PDA

View Full Version : ASU Men's Swimming/Diving Cut



Paul Smith
May 13th, 2008, 12:48 PM
As of 8:10am this morning one of the finer programs in the country is lost due to "budgetary" problems.

No one saw it coming and they just recently signed some top level recruits that gave them one of the top 3 recruiting classes in the country.

pwolf66
May 13th, 2008, 12:49 PM
You have got to be kidding me. Arizona? Sad, very sad.

Paul

aquageek
May 13th, 2008, 12:52 PM
That is something indeed. I went to Nationals there in 2003 and that sure is a great place to swim. Of course, they have to keep that aging relic of a giant stadium across the street in working order, which is increasingly costly given the Fiesta Bowl is no longer played there, nor competitive college football, for that matter.

knelson
May 13th, 2008, 12:54 PM
Oh, that sucks big time. Pac-10 men's swimming now down to just five programs if this holds. Hopefully the program can be saved.

Paul Smith
May 13th, 2008, 12:54 PM
Apparently this is the only program being dropped/cut back...they somehow found $$$ to build new practice facilities for football, track, etc.

No consultation with the coaching staff at all prior to the hammer falling...nice job AD.

ALM
May 13th, 2008, 12:58 PM
The letter they sent to the athletes looks like a "fill-in-the-blanks" letter. Note how "Men's Swimming" is in all caps, like they just use the same form letter any time they cut a sport:



Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Dear MEN'S SWIMMING Student-Athlete,

It is with much sadness that we provide you with this message. Your coach may or may not have had an opportunity to speak with you prior to your reading this email, but because of the timing of these events, we had to contact you directly as well.

Due to economic realities the decision has been made to discontinue your sport at ASU. This decision was not arrived at in a hasty manner as there was much deliberation and searching for alternative solutions.

As you look to the future, I am sure you have many questions. To that end, a meeting has been scheduled for 1:00 pm TODAY in room 35-41 at Wells Fargo Arena. There you will be presented with more information regarding this matter. You can find room 35-41 in the corridor in the lower level of Wells Fargo Arena. Should you not be able to attend, written materials will be sent by overnight mail to your permanent address. You can also contact your coach for this information as well.

Please know that we will do everything we can to assist you through this difficult time.

Respectfully,

Lisa Love

Mr. Jean Boyd

Associate Athletic Director
Student Athlete Development
Arizona State University

pwolf66
May 13th, 2008, 01:03 PM
I sure hope that the athletes didn't find out THROUGH EMAIL that thier program was cut. What a steaming pile of horsecrap. Oh yeah, this wasn't a hasty decision, nope, they looked hard and long at other alternatives, uh-huh.

What is it about swimming that makes people think it is an easy target? Cancel programs, close pools, disband teams. It seems to be the target of choice as of late. It's disheartening.

Paul

pwolf66
May 13th, 2008, 01:05 PM
Apparently this is the only program being dropped/cut back...they somehow found $$$ to build new practice facilities for football, track, etc.

No consultation with the coaching staff at all prior to the hammer falling...nice job AD.

Paul, not true. It appears that tennis and wrestling is also being cut.

Paul

aquageek
May 13th, 2008, 01:07 PM
Does anyone see the glaring irony in that letter - WELLS FARGO ARENA. You have to wonder what would happen if they put half the effort into saving the swimming program as they did in securing the naming rights contract to their basketball arena. ASU is a huge university, this is most unfortunate.

Jayhawk - oh, that avatar of yours, so shameful.

knelson
May 13th, 2008, 01:10 PM
Oh yeah, this wasn't a hasty decision, nope, they looked hard and long at other alternatives, uh-huh.

Especially since they apparently never even told the coaching staff the program was potentially on the chopping block.

ALM
May 13th, 2008, 01:12 PM
Paul, not true. It appears that tennis and wrestling is also being cut.

So it was a fill-in-the-blanks letter!

knelson
May 13th, 2008, 01:26 PM
It appears diving will NOT be cut. The only program I know of with a diving team, but not swimming is Miami.

TheGoodSmith
May 13th, 2008, 02:25 PM
One or two more and the PAC 10 will look like the Big 12.

It'a joke.

Budget crunch.... AD's with no focus or experience beyond football..... Title IX...... it's all a disaster for mens collegiate swimming.


John Smith

aquageek
May 13th, 2008, 02:41 PM
Title IX

I wondered when you'd get around to blaming this on women. Let's be honest, this has nothing to do with Title IX, absolutely nothing. This is a school that has massive football and basketball and has decided to fund revenue generating sports. Let's not bring up Title IX again, that is a smokescreen, and has been for 20 years now.

ande
May 13th, 2008, 02:45 PM
The sad thing is there may be more to come with other schools.

Swimming doesn't make money.

Football is the cash cow
Basketball and baseball do OK too

here's the universities press release
http://thesundevils.cstv.com/sports/c-swim/spec-rel/051308aaa.html

here's their team roster
http://thesundevils.cstv.com/sports/c-swim/mtt/asu-c-swim-mtt.html

ASU Swim Team History
http://thesundevils.cstv.com/sports/c-swim/archive/asu-c-swim-archive.html

knelson
May 13th, 2008, 02:50 PM
Let's be honest, this has nothing to do with Title IX, absolutely nothing.

I'm not in the "blame Title IX for everything" camp, but you can't say this has nothing to do with Title IX. No women's sports were cut, after all.

TheGoodSmith
May 13th, 2008, 03:14 PM
Geek,

Get a grip and get off your high horse on this subject. Your holier-than-thou attitude about women's sports and Title IX is nauseating. To think that any functioning budget could withstand a split down the middle between mens and women's sports without financial impact to one or the other is pathetically naive. Everyone agrees Title IX was beneficial to women's athletics and rightfully so. But just because someone states something negative abouts its implementation doesn't mean they're women haters and whiny male chauvinists.

Even though you selectively ripped that one item out of my quote, I did NOT say Title IX was the only cause for the demise of men's swimming.


John Smith

aquageek
May 13th, 2008, 03:31 PM
Screw it, I'm done fighting about Title IX. Too bad for ASU swimmers, that we can agree on.

hofffam
May 13th, 2008, 03:37 PM
I think this is primarily a financial decision, but Title IX clearly affected how ASU chose to deal with it.

ASU probably concluded that they needed $2M (just my guess) or so. They could have dealt with it any number of ways:

1. take it out every sport's budget proportionally
2. kill a few sports that would save the necessary $$
3. raise revenue

They obviously chose #2 - so the decision comes down to which sports. If they had killed any women's sports they probably could not satisfy TitleIX:

- that the percentages of male and female athletes are substantially proportionate to the percentages of male and female students enrolled; or
- that it has a history and continuing practice of expanding athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex; or
- that its athletics program fully and effectively accommodates the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

ASU could also have chosen to cut more $$ somewhere else - like football or basketball. But they didn't do that. Duh......

TitleIX clearly contributed to the decision.

chowmi
May 13th, 2008, 03:39 PM
What will happen to the swimmers???? Are they allowed to transfer? Does anyone know exactly how the decision is finalized to cut a men's swimming program? What happens if the swim teams, men and/or women, have their own "swimming funds" or some sort of "endowment funds"???

cdrcld
May 13th, 2008, 03:55 PM
What happens if the swim teams, men and/or women, have their own "swimming funds" or some sort of "endowment funds"???

Chris Woo ('76 Olympics breast stroker w/ a gold medal on 4x100 medley relay) lives here in Honolulu. He swam at UCLA when that program was cut. He said just a few years ago, some UCLA alums from his time way back when offered to fund a rejuvinated men's swimming program at UCLA. The university said "no."

hofffam
May 13th, 2008, 03:58 PM
Geek - not all SEC schools field men's swimming. Arkansas, Mississipi St., Mississippi, and Vanderbilt do not have men's swimming.

