PDA

View Full Version : 2008 Big 12 Conference Swimming & Diving Championships



ande
February 27th, 2008, 02:05 PM
2008 Big 12 Conference Swimming & Diving Championships

psych sheet [PDF]
http://www.texassports.com/doc_lib/sw_big12_psych.pdf

Results
http://www.tsc.utexas.edu/results/index.htm

videos
http://www.flocasts.org/floswimming/coverage.php?c=197&id=9656

Records
http://www.usaswimming.org/USASWeb/_Rainbow/Documents/3216ebe9-8984-46bc-864a-152fe9836261/Rulebook%20Records%20-%20Feb%2018%202008.pdf

WHAT: 2008 Big 12 Conference Swimming and Diving Championships

WHERE: Lee and Joe Jamail Texas Swimming Center – Austin, Texas

WHEN: Wednesday, Feb. 27 through Saturday, March 1 (complete schedule below)

ADMISSION: $5 for adults and $2 for students, per session; all-session passes will be available for $20 for adults and $8 for students; NOTE: There is no admission charge for Wednesday’s events; doors will open and tickets will be available 1 hour prior to the start of each session.

PARKING: http://www.tsc.utexas.edu/parking/

LIVE RESULTS: Click here for live results.

DEFENDING CHAMPIONS: The Texas men have won the previous 11 Big 12 Championship meets and set a new meet record with 1,114 points at the 2007 meet in College Station. The Texas A&M women edged the Texas women, 931-930 at the 2007 meet.

COMPLETE BIG 12 CHAMPIONSHIP SCHEDULE
Wednesday, Feb. 27
PRELIMINARIES
4:30 PM
One Meter Diving - Men

FINALS
6:00 PM
200 Medley Relay
One Meter Diving - Men
800 Freestyle Relay*
* The 800 free relay will begin 45 minutes after the conclusion of the 200 medley relay

Thursday, Feb. 28
PRELIMINARIES
10:00 AM
500 yard Freestyle
200 yard Individual Medley
50 yard Freestyle
*15 minute break
400 yard Medley Relay

1:00 PM
One Meter Diving - Women

FINALS
6:00 PM
500 yard Freestyle
200 yard Individual Medley
50 yard Freestyle
One Meter Diving - Women
400 yard Medley Relay

Friday, Feb. 29
PRELIMINARIES
10:00 AM
200 yard Freestyle Relay
400 yard Individual Medley
100 yard Butterfly
200 yard Freestyle
100 yard Breaststroke
100 yard Backstroke

11:30 AM
Three Meter Diving - Women

2:15 PM
Three Meter Diving - Men

FINALS
5:00 PM
Three Meter Diving - Women

6:00 PM
200 yard Freestyle Relay
400 yard Individual Medley
100 yard Butterfly
200 yard Freestyle
100 yard Breaststroke
100 yard Backstroke
Three Meter Diving - Men

Saturday, March 1
PRELIMINARIES
10:00 AM
200 yard Backstroke
100 yard Freestyle
200 yard Breaststroke
200 yard Butterfly
*15 minute break
400 yard Freestyle Relay

11:30 AM
Platform Diving - Men

2:30 PM
Platform Diving - Women

FINALS
5:00 PM
Platform Diving - Men

6:00 PM
200 yard Backstroke 100 yard Freestyle
*1650 yard Freestyle 200 yard Breaststroke
200 yard Butterfly Platform Diving - Women
400 yard Freestyle Relay

knelson
February 27th, 2008, 02:23 PM
Is it even worth having a Big 12 meet on the men's side with only three schools fielding teams? Pretty sad.

thewookiee
February 27th, 2008, 03:08 PM
The men's meet should be called " University of Texas" intersqaud championships

osterber
February 27th, 2008, 03:21 PM
DEFENDING CHAMPIONS: The Texas men have won the previous 11 Big 12 Championship meets and set a new meet record with 1,114 points at the 2007 meet in College Station.


Now if they could only get those other two schools to drop their men's swimming and diving programs, they could get even _more_ points at their conference meet!

-Rick

TheGoodSmith
February 27th, 2008, 03:47 PM
Big 12 Swimming..... what's left ?

Thank you Title 9.


John

thewookiee
February 27th, 2008, 05:06 PM
You mean...

Big 1

little 2

patrick
February 27th, 2008, 05:13 PM
Doubt you'll hear many complaints from the UT or A&M Men's Athletic Dept on the lack of teams...needless to say the Conference Commissioner won't be asking for a fast meet as they do in the Pac 10 or SEC, therefore both are fully rested and tapered for NCAAs. I can remember this meet and not seeing guys in fastskins or jammers even. Got to love the Tigers for sticking in there.

Iwannafly
February 27th, 2008, 05:15 PM
Big 12 Swimming..... what's left ?

Thank you Title 9.


John
Don't go blaming Title IX. If these schools would quit spending an inordinate amount of money on football and basketball (men's specifically), they would have plenty of athletic budget left over to field women's teams in less popular sports, which would then allow them to field a men's swimming team. Collegiate athletics has become less about building student-athletes and more about how much money can the University make if they win a bowl game or make it to the big dance!

TheGoodSmith
February 27th, 2008, 05:55 PM
Iwannafly,

I would love to believe that football is the primary or only cause unfortunately, the timing of Title 9 and the demise of secondary collegiate sports for men is too coincidental.

Title 9 had great intentions...... the result after implementation are very pessimistic for mens swimming.

John Smith

Iwannafly
February 27th, 2008, 08:56 PM
Title IX is still not the cause of the demise of men's collegiate swimming. Football may not be the sole cause, but I am certain it is a big portion along with big basketball programs. Left to their own, how many universities would still have a women's swimming program let alone a men's program? Swimming certainly does not generate revenue compared with basketball and football. I cringe every time I hear of a school getting rid of their men's swim program. JMU did it just a season ago costing a local swimmer his scholarship and his opportunity to swim collegiately (unless of course he decided to transfer), but I believe it is wrong to blame Title IX.

T.J.

cowsvils
February 27th, 2008, 10:57 PM
Unless I'm mistaken doesn't title nine require that there are equal numbers of mens and women's scholarships effectively? If that is the case, how is a college supposed to compensate for the 50 or so scholarships that football needs? If football were taken out of the equation almost every other sport would match up and there would be no issues, but because the scholarships are forced to be equal small mens' programs need to be cut to make up for the difference. My original premise could be wrong though.

smontanaro
February 28th, 2008, 08:23 AM
Title IX is still not the cause of the demise of men's collegiate swimming. Football may not be the sole cause, but I am certain it is a big portion along with big basketball programs.

I've heard it said that it's the huge amount of income those programs bring into their athletic departments which allow funding of money-losing "secondary" sports. I have no idea if that's true or not. Certainly the costs of running big-time football and basketball programs are large, but I have to believe they at least break even, at least at most Division I schools.

Title IX certainly forced the realignment of priorities for many athletic departments. Before Title IX men generally had many more opportunities than women to compete at the intercollegiate. Title IX changed that balance a lot.

Skip

Kurt Dickson
February 28th, 2008, 09:53 AM
Title IX is still not the cause of the demise of men's collegiate swimming. Football may not be the sole cause, but I am certain it is a big portion along with big basketball programs. Left to their own, how many universities would still have a women's swimming program let alone a men's program? Swimming certainly does not generate revenue compared with basketball and football. I cringe every time I hear of a school getting rid of their men's swim program. JMU did it just a season ago costing a local swimmer his scholarship and his opportunity to swim collegiately (unless of course he decided to transfer), but I believe it is wrong to blame Title IX.

T.J.

I agree many athletic directors would not have a women's or men's program if they had their way. The basketball coach where I went was quoted saying that we should get rid of all non-revenue sports. It is true that men's football and basketball provide revenue for all other sports (therefore, I believe they have a right to spend all their bowl money on wasteful events and junkets).

However, to suggest the demise of men's swimming and gymnastics across the country is not related to Title IX, is simple naivete. So your premise is that the rise in lawsuits against universities and the magical appearance of women's sports like waterpolo and rowing, along with the cutting of men's swimming progams is all coincidence?

My university still has a men's program but with half the number of scholarships women have. How fair is it to train 4 hours a day all of your life to be told there are no more scholarships while a female across campus who was fairly athletic in high-school but paid no price, is offered a full rowing scholarship?

There is no way to make up for 80 football scholarships and so in our attempt to be fair, we have created inequality (reparations right?). Fortunately, I have 3 girls because a boy can't catch a break in this (swimming) world.:cry:

thewookiee
February 28th, 2008, 09:56 AM
Talk about a great opening day for Texas...


American Record in the 800 free relay....nice swim for Texas

osterber
February 28th, 2008, 10:29 AM
So your premise is that the rise in lawsuits against universities and the magical appearance of women's sports like waterpolo and rowing, along with the cutting of men's swimming progams is all coincidence?


Title IX does not require schools to cut any programs. It only requires schools to balance their programs. Schools should be adding women's sports, not cutting men's sports.

There are plenty of institutions out there that aren't cutting any men's teams, and are in compliance with Title IX. There are plenty of schools out there who aren't giving out any scholarships, and are doing just fine with Title IX.

I wish people would stop blaming Title IX for all of the problems, and instead start blaming the schools for the way they decide to equalize their athletic opportunities.

-Rick

ande
February 28th, 2008, 11:24 AM
wookie

that was an incredible swim for texas, the slowers split was 1:33.3
4 definite contenders for the 4 x 200 US Olympic Team



800 FREESTYLE RELAY
American: 6:12.43 Club Wolverine Atlanta, Ga. 11-30-07
(Michael Phelps, Peter Vanderkaay, David Tarwater, Chris DeJong)

then last night look at what texas did.

