backs them into a corner."</p>
<p>Title IX makes them spend money. It's about time.</p>
<p>"Name one. I know of NO team that has started, and offered the requisite scholarships, that has had difficulty fielding a team."</p>
<p>Requisite scholarships? Many schools do not use fill all of the scholarships that they are allowed to have by the NCAA. For example, DI baseball is allowed 11.7 I believe; SEMO baseball I read only has 7 scholarships that they give out.</p>
<p>Mini, that's a pretty low excuse for the value of the rule. "No women complain so it must be good" WOW</p>
<p>The value of the rule is as it is stated - equal opportunity. It works, too. That's why all the crybabies. Offer the sport opportunity, and the women come.</p>
<p>(Some men don't like it; tough on them. If they don't like the law of the land, let 'em go coach the Myanmar Olympic Team, or the Cameroon junior varsity.)</p>
<p>Cept I know of a situation - where there is less practice than competition - like NO practice - and yet the team ranks high in their competition - nationally. NO practice because the school is too far from facilities that would allow practice - so they just go and compete on their merits - guys and gals equally. And I gotta love it cuz the gals outrank the guys by farrrrrrrrr - sweet justice LOL</p>
<p>You just made your first great point, Mini.</p>
<p>"The school can do what it wants - it's their money,"</p>
<p>They should be able to decide what sports they want at their college since its their money.No guidelines at all. That's a great point. I agree whole heartedly. </p>
<p>"Title IX does makes them spend money"</p>
<p>I don't see many schools spending money i actually see schools cutting men's sports and adding woman sports. So they aren't spending money. </p>
<p>And why do you keep editing your posts?? Do you always find something that would support my case.</p>