If you want to compare the SEC to ASU - then you might find that ASU's football attendance ranks just 36 (2006). I don't have numbers handy but I'd say that predicts their football revenue is not nearly as large as that provided at the big SEC schools. The SEC leads the NCAA in football attendance (75,706 SEC vs. 56,314 PAC10). 7 of the top 20 teams in football attendance are from the SEC. Only ONE PAC10 team in the top 20.

ASU's AD budget is about $38-$40M (based on a Google search). Way short of what Ohio State and Texas spend (>$100M). Those two schools spend obscene amounts of money on athletics. They have money to spare for money-pit sports like men's swimming.

MAC swimmer
May 13th, 2008, 04:06 PM
Absolutely tragic!

The bottom line cause of every title nine loss--tennis, wrestling, lacrosse, swimming and diving--is football.

If you get rid of football, you gain up to 5 sports (for both men and women). See UMBC's offerings for athletes. The answer is to dump football--the supposed money getter for the AD.

Dolphin 2
May 13th, 2008, 04:06 PM
Whow - what a BUMMER!!! :cry:

Here in San Francisco, I was wondering if some of the high tech companies in Silicon Valley might want to sponsor swimming & diving at one of the colleges that are dropping it.

At first it might appear tacky to have the logos of Intel, HP, or Yahoo, etc. adorning the natatorium at these colleges. However mass transit stations have advertising on the wall above the track area. Having tastefully controlled advertising is better than having to go without a swimming & diving department altogether.

Dolphin 2

The Fortress
May 13th, 2008, 04:14 PM
The answer is to dump football--the supposed money getter for the AD.

That's what I'd opt for. Football, not Title IX, is the chief culprit. Athletic departments are really just becoming football departments nowadays. Forget the concept of "athletes."

My college cut both men's and women's swimming a few years ago. It was reinstated with an alumni endowment.

I feel bad for the athletes who will have to transfer if they wish to continue swimming. Notice that the form letter was not even signed by the football-loving AD.

hofffam
May 13th, 2008, 04:15 PM
Chris Woo ('76 Olympics breast stroker w/ a gold medal on 4x100 medley relay) lives here in Honolulu. He swam at UCLA when that program was cut. He said just a few years ago, some UCLA alums from his time way back when offered to fund a rejuvinated men's swimming program at UCLA. The university said "no."

Unless there is more to this offer - I bet the funding was not a long-term commitment. I can't find it but I thought I read somewhere that a Div 1 swim team might cost about $1M per year depending on the facilities costs. A university probably wouldn't consider an endowment or donation unless it was backed by a long-term contract - say ten years or more.

The problem with donations is that the donors with big bucks aren't swimming fans. They want their name on the entrance to the football field or the weight room, not the natatorium.

scyfreestyler
May 13th, 2008, 04:18 PM
What will happen to the swimmers???? Are they allowed to transfer? Does anyone know exactly how the decision is finalized to cut a men's swimming program? What happens if the swim teams, men and/or women, have their own "swimming funds" or some sort of "endowment funds"???

I think the school itself is still open. They can attend classes and get their degree, permitting them to pursue a prosperous career.

aquageek
May 13th, 2008, 04:25 PM
Geek - not all SEC schools field men's swimming. Arkansas, Mississipi St., Mississippi, and Vanderbilt do not have men's swimming.

I'm not a great researcher but from what I can tell, only Vandy in your list above has ever had a men's swimming program. I could be wrong about this. I did not see any of the other above mentioned programs in any SEC results going back to 1937. Wait - Miss State did have a team in 1937 but I don't see them competing again after that. Guess all the water holes dried up in '38.

Fearing some schools haven't been in the SEC since 1937 I have confirmed that Miss and Miss St were charter members back in 1932. Arkansas joined in 1991 from the SWC. I can't find any history of Arkansas men's swimming but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. SWC is a bit hard to dig up info on.

The Fortress
May 13th, 2008, 04:27 PM
I think the school itself is still open. They can attend classes and get their degree, permitting them to pursue a prosperous career.

Nice!

Glad I went to a school where the alumni appreciated swimming.

ALM
May 13th, 2008, 04:29 PM
Jayhawk - oh, that avatar of yours, so shameful.

Is this one better? It's our other pro baseball team, the Kansas City T-Bones. Their league includes Fargo-Moorhead, Gary, Joliet, Schaumburg, and Winnipeg.

They were in the news recently for their short-lived theme night....



Posted: Saturday, April 19th 2008 at 1:19am
T-Bones drop 'Vick Night' plans
By The Associated Press

KANSAS CITY - A minor league baseball team has dropped plans to hold a welcome party for Michael Vick.

The Kansas City T-Bones of the Northern League had planned to have a Michael Vick "Welcome to the Neighborhood'' night May 28th, complete with prison uniforms, spotlights and escape sirens. Other events promoting caring for animals also were planned.

Vick, the former Atlanta Falcons quarterback, is serving a 23-month sentence at the U.S. Penitentiary in nearby Leavenworth after pleading guilty to federal charges related to dogfighting.

After receiving complaints about the promotion, the club announced today that it will drop the Vick-related events and will focus only on events that promote animal safety and adoptions....

Paul Smith
May 13th, 2008, 04:48 PM
UCLA had the funding to endow the program and it was rejected, as in the case with ASU its not so simple. Even if they can endow the men's program and keep it funded and alive per Title IX then an equal number of women's opportunities must be made available.

One reminder, this is a school that started a women's crew program by posting flyers on campus a few years back saying "try out, scholarships now available, no experience needed". I'm all for womens sports and what Title IX did, I'm not for wimpy AD's who choose the "easy" way out and screw Olympic sports/men's programs to try an obtain parity.

As in the case with Michigan when the coach departs the swimmers at a university where the program is dropped can be released and go elsewhere without losing eligibility.

hofffam
May 13th, 2008, 05:43 PM
I'm not a great researcher but from what I can tell, only Vandy in your list above has ever had a men's swimming program. I could be wrong about this. I did not see any of the other above mentioned programs in any SEC results going back to 1937. Wait - Miss State did have a team in 1937 but I don't see them competing again after that. Guess all the water holes dried up in '38.

Fearing some schools haven't been in the SEC since 1937 I have confirmed that Miss and Miss St were charter members back in 1932. Arkansas joined in 1991 from the SWC. I can't find any history of Arkansas men's swimming but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. SWC is a bit hard to dig up info on.

I can offer a tiny bit on the SWC and Big 12. Texas Tech once had both men's and women's swimming. Now neither. Oklahoma had both too. Now neither. Rice and UH have just women's now. Never cared about Baylor so I have no idea.

aquageek
May 13th, 2008, 05:47 PM
As in the case with Michigan when the coach departs the swimmers at a university where the program is dropped can be released and go elsewhere without losing eligibility.

That's really not the case at all. When a coach leaves it is usually unlikely that an athlete will be granted an additional year of eligibility (or that same year) if they transfer. If that was the case, you'd see a whole lot more transfers. The rule was actually put in place to specifically discourage athletes from hopping around schools or chasing a coach.

I think the ability to retain that year upon transfer is pretty tightly controlled, and rightly so. Obviously, dumping a program would probably get you a pretty quick and EZ hearing.

The irony of this is that non revenue sports are extremely dependent upon football for their existence. So, in effect, the more you spend on football and the more successful it becomes, the more likely you are to have a well rounded slate of athletics. This could very well be why Smith chose to get a teenager-esque tat of the longhorns on his aging bedraggled body.

carlos_fernandez
May 13th, 2008, 07:03 PM
The sad thing is there may be more to come with other schools.

Swimming doesn't make money.