Event 4 Men 800 Yard Freestyle Relay
================================================== ==================
Meet: ! 6:18.43 2/14/2007 Texas
Walters, Klueh, Behrens, McGinnis
6:26.08 AUTO
6:37.66 CONS
School Seed Finals
================================================== ==================

1 Texas 'A' 6:20.00 6:10.55 !AUTO
1) Walters, Dave
2) McGinnis, Matt
3) Klueh, Michael
4) Berens, Rick

21.54 44.54 (44.54)
1:08.13 (1:08.13) 1:32.51 (1:32.51)

1:54.16 (21.65) 2:17.96 (45.45)
2:41.81 (1:09.30) 3:05.82 (1:33.31)

3:26.83 (21.01) 3:50.50 (44.68)
4:14.36 (1:08.54) 4:38.03 (1:32.21)

4:58.96 (20.93) 5:22.33 (44.30)
5:46.18 (1:08.15) 6:10.55 (1:32.52)


can't wait to see how the 4 x 100 relay goes
everyone should split 42

400 FREESTYLE RELAY

American: 2:49.80 Texas College Station, Texas 03-24-01
(Nate Dusing, Ian Crocker, Tommy Hannan, Jamie Rauch)

U.S. Open: 2:47.70 California Minneapolis, Minn. 03-26-05
(Duje Draganja, Mike Cavic, Jonas Tilly, Rolandas Gimbutis)


Talk about a great opening day for Texas...


American Record in the 800 free relay....nice swim for Texas

aquageek
February 28th, 2008, 11:40 AM
I wish people would stop blaming Title IX for all of the problems, and instead start blaming the schools for the way they decide to equalize their athletic opportunities.

-Rick

Word on this. I get sick and tired of people blaming women's athletics for the cutting of men's programs. As the father of two athletic girls, I fail to see how them having equal opportunities at the collegiate level is a bad thing (remember, Title IX was not written specifically for sports). If a school wants to dress out 95 football players 12 Saturdays a year, despite 95% of the football programs being huge money losers, well, that is their own fault. Don't go blaming Title IX for that.

My suspicion is that those who blame title IX have never had to answer this question - Daddy, why can't girls play that sport? That is a question that hurts.

Sports lose money at universities, for the most part. I suspect money is a bigger factor than anything else. I'd really rather argue foreign student on scholarship than hear one more single word uttered about how women have ruined men's collegiate athletics. It's boorish and extremely dated - 36 years dated, to be precise.

UT has a lot to be proud of with their well rounded sports program, despite employing Mack Brown.

Kurt Dickson
February 28th, 2008, 11:46 AM
Title IX does not require schools to cut any programs. It only requires schools to balance their programs. Schools should be adding women's sports, not cutting men's sports.

There are plenty of institutions out there that aren't cutting any men's teams, and are in compliance with Title IX. There are plenty of schools out there who aren't giving out any scholarships, and are doing just fine with Title IX.

I wish people would stop blaming Title IX for all of the problems, and instead start blaming the schools for the way they decide to equalize their athletic opportunities.

-Rick
I'm sure blame for loss of men's sports is multifactorial, but one cannot deny the impetus for many fence sitting programs was title IX litigation.

Blaming schools is nice but will get you nowhere. The athletic programs are primarily accountable to rich alumni who only care if the men's football and/or basketball team wins.

I'm certainly not going to blame all my problems on title IX; I've already had all of my schooling paid for and, as I've stated, have 3 girls in the pipeline. My only problems are an aching left shoulder, chronic back pain, eroding self-esteem, and 15 years until retirement.:kiss1:

ande
February 28th, 2008, 11:47 AM
check out

Interview with Eddie
&
American Record (interview with relay swimmers)

http://www.flocasts.org/floswimming/coverage.php?c=197&id=9656

ande
February 28th, 2008, 12:01 PM
Event 6 Men 500 Yard Freestyle
================================================== ================
Meet: ! 4:15.28 2/23/2006 Michael Klueh, Texas
NCAA: # 4:19.49
4:19.49 AUTO
4:27.27 CONS
Name Year School Seed Prelims
================================================== ================
=== Preliminaries ===

1 Klueh, Michael Texas 4:14.71 4:18.32#qAUTO
23.63 49.35 (25.72)
1:15.57 (26.22) 1:42.08 (26.51)
2:08.59 (26.51) 2:34.92 (26.33)
3:01.12 (26.20) 3:27.41 (26.29)
3:53.39 (25.98) 4:18.32 (24.93)
2 Collins, Bryan Texas 4:25.43 4:20.31 qCONS
23.93 49.96 (26.03)
1:16.21 (26.25) 1:42.59 (26.38)
2:08.86 (26.27) 2:35.20 (26.34)
3:01.33 (26.13) 3:27.49 (26.16)
3:54.09 (26.60) 4:20.31 (26.22)
3 Patton, Sean Texas 4:22.23 4:21.25 qCONS
23.73 49.93 (26.20)
1:16.10 (26.17) 1:42.32 (26.22)
2:08.51 (26.19) 2:34.62 (26.11)
3:01.04 (26.42) 3:27.64 (26.60)
3:54.44 (26.80) 4:21.25 (26.81)
4 Walters, Dave Texas 4:20.43 4:22.37 qCONS
23.67 49.64 (25.97)
1:16.03 (26.39) 1:42.48 (26.45)
2:08.88 (26.40) 2:35.34 (26.46)
3:02.08 (26.74) 3:29.02 (26.94)
3:55.87 (26.85) 4:22.37 (26.50)
5 McGinnis, Matt Texas 4:26.72 4:23.16 qCONS
23.94 50.28 (26.34)
1:16.97 (26.69) 1:43.60 (26.63)
2:10.40 (26.80) 2:37.00 (26.60)
3:03.57 (26.57) 3:30.23 (26.66)
3:56.94 (26.71) 4:23.16 (26.22)
6 Robertson, Jim Texas 4:27.22 4:23.42 qCONS
23.75 49.65 (25.90)
1:16.24 (26.59) 1:42.77 (26.53)
2:09.55 (26.78) 2:36.18 (26.63)
3:02.94 (26.76) 3:30.21 (27.27)
3:57.15 (26.94) 4:23.42 (26.27)
7 Sellers, Camero Mizzou 4:33.52 4:26.38 qCONS
24.93 51.85 (26.92)
1:19.23 (27.38) 1:46.57 (27.34)
2:13.80 (27.23) 2:40.27 (26.47)
3:06.73 (26.46) 3:33.59 (26.86)
4:00.19 (26.60) 4:26.38 (26.19)
8 Verlatti, Ryan Texas 4:25.85 4:26.96 qCONS
24.15 50.28 (26.13)
1:16.66 (26.38) 1:43.32 (26.66)
2:10.07 (26.75) 2:36.74 (26.67)
3:03.89 (27.15) 3:31.48 (27.59)
3:59.54 (28.06) 4:26.96 (27.42)



Event 8 Men 200 Yard IM
================================================== ================
Meet: ! 1:44.31 3/1/2001 Nate Dusing, Texas
NCAA: # 1:46.09
1:46.09 AUTO
1:49.27 CONS
Name Year School Seed Prelims
================================================== ================
=== Preliminaries ===

1 Magruder, Agust Texas 1:50.29 1:46.75 qCONS
23.18 50.22 (27.04)
1:20.46 (30.24) 1:46.75 (26.29)
2 Berens, Rick Texas 1:47.79 1:46.76 qCONS
22.40 48.71 (26.31)
1:20.54 (31.83) 1:46.76 (26.22)
3 Wilson, Brian Texas 1:49.59 1:47.14 qCONS
22.31 49.04 (26.73)
1:20.59 (31.55) 1:47.14 (26.55)
4 McDermott, Cale Texas 1:48.70 1:47.15 qCONS
23.28 49.54 (26.26)
1:21.91 (32.37) 1:47.15 (25.24)
5 Denisyako, Niki SO Texas A&M 1:49.51 1:48.72 qCONS
23.31 49.82 (26.51)
1:22.46 (32.64) 1:48.72 (26.26)
6 Difford, Bryan Mizzou 1:49.70 1:48.77 qCONS
23.44 50.85 (27.41)
1:22.48 (31.63) 1:48.77 (26.29)
7 Jacobo, Alejand SR Texas A&M 1:53.09 1:50.16 q
23.45 51.91 (28.46)
1:22.70 (30.79) 1:50.16 (27.46)
8 Duran, Israel SO Texas A&M 1:50.97 1:51.51 q
22.96 50.24 (27.28)
1:24.77 (34.53) 1:51.51 (26.74)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
9 Trompeter, Scot Texas B 1:50.85 1:51.77 q
23.78 49.97 (26.19)
1:23.98 (34.01) 1:51.77 (27.79)



I love how they provide 25 splits for the 50 free

Event 9 Women 50 Yard Freestyle
================================================== ================
Meet: 22.00 2/17/2001 Colleen Lanne', Texas
NCAA: 22.62 AUTO 23.29 CONS
Name Year School Seed Prelims
================================================== ================
=== Preliminaries ===

1 Aljand, Triin JR Texas A&M 22.57 22.11#qAUTO
10.80 22.11 (11.31)

2 Chang, Hee-Jin Texas 22.62 22.51#qAUTO
10.89 22.51 (11.62)

3 Sommer, Maria FR Texas A&M B 23.50 22.79 qCONS
11.06 22.79 (11.73)

3 Mayrovich, Mari JR Kansas 23.20 22.79 qCONS
11.15 22.79 (11.64)

5 Woods, Sarah SO Texas A&M 23.30 22.83 qCONS
11.10 22.83 (11.73)

6 Jasek, Marissa JR Texas A&M 23.09 22.95 qCONS
11.19 22.95 (11.76)

7 Powers, Brie Texas 23.21 23.12 qCONS
11.28 23.12 (11.84)

8 Glaser, Abby SO Iowa State 24.44 23.45 q
11.44 23.45 (12.01)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
9 Rodriguez, Mari Texas 24.44 23.63 q
11.49 23.63 (12.14)

10 Siemert, Lynn SR Nebraska 24.00 23.72 q
11.60 23.72 (12.12)

11 Patterson, Taye Mizzou 23.72 23.78 q
11.51 23.78 (12.27)

12 Andrews, Jessic FR Nebraska 24.30 23.79 q
11.61 23.79 (12.18)

13 Goetz, Erin SO Kansas B 24.66 23.81 q
11.70 23.81 (12.11)

14 Maez, Amanda FR Kansas 24.47 23.96 q
11.62 23.96 (12.34)

compare the differences in their 1st & 2nd 25's
shoot for 0.50 or better

10.80 11.31 0.51

10.89 11.62 0.73

11.06 11.73 0.67

11.15 11.64 0.49

11.10 11.73 0.63

11.19 11.76 0.57

11.28 11.84 0.56

11.44 12.01 0.56

11.49 12.14 0.65

11.60 12.12 0.52

11.51 12.27 0.76

11.61 12.18 0.57

11.70 12.11 0.41

11.62 12.34 0.72


Event 10 Men 50 Yard Freestyle
================================================== ================
Meet: ! 19.18 2/26/2004 Ian Crocker, Texas
NCAA: 19.60 AUTO 20.18 CONS
Name Year School Seed Prelims
================================================== ================
=== Preliminaries ===

