<p>I would submit that it’'s not a lack of interest - it’s a lack of teams. I’ve watch kids try to find a team to continue on, just like my son. Believe me, it’s not a lack of interest. Of the 267,000 odd kids wrestling in HS, I am certain a lot more would be wrestling if the opportunities were there. In CA alone, there are something like 900 or 1000 HSs with wrestling, and only like 8 or 10 colleges (4 year - the Ca CC league is incredibly stacked). Now I am pretty sure that more than 1% of HS wrestlers would like the chance continue in college. The opportunites just are not there.</p>
<p>Other sports teams besides wrestling that have also been cut due to budget woes, even before the latest money troubles–gymnastics and golf.</p>
<p>In one of the stories leading up to the NCAA men’s basketball finals, there was the interesting reporting that only one division I team in football made money last year. One! And that basketball is now the only money-making sport for most colleges. Football and basketball both used to bring in big bucks at a lot of schools, and if football is now a money-losing sport, I’d guess that we’re going to continue to see other schools cut back on college sports spending. Where did the money come from to fund wrestling at Davis? From the state? From student fees? Neither is a good source of money at the moment, and rather than having a multitude of impoverished programs it is probably better to drop funding for a few. Not much different than dropping German because of lack of enrollment.</p>
<p>All “men’s” minor sports have suffered for sure, but wrestling has clearly suffered the most due to the lack of that counter sport.</p>
<p>It actually is different, because many of the kids that wrestle will transfer, costing the school money, although not much, but at least there was participation. Dropping German if there was no one in it is different. That implies a lack of interest in participation. </p>
<p>Believe me, it’s typically not about the money where wrestling has been concerned, although it probably has some influence at Davis. For instance, Bucknell started a wrestling team a few years ago. It’s not just getting the money. There was an alum that wanted to fund the wrestling team. He had to come up with over double the money to fund wrestling to fund 2 women’s sports. Of course, the problem was finding the women to be interested in getting on the women’s teams. </p>
<p>Actually, I am a HS swim coach, and swimming has taken a pounding too.</p>
<p>Why not keep some of the sports but do so less expensively? I assume the expenses are primarily in the travel and for some, the coaching staff (football coaches at some colleges are the highest paid staff - higher than all the profs, all the admins). Reducing/eliminating the sports seems like it’d reduce coaching costs due to supply and demand. If the real value in the sport (outside of revenue earning ones) is in the sport itself then why not still have the sport but compete only locally to eliminate the majority of the cost? </p>
<p>Regarding the subject as a whole, businesses all over this country and globally are having to tighten their belts to reduce expenses and in doing so eliminate waste and sometimes have to make tough decisions about which programs to keep and which ones to cut. They usually do so by shifting the focus towards their core products/mission/strengths. It makes sense that many colleges need to do this also. Eliminating some of the sports, and perhaps an arboretum, makes sense if it operates at a net loss and they have no funds to spare for it. No matter which program is cut, whether it be wrestling, women’s rowing, unpopular and ill-attended courses, non-productive programs, etc. someone will be affected negatively but it’s still often prudent to cut it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem is if the “money sports” in this example let’s just say men’s basketball is traveling great distances then the women’s team also has to have the opportunity to travel great distances. Do they have to be equal? No. But you can’t say “Men’s basketball can travel from California to Florida to play a game, but the Women’s basketball team can’t travel past Nevada.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t blame women’s sports. Blame football. If it weren’t for football’s 80 - 120 man rosters, there would be no Title IX issues.</p>
<p>BTW, last I checked, the state of California and the UC university system are in dire financial trouble. Under the circumstances, it almost borders on riduculous to keep funding any NCAA sports at most UC campuses when lecture classes have 1000 students. Let’s get the priorities straight.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Football is so different than any other sport it should be in a category of its own. It should not factor into Title IX at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s not forget to cut the fine arts, drama, and many student organizations while we’re at it…</p>
<p>The problem with counting football is much like wrestling, there isn’t a counter sport.</p>
<p>Of course, any school can add men’s teams and roster spots IF they can show that the needs of the female students are being met even if it is at a disproportionate level according to the interpretation supplied by the DOE, I think it is. The problem is that no school wants to be the guinea pig and do it because there are a handful of organizations waiting in the wings to sue the first school that tries. No Univ Pres and AD want to stick their necks out. It would take someone big, an Ohio State or a Michigan or Florida, etc, to do it. And much like the football stadium thread, some sports teams are endowed. They might not cost the Univ anything, or very little and the money is earmarked for just that purpose. The money is not coming from student activity fees, like the other student orgs.</p>
<p>I applaud the lady who took over at MD a few years ago as their AD. She basically said that the competitive cheerleading squad, with like 30 or 40 girls, was an athletic team and that she was counting that against her male roster spots if I understand it correctly. No one has challenged her yet, presumably because she is a woman in what is typically a male dominated field.</p>
<p>I am all for the intent of Title IX, to give women more and equal opportunity to get into sports. Heck, my stepdaughter is on a small athletic scholarship that would probably not exist but for Title IX. But that doesn’t make it right. I am not for basically forcing women to get into intercollegiate sports any more than I am for forcing men to join the marching band or to be proportionally represented in nursing or elementary ed majors or else forcing the derpartments to limit admission to women.</p>
<p>We are getting off topic a little here. I do feel badly for the kids who chose Davis only to have their careers yanked out from under them, regardless of sport.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The intent is good. Unfortunately at many schools, the law is misinterpreted or misguided.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They will be able to transfer without NCAA penalty. Also, I think Davis will have to honor the scholarships for those who chose to stay (if they have athletic scholarships).</p>
<p>I don’t even understand why a school like UC-Davis offers athletic scholarships. That money should be re-targeted to support need-based financial aid. I am sure there is no shortage of well-qualified California students who could desperately use it. There’s no reason that UC-Davis couldn’t be Division III.</p>
<p>^^In my day (early to mid-80s) UC Davis didn’t offer athletic scholarships. They were Div II in those days. They took great pride in fielding strong teams of STUDENT-athletes, and it was always especially sweet when we beat Sac State (and we usually did). They were the traditional local rival, and they DID give scholarships.</p>
<p>Now Davis is Div I and is aiming higher. They are playing Berkeley in football next season for the first time since 1939.</p>