Football is the cash cow
Basketball and baseball do OK too
Not baseball.

The vast majority of football programs lose money b/c the over-head is exorbitant. But they are "loss leaders": a university simply will not make as much money from alumni w/o a football team. Some schools get by w/ a high-powered basketball team.


That's what I'd opt for. Football, not Title IX, is the chief culprit.

It's kind of a combo.

Football takes a huge number of athletes to field a team. Title IX, or rather... its draconian interpretation..., is absolutely a factor in this because schools are required to keep the number of male and female athletes in line.

I'm an avowed feminist, and I scream at the top of my lungs that feminism is the "radical" notion that men and women are equal according to the law.

But it's time that there be some give and take regarding Title IX's implementation.

First, though, we must address the fact that boys/men are seriously lagging behind women in getting accepted to universities. In other words... the concentrated effort for equal rights has worked so well that men are actually falling behind women at the undergraduate level.

En masse.

Part of that is due to "male privilege" and laziness for some boys. But for minorities and lower economic class boys it has everything to do w/ major social issues that allow boys to fall off the college-bound track.

In other words: whereas Title IX fought to make sure that women weren't getting short-changed when it comes to public funds, there now is a need to incorporate men in order to make sure they aren't getting short-changed. (Personally, I find it shocking to say that!)

**To complicate these issues further: the trend begins to reverse itself when it comes to graduate education; and in the professorship ranks... it's still an Old Boys' Club w/ a major glass ceiling.

[/rant]

Sam Perry
May 13th, 2008, 07:43 PM
I'm not a great researcher but from what I can tell, only Vandy in your list above has ever had a men's swimming program. I could be wrong about this. I did not see any of the other above mentioned programs in any SEC results going back to 1937. Wait - Miss State did have a team in 1937 but I don't see them competing again after that. Guess all the water holes dried up in '38.

Fearing some schools haven't been in the SEC since 1937 I have confirmed that Miss and Miss St were charter members back in 1932. Arkansas joined in 1991 from the SWC. I can't find any history of Arkansas men's swimming but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. SWC is a bit hard to dig up info on.

Arkansas had a men's swimming program, I swam there. They dropped it in the early 90's (we were a top 10-20 program by the way) and had a phenomenal training facility. I also spent a semester at Nebraska-Lincoln and they dropped their program also.

It was truly sad when they dropped this, the women's team went down. They are trying to build it back up, but no question it lost a lot of momentum when the men went away. Same for Nebraska and countless other programs where women stayed and men were cut.

The Fortress
May 13th, 2008, 08:56 PM
Football takes a huge number of athletes to field a team. Title IX, or rather... its draconian interpretation..., is absolutely a factor in this because schools are required to keep the number of male and female athletes in line.

I'm an avowed feminist, and I scream at the top of my lungs that feminism is the "radical" notion that men and women are equal according to the law.

But it's time that there be some give and take regarding Title IX's implementation.

First, though, we must address the fact that boys/men are seriously lagging behind women in getting accepted to universities. In other words... the concentrated effort for equal rights has worked so well that men are actually falling behind women at the undergraduate level.

En masse.

Part of that is due to "male privilege" and laziness for some boys. But for minorities and lower economic class boys it has everything to do w/ major social issues that allow boys to fall off the college-bound track.

In other words: whereas Title IX fought to make sure that women weren't getting short-changed when it comes to public funds, there now is a need to incorporate men in order to make sure they aren't getting short-changed. (Personally, I find it shocking to say that!)

**To complicate these issues further: the trend begins to reverse itself when it comes to graduate education; and in the professorship ranks... it's still an Old Boys' Club w/ a major glass ceiling.

[/rant]


I understand your point. But it sounds like you're talking high school academics, not sports or Title IX, when you're speaking of being "college bound." Perhaps girls, now having more opportunities, are just smarter or work harder. Boys seem to need better study habits.

With respect to the Title IX issue, boys already have their fair share of athletic scholarships. They're not getting short changed. Maybe they should be systematically discouraged from playing football when young. (I never signed my son up for football and he's not socially or athletically hindered.) Besides, obsession with football can't be used as an excuse to bump girls from girl sports to enable boys to continue playing BOTH football and other boy sports at the collegiate level. You need to fix the American obsession with football. IT'S EQUITY AMONG SPORTS, not among men and women, that needs correction. But large universities fail to spread the wealth. And why should girls take the hit for football? Look how much men (like Smith) are screaming when they take the hit! And it's only of recent vintage for them. They've really not experienced much discrimination or suffered from glass ceilings. I don't see how penalizing women and effectively returning to the prior status quo advances the ball. It would only stop evilsmith's tantrums and erode progress women have made in sports.

If football can't be de-prioritized, I don't think Dolphin 2's idea of sponsorship is so bad.

cowsvils
May 13th, 2008, 11:01 PM
Fort, have you ever considered the positive effect those football scholarships can have? How many of those scholarships are going to kids who can just barely get their test scores because the inner city schools are so bad? How many of them are giving kids a college education who otherwise wouldn't have had one? I can't speak for football, but I know for a fact that basketball scholarships have given a whole lot of kids a chance at a college education they would have never gotten were it not for basketball, I would assume that it is similar for the other big revenue sports though.

Also, perhaps girls are smarter and perhaps boys are more inclined to athletics, if we are arbitrarily assigning traits to a sex, might as well tack that one on.

The Fortress
May 13th, 2008, 11:17 PM
Fort, have you ever considered the positive effect those football scholarships can have? How many of those scholarships are going to kids who can just barely get their test scores because the inner city schools are so bad? How many of them are giving kids a college education who otherwise wouldn't have had one? I can't speak for football, but I know for a fact that basketball scholarships have given a whole lot of kids a chance at a college education they would have never gotten were it not for basketball, I would assume that it is similar for the other big revenue sports though.

Also, perhaps girls are smarter and perhaps boys are more inclined to athletics, if we are arbitrarily assigning traits to a sex, might as well tack that one on.

You pointed this out in a previous discussion.

I have no problem with giving inner city kids scholarships. But axing women's Olympic programs so that more men can play football for 4 years and then retire? Why is that desirable? And is there something wrong with women excelling or surpassing men? If men need football scholarships and all its accompanying overhead and expense, then there are just less slots for men in other sports. Really, men are not in such dire straits as women were years ago. Just cut the budget for men's football to have more men's sports!! Don't penalize women.


I used the caveats "perhaps" and "seem" with reference to the boy-girl issue. I don't believe girls are less athletically inclined, although you do based on prior posts. If they are, or there is a perception that there is, it's at least partly socially instilled. All the more reason to keep women in sports to refute this inequitable stereotype. I'm sure this perception will be at least somewhat debunked 20 years from now .. the slow plodding nature of progress. I'm also just weary of the "oh woe is me" male attitude. "Male privilege," to use Carlos' term, is not the ultimate goal here. That apparently is a problem we're supposed to remedy, not reinforce.

Just giving you the leftist feminist perspective here ...

FlyQueen
May 13th, 2008, 11:24 PM
Athletic departments SHOULD be able to not count football towards their scholarships - just imagine how great that would be. If you take the football scholarships out of the equation things could/would actually match up or be very close. I like the theory of Title IX but in practice it blows.

I am so sorry for the ASU swimmers and their recruits. Think those top coaches were on the phone today trying to get the recruits and current members? OR do you wait a day or two ... hmmmm ....