0.42 1 Gardner, Ozzie SR Texas A&M 20.19 19.70 qCONS
9.64 19.70 (10.06)

0.58 2 Jackson, Jonath Texas 20.60 19.82 qCONS
9.62 19.82 (10.20)

0.43 3 Harris, Jeremy Texas 20.47 19.95 qCONS
9.76 19.95 (10.19)

0.49 4 Strange, Casey SO Texas A&M 20.23 19.99 qCONS
9.70 19.99 (10.29)

0.64 5 Lowe, Matthew Texas 20.19 20.04 qCONS
9.70 20.04 (10.34)

0.71 6 Hawley, Jordan Mizzou 20.74 20.17 qCONS
9.73 20.17 (10.44)

0.43 7 Chambless, Luke SR Texas A&M 21.21 20.29 q
9.93 20.29 (10.36)

0.52 8 Murtagh, Colin Texas B 20.75 20.40 q
9.94 20.40 (10.46)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
0.43 9 Jameson, Peter Texas B 20.97 20.41 q
9.99 20.41 (10.42)

0.84 10 Raiford, Brad JR Texas A&M 21.06 20.44 q
9.80 20.44 (10.64)

0.59 11 VanRoekel, Ben Texas B 20.83 20.49 q
9.95 20.49 (10.54)

1.04 12 Bergstrom, Jaso SO Texas A&M 21.11 20.64 q
9.80 20.64 (10.84)

0.67 13 Wiedemeier, Joe Missouri B 21.31 20.67 q
10.00 20.67 (10.67)

0.37 14 Donch, Matt Texas B 20.95 20.75 q
10.19 20.75 (10.56)

0.40 15 Kaufman, Gilad Mizzou 21.22 20.86 q
10.23 20.86 (10.63)

0.83 16 Wang, Andrew Texas B 21.17 20.87 q
10.02 20.87 (10.85)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
0.55 17 Wise, Dustin Texas B 21.09 20.89
10.17 20.89 (10.72)

Chris Stevenson
February 28th, 2008, 01:47 PM
I get sick and tired of people blaming women's athletics for the cutting of men's programs....

UT has a lot to be proud of with their well rounded sports program, despite employing Mack Brown.

(That turncoat...)

I agree with geek and I blame schools' inordinate fondness for football. Seriously: look at the number of scholarships and athletes and other resources are devoted to that bloated monstrosity (basketball and even baseball are positively sleek by comparison).

I applaud the goal of balance. It is the schools decision on how to address that balance. I believe a lot of football programs lose money for smaller schools (and even for many large ones). I like the sport just fine but do not think it is any more important than any other sport. I think a lot of schools have no business fielding a football team. They will argue that it helps alumni giving but I think that is hogwash.

But it would take a very strong-willed university president to cut college football, since s/he would take a lot of flak. Even so, schools could implement a few large girls sports (field hockey comes to mind, I'm sure there are others) but they choose not to do so.

knelson
February 28th, 2008, 01:53 PM
Seriously: look at the number of scholarships and athletes and other resources are devoted to that bloated monstrosity (basketball and even baseball are positively sleek by comparison).

Yeah, check this out. These are the maximum number of scholarships for each sport in NCAA Division I competition:

Men
Baseball 11.7
Cross Country/Track and Field 12.6
Fencing 4.5
Football (Division I-A) 85
Football (Division I-AA) 63
Golf 4.5
Gymnastics 6.3
Lacrosse 12.6
Rifle 3.6
Skiing 6.3
Soccer 9.9
Swimming and Diving 9.9
Tennis 4.5
Volleyball 4.5
Water Polo 4.5
Wrestling 9.9

Women
Archery 5
Badminton 6
Bowling 5
Cross Country/Track and Field 18
Equestrian 15
Fencing 5
Field Hockey 12
Golf 6
Lacrosse 12
Rowing 20
Rugby 12
Skiing 7
Soccer 14
Softball 12
Squash 12
Swimming and Diving 14
Synchronized Swimming 5
Team Handball 10
Water Polo 8

I got this info from http://www.educationplanner.com/education_planner/paying_article.asp?sponsor=2859&articleName=NCAA_Scholarship_Limits

85 scholarships for football. You can bet there are guys getting scholarships who never play a single down.

By the way, I'm not sure why the numbers for basketball aren't included.

Peter Cruise
February 28th, 2008, 02:19 PM
Ande- there's a picture of the relay team on Swimming World's website along with news of the record. The tall blonde guy in the back of photo looks seven feet tall- how tall is he really?

ande
February 28th, 2008, 02:54 PM
here's the link
http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/lane9/news/17264.asp
That's Dave Walters he's about 6' 3 or 4"
I think he's standing on a starting block in the photo
here's an interview
http://www.flocasts.org/floswimming/coverage.php?c=197&id=9656

here's UT's roster

2007-08 Men's Swimming & Diving Roster
NAME HT. WT. CLASS EVENT HOMETOWN
Ricky Berens 6-3 So.-1L Fly/Free Charlotte, NC (South Mecklenburg)
Matt Cardell 5-11 Fr.-HS Diving Colleyville, TX (Colleyville Heritage)
Bryan Collins 6-2 Fr.-HS Free/Back Mount Airy, MD (South Carroll)
Matt Cooper 5-9 Fr.-HS Diving Bethesda, MD (Walt Whitman)
Matt Donch 5-10 Fr.-HS Free/Fly Raleigh, NC (Knightdale)
Scott Drews 6-3 Jr.-2L Free/IM Jacksonville, FL (The Bolles School)
Jeremy Harris 6-6 Sr.-3L Free/Fly St. Paul, MN (St. Thomas)
Trey Hoover 6-1 So.-1L Free Winston Salem, NC (Cannon)
Jonathan Jackson 6-1 Fr.-HS Free College Station, TX (A&M Consolidated)
Peter Jameson 6-6 So.-1L Free/Fly Indianapolis, IN (North Central)
Scott Jostes 6-4 Fr.-HS Back/Free Chesterfield, MO (Chaminade Prep)
Michael Klueh 6-3 Jr.-2L Free/IM Evansville, IN (Bowie)
Matthew Lowe 6-1 Sr.-3L Free/Breast/IM Minot, ND (Minot)
Agustin Magruder 6-2 Sr.-3L Breast/IM Highlands Ranch, CO (Regis Jesuit)
Alan Maher 6-1 So.-1L Back Nashville, TN (Brentwood)
Caleb McDermott 6-4 Sr.-3L Back/IM Canyon Lake, TX (Rolling Hill Academy)
Matthew McGinnis 6-5 Sr.-3L Free/Back Raleigh, NC (Ravenscroft)
Colin Murtagh 6-3 So.-1L Free Toledo, OH (St. Francis DeSales)
Sean Patton 6-3 Jr.-2L Back/Free Charlotte, NC (Butler)
Jim Robertson 6-0 Fr.-RS Free Burnet, TX (Burnet)
Daniel Rohleder 6-4 Sr.-3L Fly/Back Austin, TX (St. Michael's)
Christopher Seitz 6-1 Sr.-3L Back Taylor Mill, KY (Scott)
Austin Stahley 6-4 Fr.-HS Breast/IM Atherton, CA (Sacred Heart Prep)
Hill Taylor 5-10 So.-1L Fly/Back Birmingham, AL (Mountain Brook)
Scott Trompeter 6-2 Jr.-2L Back/IM San Antonio, TX (Reagan)
Benjamin Van Roekel 6-1 So.-1L Free Ankeny, IA (Ankeny)
Ryan Verlatti 6-2 Jr.-2L Free Tacoma, WA (Bellarmine Prep)
David Walters 6-3 So.-1L Free Yorktown, VA (Tabb)
Andrew Wang 5-10 So.-1L Free/Fly Austin, TX (Westlake)
Jonathan Wilcox 5-7 Jr.-TR Diving Bellevue, WA (Florida)
Brian Wilson 6-0 Fr.-HS Free Short Hills, NJ (Seton Hall Prep)
Dustin Wise 6-5 Fr.-RS Free Beaverton, OR (Southridge)
Mike Wong 5-6 So.-1L Diving Cerritos, CA (Cerritos)
http://texassports.com/index.php?s=&change_well_id=16&url_channel_id=20


Ande- there's a picture of the relay team on Swimming World's website along with news of the record. The tall blonde guy in the back of photo looks seven feet tall- how tall is he really?

aquageek
February 28th, 2008, 02:56 PM
All these crazy tall swimmers, none less than a half foot taller than wee little Stud.

ALM
February 28th, 2008, 02:58 PM
Yeah, check this out. These are the maximum number of scholarships for each sport in NCAA Division I competition:

I got this info from http://www.educationplanner.com/education_planner/paying_article.asp?sponsor=2859&articleName=NCAA_Scholarship_Limits

By the way, I'm not sure why the numbers for basketball aren't included.

I plugged the numbers from that page into Excel and summed the total number of scholarships. (We don't know why basketball isn't included in the Div. I numbers, but I assume it is roughly equal for men and women, so it probably doesn't make much of a difference in the totals). I used the 85 figure for Men's Div. I football.

Total # of Scholarships:
Men, Div. I: 190.3 (would be 168.3 if D-1AA)
Women, Div. I: 198
Men, Div. II: 154.9
Women, Div. II: 218.2

art_z
February 28th, 2008, 04:29 PM
Collegiate athletics has become less about building student-athletes and more about how much money can the University make if they win a bowl game or make it to the big dance!


College athletics has evolved into nothing more than a farm system for 2 of the 3 major professional sports (football, basketballl). anything that interferes with that premise gets cut.

aquageek
February 28th, 2008, 04:51 PM
Another myth is that bowl games are a windfall for schools. Other than the small handfull of super huge games (BCS) the majority of bowls barely pay enough for the schools to break even by attending.