Football does have a lot of overhead but some of it could easily be removed. For example - THE Ohio State (and I'm sure this happens at other schools) football team stays in a hotel the night before HOME games - they get dinner paid for, too. How much do you think that costs the Athletic Department each home game? I can really only speak to Ohio State but their football team is raking in the bucks big time 100,000 + at each game plus regular bowl game appearances - I think I heard schools get several million for BCS bowls ... amazing ... take a million (or heck half) off of that and spread it around to keep Olympic sports in the schools ...

craiglll@yahoo.com
May 14th, 2008, 03:46 AM
2 things

1. ASU is still near the top of PAC 10 in the number of sports offered.
2. I was thinking about chanin my life and going back to grad school. ASU was in my top 3. After i heard the announcement, I called the athletic dept. and left a messae for ms. Love that ASU isn't even on the list now. their football budget eats almost every drop of money that oes into the athletic budget.

There used to be a rumor that football paid for all of the sports a collee offered. That was always just a rumor.

craiglll@yahoo.com
May 14th, 2008, 03:50 AM
ASU has one of the highest in-coming Freshman scores in the PAC. Also one of the highest rad rates for its football program. What is the real problem is that students who participated in swimming, golf, wrestling, and tennis are the most likely to donate to the university where they played. the least likely are football players.

aquageek
May 14th, 2008, 07:05 AM
I think I heard schools get several million for BCS bowls ... amazing ... take a million (or heck half) off of that and spread it around to keep Olympic sports in the schools ...

The BCS is 4 bowls (I think). The other 700 bowls actually make no money for the schools and the universities are lucky to break even on most of them. OSU as an average football program example is kind of like using Michael Jordan as an example of an average basketball player.

FlyQueen
May 14th, 2008, 08:20 AM
The BCS is 4 bowls (I think). The other 700 bowls actually make no money for the schools and the universities are lucky to break even on most of them. OSU as an average football program example is kind of like using Michael Jordan as an example of an average basketball player.

I didn't say Ohio State was average I said I could only speak to their program. I understand that Ohio State is VERY unique. They earn and spend a ton (upwards of 100 mil) on athletics. They are fortunate to have a phenonmenal football team as well as big time donnors. My point was saying that in BCS games (notice I left out other bowls) the teams earn several million (I believe around 5 if not more) that you could take a million off of that and you'd have an additional 10 million to throw to schools that are struggling to keep their Olympic sports. I realize that this will never happen but the money is out there ...

aquageek
May 14th, 2008, 08:48 AM
They are fortunate to have a phenonmenal football team...

Until they come up against a real football conference. Are they 0-9 now versus the SEC in bowls?

Michael Heather
May 14th, 2008, 09:32 AM
Until I left in 1976, ASU was number 3 in total NCAA men's sports championships (and rankings) in the country. Golf, Archery, Baseball,
Track, Gymnastics, Wrestling and a host of other sports were annual powerhouses. Swimming never was part of this matrix, despite great coaching and year round outdoor training weather. Women's swimming -pre title IX- was also an annual threat to win AIAW national championships. I do not have the numbers, but since the women have joined NCAA sports, I don't think their rankings have been nearly as good.

It is a sad commentary that any sport is cut, but it is a reality of life now, and even though the demographics show swimmers to be some of the best scholar-athletes and have high graduation rates, money ultimately talks.

Although both title IX and football have effects on the decision, there is no reason to demonize either of them, unless one has a history and routine of calling attention to one's self by making unsupportable statements about the relative merits of either.

BTW, ASU football has a very high historical ranking, last year being ranked as high as #2 in the nation with a first year coach. The program generates lots of money that it does indeed share with other sports, and has active and generous alumni and booster clubs.

The tactic of continually promoting women while bashing men is only an indicator of a personal issue that needs to be worked out in places and venues other than this forum. It is tiresome and disingenuous.

aquageek
May 14th, 2008, 09:50 AM
The tactic of continually promoting women while bashing men is only an indicator of a personal issue that needs to be worked out in places and venues other than this forum. It is tiresome and disingenuous.

Since you have promoted yourself to forum morale officer, let me ask if the constant statement that Title IX is the downfall of mens' sport is equally tiresome and disingenuous?

As much as I disagree with some of the comments about Title IX, I fail to see why a sports forum is the wrong place to honestly discuss the impact of it on sports. That certainly seems a bit disingenuous, not that I really know what that word means. It does get tiresome having to look up $2 words all the time.

The Fortress
May 14th, 2008, 10:10 AM
The tactic of continually promoting women while bashing men is only an indicator of a personal issue that needs to be worked out in places and venues other than this forum. It is tiresome and disingenuous.

I expected no less from you based on your prior history and routine. God forbid we promote women. How outrageous. Get a grip -- this is not the stone ages. Sounds like you're the one with a personal issue about women's rights.

And truly, Geek's comment is entirely correct. According to you, men can bash away at Title IX and suggest that women's sports must be eliminated to save men's sports, but when a woman suggests that football's budget should be cut instead of hacking away at women's sports, it's somehow "male bashing." How hypocritical!

Some people are so agitated about this I think they would gladly clunk my daughter (or their own) over the head so their son could get a scholarship. Sheesh!

FlyQueen
May 14th, 2008, 10:12 AM
Until they come up against a real football conference. Are they 0-9 now versus the SEC in bowls?

Yes, it's very sad. However this year is supposed to be our year - last year was supposed to be a rebuilding year. I would say Ohio State is phenomenal program they cannot control things like playing in a "weak" conference. They are playing at USC this year - they played UT a couple of years ago - they try to boost their schedule as much as possible.

Tressel has built the team up tremendously - one national championship, three appearances and two (or three) other BCS wins ... I'd say that's a phenomenal program.

knelson
May 14th, 2008, 10:27 AM
I would say Ohio State is phenomenal program they cannot control things like playing in a "weak" conference.

The Big Ten is a weak conference? Are you out your mind, girl? I think you've been listening to Geek's adulation for the SEC too much.

aquageek
May 14th, 2008, 10:30 AM
Tressel has built the team up tremendously - one national championship, three appearances and two (or three) other BCS wins ... I'd say that's a phenomenal program.

All of this is totally nullified due to two words - Maurice Clarett.

If I'm forced to watch OSU again for the BCS championship I think I'll puke, unless they lose to the Dawgs.

Big 10 - 4 yards and a pile of dust

FlyQueen
May 14th, 2008, 10:54 AM
The Big Ten is a weak conference? Are you out your mind, girl? I think you've been listening to Geek's adulation for the SEC too much.

I think the Big 10 is a great conference - it gets the wrap of being really weak hence the "" ... I do believe that evil school in Ann Arbor beat Florida though ... hmm ....

FlyQueen
May 14th, 2008, 10:56 AM
All of this is totally nullified due to two words - Maurice Clarett.

If I'm forced to watch OSU again for the BCS championship I think I'll puke, unless they lose to the Dawgs.

Big 10 - 4 yards and a pile of dust

Seriously? You are busting out a player who played for one year in the 02 season? Wow if that's the best you got ... I loathed Clarett the moment he set foot on campus. It's just good that no SEC players have ever been arrested *cough* *cough*

aquageek
May 14th, 2008, 11:10 AM
I have a friend who played lineman for a legit football school down South and he described Big Ten players as speed bumps, just temporarily slow you down as you cruise over them to the end zone. Funny to see an OSU fan use Michigan to justify their conference success versus the SEC when Michigan just suffered the biggest upset in the history of D1 football.

gull
May 14th, 2008, 11:13 AM
I can't speak for football, but I know for a fact that basketball scholarships have given a whole lot of kids a chance at a college education they would have never gotten were it not for basketball...

Depends on how you define education. Graduation rate at ASU for basketball players is 42%. The rate for swimming is (was) about twice that.

FlyQueen
May 14th, 2008, 11:17 AM
I have a friend who played lineman for a legit football school down South and he described Big Ten players as speed bumps, just temporarily slow you down as you cruise over them to the end zone. Funny to see an OSU fan use Michigan to justify their conference success versus the SEC when Michigan just suffered the biggest upset in the history of D1 football.

Yes it sucks that I had to use Michigan as my reference but what does it say about the SEC that a D3 team can beat Michigan yet Michigan beat Florida? Hmmmm ... this year will be interesting. I don't think a team that cannot win its conference should be allowed in the Championship game ... the sucky thing with the Big Ten is that extra 2 weeks off they get ... sometimes that does bite you in the arse. Nothing seems to be changing on that front though so ... we must soldier on.

FYI - there were 4 BCS games until recently now the Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta are played in addition to the Championship game which rotates between sites now not between bowls ... if that makes sense.

aquageek
May 14th, 2008, 11:35 AM
Yes it sucks that I had to use Michigan as my reference but what does it say about the SEC that a D3 team can beat Michigan yet Michigan beat Florida?

I'm happy to argue football with an OSU "fan", or are you a Michigan fan? Hard to really tell. I thought it was a rivalry, now I guess not so much.

And, LSU spanked OSU like the little baby it is so I guess that makes LSU better than both Mich and OSU, but maybe not better than App, which isn't D3, btw. They are D 1.

MAC swimmer
May 14th, 2008, 11:46 AM
I'm sorry I must be on the wrong discussion group...I thought this thread concerned swimming. Michigan, Ohio State, ASU...when was the last time these schools ADDED a varsity sport. To cut swimming is outrageous when the facilities are already in place!

Here's a question--why not just cut the scholarships and keep the coaches and swimmers?

Paul Smith
May 14th, 2008, 12:01 PM
More details highlighted here:

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/PaolaBoivin/23503

Garh Hall Jr. has been saying for some time that college swimming is a dying if not already dead sport and I think he has a point...and it probably applies to most all other Olympic sports as well.

aquageek
May 14th, 2008, 12:33 PM
Might I propose a cutting of English and all Literature departments in leiu of athletics. Those majors put an undue burden on schools as these major never produce salaries in excess of $25K a year so no alum gifts are made and most often grads in these majors move back home with their parents.

gull
May 14th, 2008, 12:34 PM
Somehow ASU can afford to build a $19.5 million practice facility for basketball.

BillS
May 14th, 2008, 12:55 PM
Might I propose a cutting of English and all Literature departments in leiu of athletics. Those majors put an undue burden on schools as these major never produce salaries in excess of $25K a year so no alum gifts are made and most often grads in these majors move back home with their parents.

They might, however, learn to spell "lieu."

aquageek
May 14th, 2008, 12:57 PM
Somehow ASU can afford to build a $19.5 million practice facility for basketball.

C'mon, Wells Fargo bank paid for that. Can we blame that on Title IX?

gull
May 14th, 2008, 01:13 PM
C'mon, Wells Fargo bank paid for that.


No, this is new construction, to be completed in 2009. They broke ground last month.

aquageek
May 14th, 2008, 01:28 PM
No, this is new construction, to be completed in 2009. They broke ground last month.

I meant it in jest. I figured with the naming rights they sold to WF they probably generated enough $$ to build this facility. I guess "Speedo Stadium" would probably generate some giggles.

gull
May 14th, 2008, 01:34 PM
Apparently it is part of a $32.5 million fund raising drive that will also pay for an indoor practice facility for football.

That amount would be enough to fund the three sports that were cut indefinitely.

shark
May 14th, 2008, 02:15 PM
And, LSU spanked OSU like the little baby .

Team Stat Comparison LSU/OSU

Total Yards 326 / 353
Passing 174 / 208
Rushing 152 / 145
Penalties 4-36 / 7-83
Turnovers 1 / 3
Possession 33:56 / 26:04

I'm not sure why I am trying to convince Geek, he is pretty much unconvincable,(or anyoneelse on this forum for that matter) but..

I was there. It wasn't really a spanking. More like a scolding for turnovers. LSU was the most penalized team in the SEC this year. The refs were not calling any holding plays on LSU and continually would call ticky tack personal fouls on OSU. If you would like to look it up, it's in the books. I have a series of pictures that show the uncalls. Can't seem to find them right now. I will look at home. There were numerous flagrant holds that went uncalled for LSU. Do I think it would have changed the outcome? No. The NY Giants could not have won against LSU in the Superdome. I know one thing, that crowd would have gotten very ugly if OSU was given the uncalls that LSU had. The turnover ratio was the deciding factor.

As for OSU being 0-9 against SEC teams in bowls, I would like to see any SEC team come North and play in January in Ohio, outside, in the snow, at a neutral site, in Cleveland or Cincinnati. All of those losses come at basically home venues for the SEC. Kudo's to Michigan for beating those Florida .....

By the way I was at the BCS Championship Game in Phoenix in 2007, that was a spanking.

I feel bad for ASU.

aquageek
May 14th, 2008, 02:34 PM
I prefer to reference the score than the myriad of excuses that OSU fans come up with every year for their futility versus SEC schools.

Since Bowl games have always been and will always be played in either domes or fair weather sites, might I suggest OSU adjust their game so that their embarassing performances come to an end. Who the heck wants to go go Cincy or Cleveland for New Year's? That's like going to the Smith's house for a Title IX fan club meeting.

Along with your silly video of non calls (what a whiner) find the video of the scoreboard. It happened to read 38-24. Or better, yet the video of them squandering a 10-0 lead.

knelson
May 14th, 2008, 02:56 PM
Somehow ASU can afford to build a $19.5 million practice facility for basketball.

Yeah, but ASU is a basketball powerhouse.

Oh no, that's right, they actually suck.

shark
May 14th, 2008, 03:04 PM
Was anyone suprised by geeks response? You are a funny guy and I will continue to laugh at any response you give. Never positive and always combative. If you just want to look at the final scoreboard, you are not a fan of the game. I am just telling you what I say first hand. Everytime OSU would get momentum... oh, what's the use, let's go have a beer.

I'll be seeing you in the Coliseum and the Orange Bowl. Win or lose, we still get a hefty payday, and national exposure in what has become the bowl series of choice for the college presidents. We don't get to choose our games, they are appointed by the committee. Buckeyes travel well because the economy in Ohio has always been strong, we have money to spend on our hobbies, like college football. Plus, they have one of the largest, if not, the largest alumni population of any school. More people, more money spent. The BCS loves Ohio State. We spend a lot of money on football. Did I choose the system, no. I will play within the system. Say what you want, but Ohio State is Ohio State. Correct me if I am wrong. 11 National Swimming and Diving Championships. 7 National Championships in football. 1 Basketball National Championship. Going on countless Sychronize Swimming Championships, Men's Gymnastics Championships etc. People who want to argue that we suck or that we are not worthy of what we have won or lost are just jeolous of what the Buckeyes have accomplished year in and year out. Plain and simple. Nobody likes a winner.

I know that a chirping bird is full of ****, but say the Buckeyes get past the Trojans on Sept. 13, with the schedule they have, you might as well get ready for the Buckeye to travel to Miami for a third straight appearance in the BCS Championship Game. Hopefully, against your said 'Dawgs. That's all I have to say about that.

I feel bad for ASU Men's Swimming.

aquageek
May 14th, 2008, 03:32 PM
Oh, Shark, rattling off stats without context is an easy way to get yourself in trouble.

But, let's examine further. OSU last won a men's NCAA swimming and diving champion ship in 1962. Let me repeat - 1962. Since then an SEC school has won it 10 times. And, a Big 10 school, other than OSU has won it 6 times, led by a historically great Indiana team. The women have never won it or not since 1982, as far back as I found records.*

Then, you go on to crow about how great OSU is from a sports perspective. Again, let's look a little more closely at that statement. Every year since 1993 (which excludes your last swimming and diving championship in 1962, when gull was only 25 years old), the NCADA gives a trophy for the most successful collegiate athletic program. The beloved OSU has never won it, and has been in the top 4 only 3 times, fewer than both PSU and Mich in your own conference.