However, once concession I will make is that bowl games and the NCAA tourney do drive apparel sales. Apparely merchandising leads to direct financial benefit to the university. Even the best swim team is never gonna drive sales compared to football or basketball, where you may have tens of thousands of items sold. I still don't think you need 85 football scholarships, however.

ALM
February 28th, 2008, 05:08 PM
The web site that Kirk found says that an NCAA D-I school can give out 9.9 full men's swimming and diving scholarships.

But the Texas roster that Ande posted shows something like 33 men.

How does this work? Are they all getting partial scholarships? Are they sharing them with the divers?

Anna Lea

poolraat
February 28th, 2008, 06:05 PM
The web site that Kirk found says that an NCAA D-I school can give out 9.9 full men's swimming and diving scholarships.

But the Texas roster that Ande posted shows something like 33 men.

How does this work? Are they all getting partial scholarships? Are they sharing them with the divers?

Anna Lea

I think the 9.9 are full scholarships. I know of a lot of schools that will split up scholarships in many of the sports so more athletes can get financial help. Also some could be walk-ons.

Kurt Dickson
February 28th, 2008, 08:29 PM
(That turncoat...)

I agree with geek and I blame schools' inordinate fondness for football. Seriously: look at the number of scholarships and athletes and other resources are devoted to that bloated monstrosity (basketball and even baseball are positively sleek by comparison).

I applaud the goal of balance. It is the schools decision on how to address that balance. I believe a lot of football programs lose money for smaller schools (and even for many large ones). I like the sport just fine but do not think it is any more important than any other sport. I think a lot of schools have no business fielding a football team. They will argue that it helps alumni giving but I think that is hogwash.

But it would take a very strong-willed university president to cut college football, since s/he would take a lot of flak. Even so, schools could implement a few large girls sports (field hockey comes to mind, I'm sure there are others) but they choose not to do so.

Ah...something we can all agree on....bash on football. I am all for balance and dislike the screwed up priorities in this country as much as the next guy (if I could get as much help in the ER as they do raking the infield in the 5th or whatever inning at the Diamondbacks game we would be set), however, what we often forget is the golden rule--He who has the gold, makes the rules. Football could just as easily say (and it would be "fair") that "since we (men) generate all the income, there will be no women's or any other men's sports that are not self-sustaining.":wave:

smontanaro
February 28th, 2008, 10:18 PM
I wish people would stop blaming Title IX for all of the problems, and instead start blaming the schools for the way they decide to equalize their athletic opportunities.

I don't blame Title IX. When Title IX went into effect I think a lot of athletic directors looked at what it would take to get into compliance, saw that their budgets were finite and decided to trim some mens' programs and add some womens' programs without trying to find more money for their budgets. (Or maybe they tried to get more money but were rebuffed by their schools' administrations.)

Out of curiosity, I checked out UCLA's mens' swimming program. (I went to school there but didn't swim there.) That program was terminated after the 1994 season I think. That can hardly be attributed to Title IX (which went into effect in 1972).

There is a Wikipedia page on Title IX that's probably good background reading for interested parties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX

Referenced there is a GAO report published in 2001:

http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?rptno=GAO-01-297&accno=164560

I suspect only the most devoted people will read that report.

Skip

Iwannafly
February 28th, 2008, 10:24 PM
It's nice to see that a local (Kaan Tayla from VA Tech) went 0.02 faster than Jonathan Jackson. I don't even like the Hokies, but here I am rooting for local people (who happen to be from Turkey). Holy crap, these people are fast. The 800 free relay by the Longhorns was smokin'!

hofffam
February 28th, 2008, 10:26 PM
Read the artice below to get a picture of the University of Texas' athletic "economy."

http://www.statesman.com/horns/content/sports/stories/longhorns/09/30/0930utsportsmain.html

It is a mighty large operation. Only a few universities operate like Texas (Ohio State is right there). The amount spent on football is staggering but football makes a big profit. For some reason - people are willing to buy season tickets at $70 per game or lease suites for $30,000 per year. So it is hard to argue that football (at least at UT) deserves to spend the money they earn.

Other schools with weak football programs are the ones with problems. They don't make money like UT so they won't fund as many sports. Texas Tech use to have a swim team. So did Oklahoma. But to compete in football - they spend disproportionately more on football.

It is a systemic problem. Because college football and basketball are more like an entertainment business.

Chris Stevenson
February 28th, 2008, 11:11 PM
It is a systemic problem. Because college football and basketball are more like an entertainment business.

And that's why colleges exist, right? Talk about conflicting missions.

ande
March 1st, 2008, 07:38 PM
impressive

Event 31 Women 100 Yard Freestyle
================================================== =======================
Meet: ! 47.88 2/17/2001 Colleen Lanne', Texas
NCAA: # 49.42
49.42 AUTO
50.90 CONS
Name Year School Prelims Finals Points
================================================== =======================
=== A - Final ===

1 Wilkinson, Juli JR Texas A&M 48.87 47.80!AUTO 20
11.18 23.25 (12.07)
35.43 (12.18) 47.80 (12.37)

aquageek
March 5th, 2008, 09:05 AM
The various regional Fox Sports affiliates are showing this meet over the next few weeks, at odd times. Fox SportsPacific is carrying it on March 6 from 4-6 pm ET. Fox SportsSouth is carrying it Tuesday, March 11 from 3-5 am ET.

The SEC Championship was also taped but I haven't seen it pop up since last Saturday but it's sure to be rerun sometime soon.

Set your DVRs.

jim clemmons
March 5th, 2008, 10:59 AM
The various regional Fox Sports affiliates are showing this meet over the next few weeks, at odd times. Fox SportsPacific is carrying it on March 6 from 4-6 pm ET. Fox SportsSouth is carrying it Tuesday, March 11 from 3-5 am ET.

The SEC Championship was also taped but I haven't seen it pop up since last Saturday but it's sure to be rerun sometime soon.

Set your DVRs.

Women's Pac-10's are being shown this weekend over one of the affiliates as well.

TheGoodSmith
March 5th, 2008, 11:43 AM
Geek,

You're dead on in your assertion that football teams budgets are typically negative despite their magnitude for major state schools. However, this "Robin Hood" mentality of spreading the budget to women's sports and denying it has any effect on lessor men's sports is just not realistic. There's only so much money in the pot ..... football and the big three usually hog the majority and Title 9 has served to tip the pot over even further. You can't deny that there is a cumulative affect on mens sports from Title 9. Someone gets screwed in the end. It used to be the women's sports, now its the lessor men's sports. The intentions of Title 9 are noble..... the actual redistribution and results of the fund redistributions are only impressive if you are female.

Question.... why aren't the # scholarships within a given sport equal for men and women? e.g. why would women get more than men in swimming?

John Smith

aquageek
March 5th, 2008, 11:54 AM
Your premise is entirely flawed. Some of us don't consider it getting screwed when women get the same sporting opportunties as men. As long as our universities dole out 60+ scholarships for football, the whole Title IX bashing argument is entirely moot.

The Robin Hood angle has been nicely used for many hundreds of years now to justify the exclusion of certain groups for various opportunities. Generally, once modern culture advances past this notion, we are all improved. I don't know many people who would espcially enjoy being referred to as poor and needy and in dire need of saving, other than Stud in his 100 free, but that's another story.

Kurt Dickson
March 5th, 2008, 01:35 PM
Your premise is entirely flawed. Some of us don't consider it getting screwed when women get the same sporting opportunties as men. As long as our universities dole out 60+ scholarships for football, the whole Title IX bashing argument is entirely moot.

The Robin Hood angle has been nicely used for many hundreds of years now to justify the exclusion of certain groups for various opportunities. Generally, once modern culture advances past this notion, we are all improved. I don't know many people who would espcially enjoy being referred to as poor and needy and in dire need of saving, other than Stud in his 100 free, but that's another story.

Sweet, the title IX argument is back on....I don't think you answered the question. If you are so concerned about fairness, how is it fair that women swimmers get more scholarships than men at many swimming programs? Maybe we should just litigate every school into oblivion.

It also could be asked, what is fair? Does fair mean equal numbers? Is participation in sports (where males outnumber females) a result of the white man's oppression or simply a result that we were created differently and may have different propensities? I suspect the truth lies somewhere between.

Your premise that modern culture has advanced and therefore able to accept the communal property (robin hood), peace, love, and understanding is probably false as evidenced by my patient yesterday complaining of "missing panties"--found in her rectum . I like the ideal of fairness, high culture, and high-mindedness, but my daily experience would argue otherwise.:blah:

aquageek
March 5th, 2008, 01:45 PM
Is participation in sports (where males outnumber females) a result of the white man's oppression or simply a result that we were created differently and may have different propensities.

Good point and relevant to swimming. With girls heats curently outnumbering boys about 3-1 in every meet I attend, maybe you are onto something here with scholarship disparity in the swimming world.

It's unfortunate that you have to seek the truth in your patient's asses, but hey, whatever you need to prove your point. In anus, veritas.

Kurt Dickson
March 5th, 2008, 02:02 PM
Good point and relevant to swimming. With girls heats curently outnumbering boys about 3-1 in every meet I attend, maybe you are onto something here with scholarship disparity in the swimming world.

It's unfortunate that you have to seek the truth in your patient's asses, but hey, whatever you need to prove your point. In anus, veritas.

So, now based on your most recent argument (or was that an argument--I can't read whether that was sarcasm) that participation ought to count for scholarship number, please explain women's basketball, hockey, etc.

By the way, I don't go looking for the truth in the ER, it finds me. It is often in different physical locations, but is always figuratively, and sometimes literally, the same place--the rectum.

aquageek
March 5th, 2008, 02:11 PM
You are seriously obsessed with the backside, an odd place to find all things truthful. Maybe the butt is the new tea leaves, I don't know, I'll defer to your knowledge on the subject.

Back to topic - my only point was that you were crying about the number of scholarship for men's versus women's swimming and I see many more women (girls) participating these days. As far as I know women's basketball teams are still 5-5 with 7 on the bench. I could be wrong, let me go inspect someone's rear and get back to you.

I simply do not believe Title IX is the end of modern men's sports. I personally am elated my kids have the same sporting opportunities that I had growing up in the late 60s and 70s, except football.

So, let's pretend it's your birthday and Title IX was rescinded. Do you really think universities would fund non-revenue sports? Or, do you think they'd dump even more money into football and basketball to generate even more revenue? Be careful what you ask for.

Kurt Dickson
March 5th, 2008, 02:43 PM
You are seriously obsessed with the backside, an odd place to find all things truthful. Maybe the butt is the new tea leaves, I don't know, I'll defer to your knowledge on the subject.

Back to topic - my only point was that you were crying about the number of scholarship for men's versus women's swimming and I see many more women (girls) participating these days. As far as I know women's basketball teams are still 5-5 with 7 on the bench. I could be wrong, let me go inspect someone's rear and get back to you.

I simply do not believe Title IX is the end of modern men's sports. I personally am elated my kids have the same sporting opportunities that I had growing up in the late 60s and 70s, except football.

So, let's pretend it's your birthday and Title IX was rescinded. Do you really think universities would fund non-revenue sports? Or, do you think they'd dump even more money into football and basketball to generate even more revenue? Be careful what you ask for.

So are you saying there is an equal number of males and females in the United States that want to play basketball? Have you not ever wondered why you pick up the sports page first and your wife picks up the front page? I believe it is a slippery slope legislating equality because it, in reality, is impossible.

You seem to want fairness on your terms. I think I agree with your premise of fairness in that males and females should have equal accessibility to sports. Unfortunately, programs need cash and the "fair" thing to me, is for those people that make the money, to have some say in how it is spent.

I don't want title IX rescinded (and I don't celebrate birthdays as they are way too depressing), but you are right but I believe for a different reason. The damage has been done with multiple lawsuits (or threatenings). Scum bag athletic directors and administrators would have no incentive to go back and pay for non-profitable programs.:whiteflag:

The Fortress
March 5th, 2008, 02:52 PM
So are you saying there is an equal number of males and females in the United States that want to play basketball? Have you not ever wondered why you pick up the sports page first and your wife picks up the front page? I believe it is a slippery slope legislating equality because it, in reality, is impossible.

What sexist garbage. You really love your stereotypes. Personally, no one is beating me to the sports page and box scores. However, I generally refuse to watch college football anymore because of it's negative impact on collegiate endurance sports.

I agree with Geek 100%. OMG, I can't believe I said that. I guess there's a first for everything.

ALM
March 5th, 2008, 02:54 PM
We temporarily interrupt this philosophical discussion because of a much more pressing issue....

KURT, KURT, KURT, please give us the details of the "missing panties" incident. I have been :lmao: ever since I read that. Why did the woman (I assume it was a woman, but I suppose it could have been a man) visit the ER? Was it because of that, or because of something else? And what did he/she do when you "found" the missing item? Take them home, or deposit them into the trash?

aquageek
March 5th, 2008, 03:13 PM
You obviously married wrong, Kurt. My wife, being a proud Dawg, reads the sports section first and then is able to recite the box scores from her photographic memory. This comes in quite handy when disputes about sports facts arise between me and my buddies. Sure, it's slightly humiliating to me but humiliation is something I've grown fond of over the years.

So, if all sports programs at a unversity lose money, which many do, does that mean, by your logic, that the team that loses less money should have more scholarships and more say in how it's spent.

Why don't you tell me what damage has exactly been done to the thousands of female athletes who have participated in college athletics? I'm pretty sure damage isn't a term they would use. But, hey, I'm just speaking out of my ass here.

SwimStud
March 5th, 2008, 03:21 PM
What the hell is a box score?

jim clemmons
March 5th, 2008, 03:25 PM
What the hell is a box score?

I don't know but I'll bet it's got something to do with those panties we found earlier. In fact, I think that's them at the top of the pole -->:whiteflag:

Kurt Dickson
March 5th, 2008, 03:31 PM
We are never going to agree on this as we disagree on my belief that women, in general, may be a tad less interested in sports and scratching oneself than men.

I would like to make one clarification that I am a proud supporter of women's athletics. I have forced 3 girls (my own, so it's legal) to swim as their extracurricular activity. I have also generously donated at least $30,000 over last 7 years to my wife's cycling career (2004 national age-group time trial champion and still the fastest woman cyclist in the state of Arizona--four years running). So back off haters!

The Fortress
March 5th, 2008, 03:35 PM
"generously donated"

Well, it's an interesting choice of words for a spouse ...

If fashion magazines were eliminated, maybe more women would do sports. Although, in my house, like yours, it's mandatory.

aquageek
March 5th, 2008, 03:42 PM
We are never going to agree on this as we disagree on my belief that women, in general, may be a tad less interested in sports and scratching oneself than men.

What does that mean? Even if you are correct, does that mean they shouldn't get a say or have opportunities available? When you treat a female athlete in the ER, do you give them a tad bit less care because women aren't interested in athletics like men? Did you buy your wife a tad bit less nice bike cause women aren't really serious athletes like men?

scyfreestyler
March 5th, 2008, 03:49 PM
I might force my kids to try a sport, but not to continue with it. Perhaps that is all you meant.

Kurt Dickson
March 5th, 2008, 03:50 PM
What does that mean? Even if you are correct, does that mean they shouldn't get a say or have opportunities available? When you treat a female athlete in the ER, do you give them a tad bit less care because women aren't interested in athletics like men? Did you buy your wife a tad bit less nice bike cause women aren't really serious athletes like men?

You are right. I see the light. The Geek-Dickson bill is going before the senate. One provision will be that all colleges must provide equal football opportunities for women.

Kurt Dickson
March 5th, 2008, 03:53 PM
I might force my kids to try a sport, but not to continue with it. Perhaps that is all you meant.

Pretty much. However, the kids I seem to deal with would rather play game boy than exercise and so they need extra encouragement.

SwimStud
March 5th, 2008, 03:53 PM
Well it all boils down to being women's lib at fault. If chicks has just stuck to knitting and fussing over kittens and bunnies this whole thread would be moot.
The push for equality, harkening back to the right to vote is the undoing of the modern family. There was a time colleges taught girls how to be good housewives and set the table correctly, now they want an education and to play sports.
Add to that women taking men's jobs, mean fewer guys earning enough to support their familes. Which creates a struggle for many families who now are forced to put 2 parents out to work just to get by.
Really we'd be much better off if girls would be girls--title XID or whatever it is wouldn't be an issue. Thank you for your time.


:bolt:

LOL

scyfreestyler
March 5th, 2008, 03:54 PM
Pretty much. However, the kids I seem to deal with would rather play game boy than exercise and so they need extra encouragement.



Gotcha.

scyfreestyler
March 5th, 2008, 03:56 PM
Well it all boils down to being women's lib at fault. If chicks has just stuck to knitting and fussing over kitten and bunnie this whole thread would be moot.
The push for equality, harkening back to the right to vote is the undoing of the modern family. There was a time colloeges taught girls how to be good housewives and set the table correctly, now they want an education and to play sports.
Add to that women taking men's jobs, mean fewer guys earning enough to support their familes. Which creates a struggle for many families who now are forced to put 2 parents out to work just to get by.
Really we'd be much better off if girls would be girls--title XID or whatever it is wouldn't be an issue. Thank you for your time.


:bolt:

LOL

Back in the good 'ole days...when Chuck Norris and Charles Bronson were keeping the streets clean of worthless dreck.

Kurt Dickson
March 5th, 2008, 03:58 PM
Well, it's an interesting choice of words for a spouse ...

If fashion magazines were eliminated, maybe more women would do sports. Although, in my house, like yours, it's mandatory.

When you are working all day (except today of course) and then coming home and taking care of the family so your spouse can ride, I would call it "donating" as there may not be an equitable share of family duties that day. It's a partnership, we all have needs, I got it. Sorry about my choice of words.

Iwannafly
March 5th, 2008, 03:59 PM
You are right. I see the light. The Geek-Dickson bill is going before the senate. One provision will be that all colleges must provide equal football opportunities for women.
It is not the fault of Title IX that ADs choose to allocate 65 of their men's athletic scholarships to football. As a matter of fact, if the NBA wouldn't have decided to change their rules, Universities like Ohio State, Texas and Kansas State might have a couple more scholarship dollars to give to some male swimmers. I am of course referring to the 'one and done' basketball superstars who could have easily jumped from high school to the NBA. That is a topic for some other hijacked thread though. Geek and Fort are correct in saying that it is sexist for you to say that women are, in general, less interested in sports. A majority of the women I am friends with, including my wife, were or are jocks and are still interested in all sorts of sports. I'm not saying you're a horrible person, but the statement is definitely sexist. Plus, I graduated from a University that had a female football player on scholarship! Not that that's really relevant, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.:cool:

Kurt Dickson
March 5th, 2008, 04:02 PM
Well it all boils down to being women's lib at fault. If chicks has just stuck to knitting and fussing over kitten and bunnie this whole thread would be moot.
The push for equality, harkening back to the right to vote is the undoing of the modern family. There was a time colloeges taught girls how to be good housewives and set the table correctly, now they want an education and to play sports.
Add to that women taking men's jobs, mean fewer guys earning enough to support their familes. Which creates a struggle for many families who now are forced to put 2 parents out to work just to get by.
Really we'd be much better off if girls would be girls--title XID or whatever it is wouldn't be an issue. Thank you for your time.


:bolt:

LOL

Lovely. I'm not sure anyone is saying they are against the merits of equality. Our argument (which has gone nowhere) is how it is defined and legislated.

The Fortress
March 5th, 2008, 04:08 PM
When you are working all day (except today of course) and then coming home and taking care of the family so your spouse can ride, I would call it "donating" as there may not be an equitable share of family duties that day. It's a partnership, we all have needs, I got it. Sorry about my choice of words.

It was a bit neanderthalian.

So is your wife "donating" time when you swim? Still, an odd concept "donating" time to your family. Much odder than women playing football.

CreamPuff
March 5th, 2008, 04:08 PM
I have also generously donated at least $30,000 over last 7 years to my wife's cycling career (2004 national age-group time trial champion and still the fastest woman cyclist in the state of Arizona--four years running).

:shakeshead: Ick. I really hope this is not how my husband views my swimming.
We'll spend upwards of $5K on a single week long swim meet (much more than the $4286/ year average that Kirk spends.) Perhaps I get bonus points for being world ranked. :joker:

Iwannafly
March 5th, 2008, 04:10 PM
Just so we can define sexism:
sexism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexist)(from Merriam-Webster)

1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

SwimStud
March 5th, 2008, 04:11 PM
Lovely. I'm not sure anyone is saying they are against the merits of equality. Our argument (which has gone nowhere) is how it is defined and legislated.