To be fair Stanford does win it almost every year except the first year when the 'Heels won it. Also, to be fair to Smith, Texas is a dominant school historically and currently in most sports. That could partially explain the tattoo.

I feel bad for ASU Men's Swimming and deluded OSU fans.

*I did this very quickly and apologize for any errors, there are sure to be some.

knelson
May 14th, 2008, 03:37 PM
I think we've found the problem with men's college swimming right here. Even in a swimming forum such as this a thread about the demise of a men's swim team turns into a discussion about football.

Chris Stevenson
May 14th, 2008, 03:37 PM
Say what you want, but Ohio State is Ohio State. Correct me if I am wrong. 11 National Swimming and Diving Championships. 7 National Championships in football. 1 Basketball National Championship. Going on countless Sychronize Swimming Championships, Men's Gymnastics Championships etc.

No, no, keep going, you're on a roll: synchro swimming AND men's gymnastics? "Countless," you say? And I'm dying to know about the "etc" -- ping pong? Curling? Don't leave us hanging! :)

You did, however, completely convince Paul Smith and his tutu of the supremacy of your school.

As an aside: my uncle, who is an immigrant, had heard of THE Ohio State University even from across the Atlantic. He asked his new brother-in-law -- my father -- for his help in applying to this wonderful school! It was the Woody Hayes era, after all.

Unfortunately, my dad misunderstood and instead got him admitted into...Ohio University, where he matriculated. My uncle, whose English was perhaps suspect at the time, didn't realize the error until he arrived on campus.

knelson
May 14th, 2008, 03:49 PM
As an aside: my uncle, who is an immigrant, had heard of THE Ohio State University even from across the Atlantic.

Maybe he really like the book/movie "Goodbye Columbus."

aztimm
May 14th, 2008, 04:07 PM
I normally ignore these posts of schools cutting a swimming program, as I didn't swim in college myself, and many times have no idea where some of these schools even are located. I think of swimming as an, "extra-curricular activity," where the focus of college should be on going to class and getting a degree. But in this case, there is so much more going on, and since I swim with the masters team at ASU, I'm commenting.

The story about this was on the front page of the local newspaper today, "The Arizona Republic,":
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0514boivinasu0514.html
I think Paul Smith may have posted that same story, but wanted to re-iterate how this is HUGE news not only for ASU and/or swimming, but for the Phoenix area, and Arizona as a whole. Even in my office, where no one else even swims, I have heard people chatting about this.

Swimming in the Arizona deserts is a natural function, which can evolve into a sport for many people. Kind of like ice skating or hockey in an area that gets cold and allows for natural frozen lakes. When you fly in or out of PHX, you see so many houses (about 1/3) with backyard pools....which exposes kids to the idea of swimming. When I first moved to the area some 13 years ago, it was almost like a culture change, with swimming being such a strong focus.

While it is the goal of any person playing an olympic sport to get to the Olympics, a more realistic goal for many in the area was to swim for ASU. Before/during/after practice this morning, some of the folks who have lived in AZ longer said how all of their swimming programs were based on eventually getting onto the ASU swim team. It was very somber in the locker room as people discussed the whole cutting of the sport, and how it was done.

Swimming was cut at NAU in the early 90s, now at ASU, which leaves only the UofA with a college-level swim team for the entire state. A state which is growing far faster than most others in the country. I struggle with the fact that the college I attended (Kutztown Univ, www.kutztown.edu), far smaller and in an area not known for swimming, is able to have a men's swim team even to this day, while ASU is not.

aquageek
May 14th, 2008, 04:20 PM
Tim - is the NAU pool still open? I swam there a few times in the 90s while visiting my bro who was in grad school there. Super pool.

aztimm
May 14th, 2008, 04:25 PM
Tim - is the NAU pool still open? I swam there a few times in the 90s while visiting my bro who was in grad school there. Super pool.

Yes it is, and that is a great pool. I swam there a few weeks ago while I was in Flag for a biz trip. One of the middle lanes was, "closed," to normal swimmers while some special folks trained there. NAU regularly gets extra funds by allowing the use of the pool (and track, and other facilities) for high-altitude training.

There's a very small masters group that swims there, I think just 2-3 times a week. I swam with them once and was the fastest there (and I'm not fast). Usually I'm not there the right day and just go during open swim (an experience in itself). The pool is usually set up long course.

gull
May 14th, 2008, 05:13 PM
I guess the budget wasn't a concern back in March when ASU amended the head football coach's contract, increasing his annual base salary to $1.5 million, with incentive bonuses (based on performance) of nearly $2 million.

Paul Smith
May 14th, 2008, 05:13 PM
For those who love conspiracy theories a good one being discussed at workout today is the standing offer that the University has to buy the Mona Plummer complex and tea it down to extend mixed use retail/condo's from Mill Ave....this same developed already purchased the old ROTC building across the street and its scheduled to be developed soon.

The University/athletic department already have plans completed for the new pool on the east side of campus....problem is that the offer the developer came in was such a lowball that it wouldn't cover the cost of building the new pool which is what they asked for.

So, with a major budget crunch and the possibility of actually making money vs. continuing to lose it on W's swimming, M's/W's diving and W's water polo...what are the chances aquatics are cut entirely in the next few years?

shark
May 14th, 2008, 05:36 PM
But, let's examine further. OSU last won a men's NCAA swimming and diving champion ship in 1962. Let me repeat - 1962. Since then an SEC school has won it 10 times. And, a Big 10 school, other than OSU has won it 6 times, led by a historically great Indiana team. The women have never won it or not since 1982, as far back as I found records.*


Why not go back to 1950 if you are going to go back to 1962. What is another 12 years when you are talking in decades. Since 1950, OSU has more swimming championships than the entire SEC conference if you are going to use your argument. Put it to rest.

I had the opportunity to coach at one of the first schools to drop men's swimming, Bowling Green State University in Northwestern Ohio in the Mid-American Conference. They dropped their program in 2001? (the exact date escapes me) In the early 90's we took the team to ASU to train for x-mas break. I remember training with the ASU and SMU teams, (it might have been Texas A&M.) What a great experience training in the desert was. The facilities were and hospitality was top notch. I hope those kids find a new home and attain the goals they have set for themselves. I have fond memories of the two trips we took to ASU. I believe BG still has a women's team.

aquageek
May 14th, 2008, 05:45 PM
Why not go back to 1950 if you are going to go back to 1962. What is another 12 years when you are talking in decades. Since 1950, OSU has more swimming championships than the entire SEC conference if you are going to use your argument. Put it to rest.


Two reasons why. First, it doesn't change the fact that OSU hasn't won bubcus in swimming in 46 years. Second, only geochuck can remember back that far and he's off on a Mexico journey at present. We can go back to the dawn of man and it won't change the fact that OSU is great, but only in the mind's of their fans.

hofffam
May 14th, 2008, 06:05 PM
Top 25 Director's cup standings for 2007:

1. Stanford 1082.00
2. Michigan 780.00
3. Penn State 762.00
4. Ohio State 703.75
5. California 702.00
6. Texas 684.00
7. West Virginia 630.50
8.. Wisconsin 628.50
9. Arizona State 612.00
10. Florida 607.75
11. North Carolina 607.00
12. Louisiana State U. 604.50
13. Minnesota 581.00
14. Tennessee 576.75
15. Notre Dame 543.50
16. Florida State 535.00
17. Georgia 525.50
18. UCLA 502.00
19. Michigan State 490.25
20. Oklahoma 484.50
21. Texas A&M 479.75
22. Southern California 460.50
23. Nebraska 457.75
24. Purdue 456.50
25. Duke (N.C.) 433.00

The Big 10 is the winner with 7 schools in the top 25. The SEC and Big12 have 4. The PAC 10 has 5 (for now).

The Fortress
May 14th, 2008, 06:13 PM
So, with a major budget crunch and the possibility of actually making money vs. continuing to lose it on W's swimming, M's/W's diving and W's water polo...what are the chances aquatics are cut entirely in the next few years?

Pretty good odds, especially at big universities with good football teams. What with multi-million dollars coaching salaries, multi-million dollars facilities for future drop outs to practice in, 85 football scholarships, luxury accommodations and meals for said scholarship athletes ... Something to proud of for sure ... Perhaps DIII schools will take over the collegiate swimming world, at least temporarily.

KeithM
May 14th, 2008, 06:44 PM
It beggars belief that a program the size of ASU, with that enrollment, donor list, and gov't funding should be in the position of cutting sports.

What is needed in collegiate sports departments is complete transparency. There should be full disclosure of all finances. Every expenditure and every salary. Some will balk at this but it needs to be done. Meetings and conferences where the death penalty for sports is under consideration should take place within the public eye. There should full records of the minutes for these meetings. Tax Payers and Alumni, let alone the student athletes deserve that much. The athletic directors and other officials work for them not the other way around.

Due to the furtive nature of the decision making "process" here and it's unexpectedness one has to question the motives and competency behind this decision. Keeping financial troubles and their potential implications under wraps and then ambushing the people that rely on their judgment is poor leadership.

ande
May 14th, 2008, 06:50 PM
received this Facebook group invite today

invited you to join the Facebook group

"SAVE ASU MENS SWIMMING".

To see more details and confirm this group invitation, follow the link below:

http://www.facebook.com/n/?group.php&gid=22491086110

james lucas
May 15th, 2008, 12:26 AM
The ASU decision is up there with the bone-headed decisions at places like Bowling Green and UCLA (the NCAA champion in women’s water polo). But the laws of gravity and economics don’t apply to swimming and football in the same way.

Back in the early 1970s, when Ohio State was doing some work on its football stadium, it invited the public to cart away squares of the turf – and the offer was over-subscribed by a lot. Flash forward to 2008: one of the most prosperous corners in Port Columbus is the airport store that sells red-and-white Ohio State clothing. You see, around a state that sends legislators to Columbus to vote on the budgets, the spirit of Buckeye football defies all the tools of financial analysis.

In the same way, dry cleaners in Arkansas will package your shirts in plastic bags with a family of red Razorbacks … there’s a guy who never did time in Chapel Hill's lecture halls but who nonetheless drives a Cadillac that's Carolina Blue … and the prize in the Red River Rivalry is more existential than words can describe, just as “the axe” is not the real prize when Cal plays Stanford. Swimming doesn’t inspire the depth of feelings that arise from football, to wit:


People who want to argue that we suck or that we are not worthy of what we have won or lost are just jealous of what the Buckeyes have accomplished year in and year out. Plain and simple.

No doubt about it: “Year in and year out,” Ohio State has been great - and its fans, even, "worthy" - notwithstanding those inconvenient losses in the first Thanksgiving Day games to a school that at the time had about 100 men (1890: Kenyon 18, OSU 0 … 1891: Kenyon 26, OSU 0 … 1892: OSU 26, Kenyon 10 … 1893: Kenyon 10, OSU 8): http://buckeyefansonly.com/gameresultsbyyear.html (http://buckeyefansonly.com/gameresultsbyyear.html)

In any case, The Buckeyes had their chance to make their first impression in their first season, when they came home with a 1-3 record. The Buckeyes lost their second game of football to the College of Wooster by a score of 64 to 0. Ouch.

If, as Fortress says,


Perhaps DIII schools will take over the collegiate swimming world, at least temporarily.

... then the reason is that, at small colleges, sports are just sports ... for the kids and not the fans ... I'm reminded of what someone else said: "it's only master's ..."

carlos_fernandez
May 15th, 2008, 02:26 AM
I understand your point. But it sounds like you're talking high school academics, not sports or Title IX, when you're speaking of being "college bound."
The argument for Title IX was that girls were being short-changed b/c boys had more funds dedicated to them (b/c of sports) and that was infringing on girls' opportunities.

My argument is that the opposite is starting to take place: that w/ undergraduate education, young men are falling behind young women, so much so that educators across the nation are looking for solutions to this very real problem.

In other words, the gender inequalities of the 60's and 70's that brought about Title IX have a bizarre parallel in the new millenium.


Perhaps girls, now having more opportunities, are just smarter or work harder. Boys seem to need better study habits.
Yeah. That's why I specifically stated "male privilege". I work in higher education. Trust me on this: I'm acutely aware of "male privilege" and the straight-up laziness.

However. They're also lagging behind in "non-privileged" demographics: Blacks and Hispanics. This is leading many to consider the probability of social problems that affect all males across the spectrum.


With respect to the Title IX issue, boys already have their fair share of athletic scholarships.
It's not about athletic scholarships. At all.

It's about the number of athletes. Schools are being forced not just to offer the same number of sports for men and women... they have to comply w/ the same number of student-athletes! So some schools have 14 women sports and 8 mens sports! And they're still stressed about complying w/ Title IX.

They're not forced to offer the same number of scholarships to each gender. Football alone makes that impossible to achieve.


They're not getting short changed.
If a state spends... say... $2 billion on higher education, and 58% of those benefiting are women and only 42% are men... then... yes... they're getting short-changed.

Having said that, men are not as bad off when it comes to grad school. And given the over-whelming position of privilege that men enjoy in society, it's hard to feel sorry for boys that fail to get their butt in gear. I mean... I have to correct their "essays". :frustrated:

But it's extremely disconcerting when you see that it's the boys of color that are most susceptible to the pitfalls of life.

The Fortress
May 15th, 2008, 09:31 AM
It's about the number of athletes. Schools are being forced not just to offer the same number of sports for men and women... they have to comply w/ the same number of student-athletes! So some schools have 14 women sports and 8 mens sports! And they're still stressed about complying w/ Title IX.

But it's extremely disconcerting when you see that it's the boys of color that are most susceptible to the pitfalls of life.

I agree. It's very unfortunate. Can it really be cured with having more boys in sports though? Maybe a different focus is called for.

I see no problem with having the same number of male and female student athletes.

Blackbeard's Peg
May 15th, 2008, 11:06 AM
I agree. It's very unfortunate. Can it really be cured with having more boys in sports though? Maybe a different focus is called for.

I see no problem with having the same number of male and female student athletes.

same male/female thing skews the men b/c of the amount of athletes on the football team. not all men play football.
it would be nice if the NCAA stepped in. clearly athletic departments are struggling to make ends meet, and the umbrella organization has taken a back seat while school after school picks on the same programs.
the whole world waits 4 years to watch track, swimming, gymnastics at the summer olympics. the world cup (soccer/futbol) is ginormous. why is the NCAA not taking advantage of the popularity of these sports to showcase developing talent?

The Fortress
May 15th, 2008, 11:23 AM
same male/female thing skews the men b/c of the amount of athletes on the football team. not all men play football.
it would be nice if the NCAA stepped in. clearly athletic departments are struggling to make ends meet, and the umbrella organization has taken a back seat while school after school picks on the same programs.
the whole world waits 4 years to watch track, swimming, gymnastics at the summer olympics. the world cup (soccer/futbol) is ginormous. why is the NCAA not taking advantage of the popularity of these sports to showcase developing talent?

Well, it's not the women's fault. It's football's and wussy ADs as Paul notes. More equity among sports scholarships is what's needed. How many of the 85 football scholarshps are for bench warmers? I just don't see how 85 scholarships for one sport is defensible.