Well we could following Saudi Arabia's cue and ban women from driving.
1) We'd reduce traffic accidents and supermarket dings
and
B) The oil consumption might drop a bit and help out the economy

It's really too bad I can't run this year.

aquageek
March 5th, 2008, 04:11 PM
When you are working all day (except today of course) and then coming home and taking care of the family so your spouse can ride, I would call it "donating" as there may not be an equitable share of family duties that day. It's a partnership, we all have needs, I got it. Sorry about my choice of words.

Is your spouse at the spa all day? Do you really live in Colorado City, AZ?

Gotta run - donating my time to get the kiddies to swim practice. I'll make sure to hang this over my wife's head when she gets home from work.

Kurt Dickson
March 5th, 2008, 04:13 PM
It was a bit neanderthalian.

So is your wife "donating" time when you swim? Still, an odd concept "donating" time to your family. Much odder than women playing football.

She rides two-three hours. I maybe get 20-40 minutes per day. Neanderthal is my middle name (my parents did not like the way Australopithecus sounded with the "Dick" in Dickson).

Iwannafly
March 5th, 2008, 04:14 PM
My Outlook calendar popped up to let me know that it's bash on Kurt day! You've gotta love hot-button social issues in a public forum.

Kurt Dickson
March 5th, 2008, 04:18 PM
Is your spouse at the spa all day? Do you really live in Colorado City, UT?

Gotta run - donating my time to get the kiddies to swim practice. I'll make sure to hang this over my wife's head when she gets home from work.

Colorado City is actually here in Arizona. Thanks for the great waste of time today.:frustrated:

Next time y'all are in Arizona, please come by for a hug and a kiss.:bighug:

I got to go "donate" two days of my life to the (homophobic) Boy Scouts of America this weekend teaching first aid at a camp that I don't even have children old enough to participate in. When I get back, I will definitely tune in for more enlightenment at the hands of all the forumites. Please, I beg of all of you, make me a better person.

SwimStud
March 5th, 2008, 04:27 PM
Doh silly refresh button.

aquageek
March 5th, 2008, 04:31 PM
She rides two-three hours. I maybe get 20-40 minutes per day.

Not that you are keeping score or anything.

The Fortress
March 5th, 2008, 04:38 PM
Colorado City is actually here in Arizona. Thanks for the great waste of time today.:frustrated:

Next time y'all are in Arizona, please come by for a hug and a kiss.:bighug:

I got to go "donate" two days of my life to the (homophobic) Boy Scouts of America this weekend teaching first aid at a camp that I don't even have children old enough to participate in. When I get back, I will definitely tune in for more enlightenment at the hands of all the forumites. Please, I beg of all of you, make me a better person.

Well, you may have an odd bedside manner, but you're not dull. I wouldn't be donating any time to that organization. My girls are not girl scouts either. They probably still give merit badges for knitting and cooking and crafts.

SwimStud
March 5th, 2008, 04:41 PM
They probably still give merit badges for knitting and cooking and crafts.

It's never too late to start...

...they do for the boys too...always have.

The Fortress
March 5th, 2008, 04:45 PM
It's never too late to start...

...they do for the boys too...always have.

Well, that's apparently not all they do. Not a fan.

scyfreestyler
March 5th, 2008, 04:45 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2003-01-28-title-ix-cover_x.htm


About this very subject.


Of interest...

The numbers suggest that women and girls have shown an increased interest in playing sports as their opportunities have grown in the Title IX era: About 2.8 million girls play high school sports today, nine times more than in 1971.

But 3.9 million boys play high school sports. Is that because more boys than girls want to play? If so, does that mean more progress needs to be made — or are the girls who want to play already playing?

and...

The arguments become circular and take on a chicken-or-egg quality. More men than women play organized sports — by a ratio of about 57-43 in high schools and colleges. One side says that is evidence of discrimination. The other suggests that's a natural balance based on who wants to play.

ALM
March 5th, 2008, 04:48 PM
As a matter of fact, if the NBA wouldn't have decided to change their rules, Universities like Ohio State, Texas and Kansas State might have a couple more scholarship dollars to give to some male swimmers.

Point of clarification... Kansas State University (Wildcats, school colors purple/white) does not have swim teams, male or female. The University of Kansas (Jayhawks, school colors red/blue) has a women's swim team and used to have a men's team.

scyfreestyler
March 5th, 2008, 04:51 PM
Point of clarification... Kansas State University (Wildcats, school colors purple/white) does not have swim teams, male or female. The University of Kansas (Jayhawks, school colors red/blue) has a women's swim team and used to have a men's team.

That sounds fair to me. :rolleyes:

chuckster
March 5th, 2008, 04:59 PM
How did a thread about a swim meet (that happened last weekend) become a tirade about Title IX and male/female roles?

BTW, great info Ande.

scyfreestyler
March 5th, 2008, 05:07 PM
How did a thread about a swim meet (that happened last weekend) become a tirade about Title IX and male/female roles?

BTW, great info Ande.
I don't know...but it makes for some interesting conversation. :agree:

TheGoodSmith
March 5th, 2008, 05:33 PM
Geek,

You say you are "personally am elated my kids have the same sporting opportunities that I had growing up in the late 60s and 70s, except football"....

Unfortunately, as the father of one boy and two girls, I am not elated at my son's collegiate scholarship opportunities in the sport of swimming compared to when I went to the Univ. of Texas. When I was there we had 12 scholarships.... now its around 9. There were actually team competitions in the ancient SouthWest Conference..... now there is nothing in the Big 12.

You can not pin this demise of boys secondary sports in college entirely on selfish football budgeting decisions. The timing is too coincidental with the implementation of Title 9. There is only so much money in the pot. Title 9 spread it out broader in womens sports and there is less in secondary men's sports. Title 9 is a good idea.... but there should have been mandatory requirements to have football dip into their budgets to help pay for existing men's secondary sports.

Before Title 9 women were unhappy with athletic dept. budgets and decision....... after Title 9 secondary mens sports are unhappy with athletic dept. budgets and decisions.

Title 9 hasn't really really solved the basic inequity...... its just shifted it.


John Smith

The Fortress
March 5th, 2008, 05:37 PM
Geek,

You say you are "personally am elated my kids have the same sporting opportunities that I had growing up in the late 60s and 70s, except football"....

Unfortunately, as the father of one boy and two girls, I am not elated at my son's collegiate scholarship opportunities in the sport of swimming compared to when I went to the Univ. of Texas. When I was there we had 12 scholarships.... now its around 9. There were actually team competitions in the ancient SouthWest Conference..... now there is nothing in the Big 12.

You can not pin this demise of boys secondary sports in college entirely on selfish football budgeting decisions. The timing is too coincidental with the implementation of Title 9. There is only so much money in the pot. Title 9 spread it out broader in womens sports and there is less in secondary men's sports. Title 9 is a good idea.... but there should have been mandatory requirements to have football dip into their budgets to help pay for existing men's secondary sports.

Before Title 9 women were unhappy with athletic dept. budgets and decision....... after Title 9 secondary mens sports are unhappy with athletic dept. budgets and decisions.

Title 9 hasn't really really solved the basic inequity...... its just shifted it.


John Smith

Well, a shift is better than what was and helped correct past discrimination. I like the idea of legislating the decline of men's college football and slashing its budget. Unfortunately, Congress is dominated by men who like and played football. Now, if this inequity were to shift, maybe we'd get somewhere.

scyfreestyler
March 5th, 2008, 05:38 PM
Well, a shift is better than what was and helped correct past discrimination. I like the idea of legislating the decline of men's college football.


All those in favor say aye.....AYE! :wine:

aquageek
March 5th, 2008, 05:45 PM
There were actually team competitions in the ancient SouthWest Conference..... now there is nothing in the Big 12.

What more do you expect from two sub-par sports conferences? Send them to the ACC or SEC, better all around anyway.


What makes it even more laughable is the extreme money the Big Twelve spends on football yet they can't field swimming teams, like, say, the SEC and ACC, the two most competitive athletic sports conferences in the nation. Take it up with your ADs, not a 36 year old program, give me a break.

pwolf66
March 5th, 2008, 07:54 PM
I like the idea of legislating the decline of men's college football and slashing its budget. Unfortunately, Congress is dominated by men who like and played football. Now, if this inequity were to shift, maybe we'd get somewhere.

Wow. Not that I am defending Big Time College Athletics but if you want to really strike a death blow to college sports in general, killing football would be a great start.

Paul

cowsvils
March 5th, 2008, 08:21 PM
Well, a shift is better than what was and helped correct past discrimination. I like the idea of legislating the decline of men's college football and slashing its budget. Unfortunately, Congress is dominated by men who like and played football. Now, if this inequity were to shift, maybe we'd get somewhere.
I certainly love the hypocrisy here, we want to have equality for everyone, except for people who play football, they don't count.

Additionally, as scy pointed out, it's a fact that more men play sports even at a high school level. Assuming that equal proportions of men and women are "scholarship worthy" in their given sports, doesn't that mean that there are simply more men who deserve scholarships. If this is the case, why should the number of scholarships given out be forced to be essentially equal? Equality is not always fairness.

Iwannafly
March 5th, 2008, 08:22 PM
Point of clarification... Kansas State University (Wildcats, school colors purple/white) does not have swim teams, male or female. The University of Kansas (Jayhawks, school colors red/blue) has a women's swim team and used to have a men's team.

I am a Wildcats fan, so I am aware that they have no swim team. When I wrote the post, I was thinking only of their superstar basketball player, who could have easily gone straight to the NBA out of high school. Most of my post really had nothing to do with the discussion of Title IX, but I needed current or very recent examples of basketball players who didn't or probably won't see a sophomore season.

It hasn't been a good few weeks to be a Wildcats fan with losing five of the their last six and all. They will have to win a couple of games in the Big 12 tourney to get to the big dance.

I think I may be finished with this topic since it will, more than likely, go on just like the Dara Torres topic. In addition, we should move the discussion to its own topic so we can quit hijacking the thread.

The Fortress
March 5th, 2008, 08:28 PM
I certainly love the hypocrisy here, we want to have equality for everyone, except for people who play football, they don't count.

Additionally, as scy pointed out, it's a fact that more men play sports even at a high school level. Assuming that equal proportions of men and women are "scholarship worthy" in their given sports, doesn't that mean that there are simply more men who deserve scholarships. If this is the case, why should the number of scholarships given out be forced to be essentially equal? Equality is not always fairness.

What are you talking about? I said nothing about perfect equality in terms of scholarships in my post aside from addressing past inequity -- which is indisputable. I simply agree with some of the other posters that having fewer men's football scholarships and giving that money to sports like men's swimming, men's cross country and men's crew would be desirable. It would not mean the end of college sports. Is it a crime to have fewer football scholarships? I wouldn't exactly say football players have suffered from inequality. Quite the opposite. I have no idea how giving the "rich" fewer scholarships is hypocritical.

However, just because more men play sports than women in high school currently, doesn't mean this is the way it will be or should be forever. More and more women play sports all the time. So the tide may be turning. Just as it has on college admissions. To say "men like sports" more is just reinforcing gender stereotypes.

It's somewhat interesting that the ones who have been the beneficiaries of all the largesse in the past are the whiniest about having some of it redistributed to women. Sort of like millionaires complaining about taxes.

Iwannafly
March 5th, 2008, 08:48 PM
Unless I'm mistaken doesn't title nine require that there are equal numbers of mens and women's scholarships effectively? If that is the case, how is a college supposed to compensate for the 50 or so scholarships that football needs? If football were taken out of the equation almost every other sport would match up and there would be no issues, but because the scholarships are forced to be equal small mens' programs need to be cut to make up for the difference. My original premise could be wrong though.

This thread is like 'jock itch' as SwimStud so lovingly referred to the Dara Torres thread. Football in no way NEEDS 50 or 60 scholarships. People will play football regardless of whether or not they get a scholarship. I don't have any supporting evidence, but I would guess that not all of those 65 football players NEED a scholarship. Standout high school athletes decide where to go to school based partly on which school offers them the best scholarship. So, the scholarship has evolved from helping a disadvantaged student-athlete pay for tuition, books and board to getting the best athletes to come to your university. I love to watch college football, even though my University of New Mexico Lobos are not very competitive, so I don't want college football to go away. I just think that it is asinine to blame the decline in men's collegiate swimming programs on Title IX. Schools could still field a men's swim team even if they didn't have scholarships to offer. The opportunity to compete at the collegiate level is hard to pass up even if you don't get a scholarship to do it!

chuckster
March 5th, 2008, 08:49 PM
Isn't the point in going to college....going to school? All extra-curricular activities are just that, in addition to school. With so much bickering going on, it would almost seem best to just drop everything.

scyfreestyler
March 5th, 2008, 10:58 PM
The unfair treatment in college sports prepares students for the unfair reality they will face in the real world. Quite a good program actually...however unintentional it may have been.

TheGoodSmith
March 6th, 2008, 01:48 PM
"The unfair treatment in college sports prepares students for the unfair reality they will face in the real world. Quite a good program actually...however unintentional it may have been. "


...... assuming they still get the chance to go to a University. That dream of financial assistance through secondary sports scholarships is crashing at many universities.


John Smith

scyfreestyler
March 6th, 2008, 01:52 PM
"The unfair treatment in college sports prepares students for the unfair reality they will face in the real world. Quite a good program actually...however unintentional it may have been. "


...... assuming they still get the chance to go to a University. That dream of financial assistance through secondary sports scholarships is crashing at many universities.


John Smith


I know far more people going to school with student loans and academic scholarships than with athletic scholarships. Point being, the absence of an athletic scholarship is no reason to miss out on college.

SwimStud
March 6th, 2008, 01:59 PM
...... assuming they still get the chance to go to a University. That dream of financial assistance through secondary sports scholarships is crashing at many universities.


I put myself through school, ok well 50% of it. If I had not left my emplyer I could have got it all paid for but I wanted to move on with my life so I bit the bullet.
Everyone can go to school in this country, whether you get a 4 year party break on mummy and daddy's dime, pay your own way, or get a job with tuition assistance...everyone can do it--heck you can even join the military and get a degree.

With all due respect, I'm not going to worry too much about how hard anyone's kid trained and wring my hands because they didn't get a scholarship--regardless of the sport.

One sport shouldn't get all the scholarship pie I fully agree but lack of a scholarship is a poor excuse not to get an education. Even if you have to wait a few years.

scyfreestyler
March 6th, 2008, 02:01 PM
I put myself through school, ok well 50% of it. If I had not left my emplyer I could have got it all paid for but I wanted to move on with my life so I bit the bullet.
Everyone can go to school in this country, whether you get a 4 year party break on mummy and daddy's dime, pay your own way, or get a job with tuition assistance...everyone can do it--heck you can even join the military and get a degree.

With all due respect, I'm not going to worry too much about how hard anyone's kid trained and wring my hands because they didn't get a scholarship--regardless of the sport.

One sport shouldn't get all the scholarship pie I fully agree but lack of a scholarship is a poor excuse not to get an education. Even if you have to wait a few years.


:wine: Chuck Norris would be proud of that post.

SwimStud
March 6th, 2008, 02:01 PM
:wine: Chuck Norris would be proud of that post.

Chuck Norris got a 4.0!

Big AL
March 6th, 2008, 02:05 PM
This is a continuation of what began in the late 70's when they started dropping after school activities at elementary and high schools. It has been cascading to the higher levels of learning. They dropped swimming as a collegiate sport all together where I went to college in the late 80's (CSU Chico).

aquageek
March 6th, 2008, 02:10 PM
...... assuming they still get the chance to go to a University. That dream of financial assistance through secondary sports scholarships is crashing at many universities.


John Smith

From the NCAA website:

About $1 billion in athletic scholarships are awarded each year. Over 126,000 student-athletes receive either a partial or full athletic scholarship. However, these scholarships are awarded and administered directly by each academic institution, not the NCAA.

I would hardly call this the death of a dream.

I think you would just be a happier person if you just admitted that you don't like sharing the scholarship money with the girls. When you went from having 98% of the money to now just over 50%, it makes you sad and grumpy. All those educated and athletic women running about these days gets under your skin. What's next - women lawyers? Holy cow, that would be very scary indeed.

In 1972 there was a mere 30,000 women participating in intercollegiate athletics. At present there are more than 160,000 competing female athletes. In the last 20 years female intercollegiate athletic participation has increased by more than 80 percent, with a 66 percent increase in female athletic teams (Lapchick 2003).

SwimStud
March 6th, 2008, 02:28 PM
In 1972 there was a mere 30,000 women participating in intercollegiate athletics. At present there are more than 160,000 competing female athletes. In the last 20 years female intercollegiate athletic participation has increased by more than 80 percent, with a 66 percent increase in female athletic teams (Lapchick 2003).

Yes we ought to be grateful for the redistribution of wealth without which there would be no Beach volleyball!

jim clemmons
March 6th, 2008, 02:48 PM
Chuck Norris got a 4.0!

I thought I'd read he got a 5.0.

jim clemmons
March 6th, 2008, 02:51 PM
This is a continuation of what began in the late 70's when they started dropping after school activities at elementary and high schools. It has been cascading to the higher levels of learning.

Some of what began in elementary through high school was (at least in California I believe) a result of the passage of Prop 13.

ALM
March 6th, 2008, 03:21 PM
Men, NCAA Div. I
Baseball 11.7
Cross Country/Track and Field 12.6
Fencing 4.5
Football (Division I-A) 85
Football (Division I-AA) 63
Golf 4.5
Gymnastics 6.3
Lacrosse 12.6
Rifle 3.6
Skiing 6.3
Soccer 9.9
Swimming and Diving 9.9
Tennis 4.5
Volleyball 4.5
Water Polo 4.5
Wrestling 9.9

I don't know, maybe I'm opening Pandora's box here, or maybe this really isn't relevant to the current discussion. I'll just say it anyway...

Of those scholarships listed above, how many are being awarded to students who are actually academically qualified to attend college?

knelson
March 6th, 2008, 03:56 PM
Of those scholarships listed above, how many are being awarded to students who are actually academically qualified to attend college?

All of them...if you believe the Prop 48 requirements represent someone being academically qualified."

Allen Stark
March 6th, 2008, 03:57 PM
In this months Swimming World the coach for the UCLA Women said it is harder to recruit since they dropped mens swimming.

JimRude
March 6th, 2008, 04:35 PM
... just my $0.02... :soapbox:

As I see it, the problem is not Title IX and "equality" per se, the problem is with the definition of equality. Equality should be measured in "access and opportunity to play sports", not in number of athletes actually doing so.

There are self-sustaining men's sports being cut simply because the schools feel they must have roughly the same number of male and female athletes. So even if they offer lots of scholarships to young women for sports like crew and golf and ... if they can't get the numbers of women up, they have to cut the men.

It is a tragedy that schools like UCLA have lost men's swimming, and entire conferences have been decimated (ref the Texas versus no one comments). As someone who turned down several partial and full rides to walk on at a top school in the 80s, I don't want my daughter handed a scholarship to row crew at Acme University just because she's (going to be) 6' 02" and LOOKS like she might be able to row. I want her to be able to demonstrate objectively that she's worthy of it athletically (so that leaves out gymnastics) :rofl:

Let the assault begin... :bolt:

cowsvils
March 6th, 2008, 08:06 PM
This thread is like 'jock itch' as SwimStud so lovingly referred to the Dara Torres thread. Football in no way NEEDS 50 or 60 scholarships. People will play football regardless of whether or not they get a scholarship. I don't have any supporting evidence, but I would guess that not all of those 65 football players NEED a scholarship. Standout high school athletes decide where to go to school based partly on which school offers them the best scholarship. So, the scholarship has evolved from helping a disadvantaged student-athlete pay for tuition, books and board to getting the best athletes to come to your university. I love to watch college football, even though my University of New Mexico Lobos are not very competitive, so I don't want college football to go away. I just think that it is asinine to blame the decline in men's collegiate swimming programs on Title IX. Schools could still field a men's swim team even if they didn't have scholarships to offer. The opportunity to compete at the collegiate level is hard to pass up even if you don't get a scholarship to do it!

You raise a good point about the number of scholarships

Fort, I misread the message of your post, I apologize for that. As far as more women playing sports at a high school level, I can say that from my small sample (i.e. my last 3 years of gym class) there is simply a higher level of interest in sports for boys than girls, and that spans the spectrum from state champions to kids who would get cut from the basketball team, and this is not due to lack of opportunity. This just seems to be a natural byproduct of the culture that people are brought up in and greater competitiveness generally within the boys.

SwimStud
March 6th, 2008, 09:13 PM
This just seems to be a natural byproduct of the culture that people are brought up in and greater competitiveness generally within the boys.

This is somewhat true because of cultural aspect toward sports but I don't think girls are per se less competetive. They just may be driven to compete over different things. Hair, cell phones, ipods etc...just ask any mother of a middle school girl about competition for popularity...this is why trying to get girls into sports is a good thing; to build self confidence and rise about the "Heathers"(with apologies to Fly Queen).

The Fortress
March 6th, 2008, 09:39 PM
This just seems to be a natural byproduct of the culture that people are brought up in and greater competitiveness generally within the boys.

Well, the nature vs. nurture question is difficult because there are so many biological and environmental variables. Males have testosterone for instance, which influences behavior. Many girls are unfortunately taught, whether explicitly or by example, that competitiveness is not feminine. So it's hard to tell. I have not in any way witnessed the phenomenon of boys being more competitive than girls in swimming though. As Geek correctly points out, there are more girls in the age group ranks. I also wouldn't be surprised if things are changing somewhat since you have been in high school. Where I live, all kids -- male or female -- are involved in sports at the earliest possible age. And I see loads of girls in high school sports. But, certainly, telling girls or otherwise conveying the message that "boys are more competitive" will only further reinforce the cultural stereotype. My parents were both competitive athletes and pretty progressive, so fortunately I was not saddled with that. As you can all tell. lol

The Fortress
March 6th, 2008, 09:48 PM
As someone who turned down several partial and full rides to walk on at a top school in the 80s, I don't want my daughter handed a scholarship to row crew at Acme University just because she's (going to be) 6' 02" and LOOKS like she might be able to row. I want her to be able to demonstrate objectively that she's worthy of it athletically (so that leaves out gymnastics) :rofl:

Let the assault begin... :bolt:

Why?

If she's athletic, she might be a great rower and have an amazing college experience. Many kids take up crew for the first time in college. High school crew teams are relatively new. Is it better to give that scholarship to a second string football player riding the bench?

cowsvils
March 6th, 2008, 11:37 PM
Fort, I'm currently a junior in high school, and I recognize that there are lots of girls that take part in sports at my high school, heck the guys are outnumbered by girls probably 2:1 on our swim team. However, if you look at the number of girls who are year round athletes and/or stand-out athletes (those who would possibly be getting into college on a scholarship) it seems as if there are simply more boys who fall into this category. However, I don't want this to be misconstrued as me being anti-girls sports, as I'm all for allowing anyone to give any sport a shot, especially at the less competitive high school level.

aquageek
March 7th, 2008, 08:05 AM
As far as more women playing sports at a high school level, I can say that from my small sample (i.e. my last 3 years of gym class) there is simply a higher level of interest in sports for boys than girls, and that spans the spectrum from state champions to kids who would get cut from the basketball team, and this is not due to lack of opportunity. This just seems to be a natural byproduct of the culture that people are brought up in and greater competitiveness generally within the boys.

Applying your male standards as to how females should demonstrate competitiveness is not even remotely legitimate. You really have no idea how competitive people are if all you judge them by is their outward appearance. I can assure you that a female athlete wants to win just as badly as a male, but could demonstrate it entirely differently.

Further, lets assume you are 100% correct, does that automatically mean we should only reward boys for their outward competitive nature by giving more scholarships? Wait, yes, that is exactly what we did prior to 1972, we limited both opportunities and access.

SwimStud
March 7th, 2008, 09:35 AM
You see, it's all about motivation...
http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/odd/2008/03/06/ODD.Stiletto.Run/

aquageek
March 7th, 2008, 04:20 PM
My wife got a female athletic wear catalog in the mail today. The company is called "Title Nine." I thought that was quite humorous.

Allen Stark
March 7th, 2008, 07:37 PM
Attitudes about women and sports have been unfair to women forever.Title IX has been a good effort to change this and over all positive.It is a fallacious argument to say guys should have more opportunities because they are more interested in sports.High School girls are the first generation whose mothers had any significant opportunity to participate in sports.No one knows what female interest in sports will be in 20 more years.
The NCAA hasn't been helpful to"minor sports"as long as I have been paying attention(mid 60s).When mens swimming had 15 scholarships football had 120 and then 95.Thats why I think swimming can't rely on the NCAA.

craiglll@yahoo.com
March 11th, 2008, 03:26 PM
1) Some of the big 12 schools dropped their men's swimmign because they couldn't compete.
2) Have all of the schools that now make up the Big 12 always had a swimming program? I thought I heard back when it went through this current formation that There was one scool that didn't have a program.
3) Next year I wish it wold be in Missuori with their new wonderful pool.

craiglll@yahoo.com
March 11th, 2008, 03:28 PM
In this months Swimming World the coach for the UCLA Women said it is harder to recruit since they dropped mens swimming.

Here in Urbana, the home of the luckiest men's basketball coach in the world, (Why is he still here???), the women's coach says it has no effect on his recruiting. of course he doesn't have a great team though.

Slowswim
March 11th, 2008, 04:38 PM
To blame Title IC for the decline in Men's sports is unfair to Title IX.

Scholarships are a limited resource, colleges get to spend those dollars how they like within the law. Colleges are a business and answer to the Alumni for donations. If the alumni demanded a men's swim team, the football would get fewer. That's a business decision.

Not all football players get scholarships so to say without scholarships you have no team is false. You may get a weaker team which doesn't get a BCS slot...and dollars lost, but you can still have a team.

If you must have scholarships to have a team, explain club sports.

The real question for me is, if a college has a pool and a women's swim team and the support structure, why no men's team? Can't the women's coach train the guys too? Can't they rid on the same bus? The cost delta for having a men's team is too small to believe Title IX cut them. The suits can't be too expensive.

I think Title IX is for equal access since women were denied access in the past.

ALM
March 11th, 2008, 04:50 PM
The real question for me is, if a college has a pool and a women's swim team and the support structure, why no men's team? Can't the women's coach train the guys too? Can't they rid on the same bus? The cost delta for having a men's team is too small to believe Title IX cut them. The suits can't be too expensive.

When KU (Kansas) announced that they were dropping their men's swim team, one of my friends (a KU swimming alum) helped organize a group of people who lobbied to try to save the team. KU's men's and women's teams trained together and were coached by the same staff, just as you described above.

I remember my friend telling me that the total annual cost of the men's swim team was relatively small. $600,000 is the number that sticks in my mind, which would have included scholarships in addition to other costs. KU probably makes more than that off one televised basketball game.

Chris Stevenson
March 11th, 2008, 06:19 PM
The real question for me is, if a college has a pool and a women's swim team and the support structure, why no men's team? Can't the women's coach train the guys too? Can't they rid on the same bus? The cost delta for having a men's team is too small to believe Title IX cut them. The suits can't be too expensive.

I think Title IX is for equal access since women were denied access in the past.

The University of Richmond, where I work, cut the men's swimming team some time ago. They got no scholarships at the time and were coached by the same coach as the women's team. The justification claimed by the administration was Title IX. The women on the swim team at the time were not in favor of the decision.

Just to be clear: I am not blaming Title IX for decisions like these. The administrators wanted to balance both the number of scholarships (which was not affected by the decision) and the number of athletes of each gender. So adios, men's swimming. I would have preferred cutting men's football but no one asked me. They also cut women's sychro swimming for some reason so it wasn't all about Title IX.

My wife swam at William & Mary. When they were considering cutting the men's team, swimming alumni (of both genders) established an endowment to support men's swimming and the program continued.

aztimm
March 11th, 2008, 06:48 PM
Can't these schools that drop swimming have a swimming club then instead?

I did my undergrad at a small (8-9,000 students) state school in PA. They had a mens + women's swim team (they still have both, I just checked the website), but also a water polo club (that I was on), open to both males and females on the same team. The H2O club got some funding through the, "Student activity," fee that all students pay to go to college (nearly every school charges that these days). Our practices were outside of swim team/lap swimming hours (Sun-Thurs 9-11PM), due to facility issues (just 1 pool), but also some swimmers also did H2O polo. We had a coach, but I don't know if he was paid. The only special equipment we had provided by the team were caps, balls, and goals. We bought our own suits and paid for travel on our own. We swam in tournaments against other area schools (~3-5 hr drive), some had clubs, some had formal teams.

Surely there must be some way to accomodate swimming at any school, if there is interest for it. It may not be the best arrangement, but the club level is better than none at all.

ALM
March 11th, 2008, 10:03 PM
2) Have all of the schools that now make up the Big 12 always had a swimming program? I thought I heard back when it went through this current formation that There was one scool that didn't have a program.

There are currently six women's swimming programs in the Big 12:
Iowa State
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Texas
Texas A&M

...And there are three men's swimming programs:
Missouri
Texas
Texas A&M

Allen Stark
March 11th, 2008, 10:52 PM
As I understand it the problem isn't even Title IX per se,it is how it is implemented.I don't remember the particulars,but there are 3 ways a school can be in compliance,but only one of those has been tested in court.That one requires rough parity for the number of athletes(with some football fudge factor.)Since it is the number of athletes not the number of scholarships even walkons and non-scholarship sports count.

Chris Stevenson
March 12th, 2008, 09:56 AM
My friend Dave Holland -- a masters swimmer who also used to be a head college swim coach -- pointed out to me the Equity in Athletics site of the Dept of Education. From the web site:

"The Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act requires co-educational institutions of postsecondary education that participate in a Title IV, federal student financial assistance program, and have an intercollegiate athletic program, to prepare an annual report to the Department of Education on athletic participation, staffing, and revenues and expenses, by men's and women's teams. The Department will use this information in preparing its required report to the Congress on gender equity in intercollegiate athletics.

Equity in athletics data is now available on the Web at:

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics"

You can use the above link, or the following one, as your gateway to a lot of interesting information relating to participation by sport and gender, expenses and revenue, coaches salaries, and other things.

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstList.asp