Cutting women's olympic sports to have more men's olympic sports is not the answer and, as I said above, would unfairly penalize women. It would be nice if the NCAA stepped in. Otherwise, $$$ and the obsession with football rule.

Paul Smith
May 15th, 2008, 11:59 AM
Well, it's not the women's fault. It's football's. More equity among sports scholarships is what's needed. How many of the 85 football scholarshps are for bench warmers? I just don't see how 85 scholarships for one sport is defensible.

Cutting women's olympic sports to have more men's olympic sports is not the answer and, as I said above, would unfairly penalize women. It would be nice if the NCAA stepped in. Otherwise, $$$ and the obsession with football rule.

Don't you think what really needs to happen is a complete review/update of Title IX and a revision college sports programs around true overall participation rates of men and women in the general population? If the ratio of boys to girls in sports pre-college is 50/50 that should be a basis for how colleges are set up.

And football isn't the problem, the wussy AD's looking for quick fixes are the problem.

aquageek
May 15th, 2008, 12:03 PM
Holy Cow - I agree with Paul!!! Football still is a big problem because of the numbers of people it apparently requires. If you exclude football, you have caved but if you keep it in as is you haven't really solved any problem. Something clearly has to be done becasue ASU has shown their ass with their ridiculous spending on football and basketball and cutting of these sports this week.

hofffam
May 15th, 2008, 12:58 PM
I think college athletics in general faces some big problems. The gap between the haves and have-nots is widening. The money involved in football and basketball is staggering - mostly because of TV. Those two sports are industries on their own. Football consumes the most scholarships by far, the most expense, and generates the most revenue for most schools. But football is not always profitable.

Like it or not - those two sports are also the ones the student body of most universities enjoys the most. These sports generate the most school spirit, the most national attention, etc.

Sit in a suite at (very long name) Texas' stadium and you will see how serious this money is. These suites are 650 sq. ft, have private bathrooms, catering, and electrically operated windows to allow the spectators to participate (or not). Burnt orange leather (!) upholstery. Schools are spending like mad on facilities and more to generate ever-more attention and revenue.

I will never begrudge what people do with their money. I mean the donors that help fund all this. But many universities have no ability to keep up with Texas and Ohio St, the two biggest spenders in the NCAA. Yet they are trying to compete on the field which needs money for facilities and crazy salaries for coaches.

These schools have a huge financial advantage over others. Texas can afford to fund other sports very well and still deal with Title IX.

I don't know how - but I'd like the NCAA to take some gutsy steps to reign in the arms race.

carlos_fernandez
May 15th, 2008, 05:16 PM
Ladies. Gentlemen.

It's pointless to call for the NCAA to "do something". It is not a legislative body, nor is it a judicial body.

The interpretation of Title IX is in the court's hands. Any restructuring of this piece of legislation needs to go through Congress, not the NCAA.

aquageek
May 15th, 2008, 05:19 PM
It's pointless to call for the NCAA to "do something". It is not a legislative body, nor is it a judicial body.

You are correct, they are much more powerful than any legislative or judicial body.

The Fortress
May 15th, 2008, 05:22 PM
You are correct, they are much more powerful than any legislative or judicial body.

They don't have to do anything about Title IX if they just cap football budgets or make some pronouncement or requirement about equitable distribution of scholarships by sport. Isn't that within the NCAA's purview? Lots of ways to "rein in the arms race" before we start taking away women's scholarships by modifying Title IX.

hofffam
May 15th, 2008, 06:11 PM
The NCAA is a gutless organization.

A budget limit for football will never work. I can't even imagine how a number could be determined. If a school had a big stadium they have to spend more. Does a school with a big stadium just get to spend more?

A steady reduction in scholarships from 85 over time to say - 46 (two-deep offense and defense plus two kickers) would drive down many things. Schools should be allowed to divide scholarships - just like they are done for baseball, swimming and many sports. Reigning in recruiting practices (using private plans for recruiting) would help. I don't actually believe revenue would fall. I don't know how they can reign in coaching salaries - which continue to skyrocket.

The NCAA already sets scholarship limits by sport.

TheGoodSmith
May 16th, 2008, 01:25 PM
Geek,

Note Ms. Love's comments on her decision to cut the sports.


says Love, "these three sports were selected with the following criteria: financial impact, potential competitive success, conference/regional support and gender equity. Our revenue trajectory has been positive, however, our ongoing financial challenges have been well documented by the media. The decision to discontinue sport programs is a last resort, yet necessary."


Geee....... You don't suppose "gender equity" was one of the components that had to do with her decision? Could that possibly mean the effects of Title IX had something to do with this? ...... :-)

Hmmmmmmmm

The Fortress
May 16th, 2008, 01:42 PM
Geee....... You don't suppose "gender equity" was one of the components that had to do with her decision? Could that possibly mean the effects of Title IX had something to do with this? ...... :-)

Hmmmmmmmm

One has to wonder why you find "gender inequity" so desirable ...

Based on ASU's spending habits, the conclusion that it was a "last resort" is a bald faced lie.

aquageek
May 16th, 2008, 01:44 PM
You are gonna march to that beat for another 36 years I suspect so there's no changing your mind at all. Your opinion is well known. For those of us that have moved on from the early 70s, we'll try to find a solution. In the meantime, stock up on Kleenex, you need 'em.

Why do you harp on Title IX so? It's incredible that you find this such an easy target when ASU flat out spends tens of millions on basketball practice facilities and a coach's buyout clause. Someone who knows about finances would surely think that has a greater impact.

Let's be honest, ASU had 36 years to adjust to Title IX. Accusing Title IX now instead of ASU's inept administration is flat out ridiculous.

Midas
May 16th, 2008, 02:33 PM
My personal view on Title IX's impact in this decision is that while it did play a limited role in three men's sports being cut, it probably played a MUCH BIGGER role in saving women's swimming, both diving programs (they probably have the same coach so cutting the men probably wouldn't have saved much, if any money) and probably several other women's sports.

My guess is that it wasn't a choice of cutting men's or women's swimming, for example. I bet they would have cut both if they could have.

Which is such a huge shame given the pool-based culture of the state...

aquageek
May 16th, 2008, 02:48 PM
Midas - good points. I think schools hide behind Title IX so as not to admit to financial stupidity. If a school can raise tens of millions for stadium improvements, they can figure out a way to save small sports. But, they chose not to and allow people to stand up and foolishly proclaim it's all about Title IX.

The Fortress
May 16th, 2008, 02:52 PM
Midas - good points. I think schools hide behind Title IX so as not to admit to financial stupidity. If a school can raise tens of millions for stadium improvements, they can figure out a way to save small sports. But, they chose not to and allow people to stand up and foolishly proclaim it's all about Title IX.

Yep, it's the proverbial red herring scapegoat. I'm glad there are 25 schools I can delete from my kids' potential college list without any agonizing.

Redbird Alum
May 16th, 2008, 03:27 PM
Read the whole thread, and can say my Div I college cut men's swimming & diving back in the late 1970's. It was a very sad thing. I suspect they would have taken out women's as well, but the facilities were already there and they needed to balance opportunities.

Perhaps we need only look at the public pools being built (or rebuilt) these days to see the end of compettive swimming as we know it... splashpads and waterslides are now must-haves for pool makeovers, with lane space (and markings) at a premium if they are planned at all.

I think the big public universities are going the way of the public parks. Only sell what the majority really wants. Look to Division II, Division III and private universities for your collegiate swimming near term.

chowmi
May 16th, 2008, 03:36 PM
Pretty hard to swim upstream with the Lisa Love's with chopping block authority and full backing of univ presidents. Hey, remember this?? Aggie men's team is still here! What a pleasant surprise every year. Jay Holmes in one the nicest people in the world!

Texas A&M's Byrne Dumps Mel Nash
College Station, TX , June 29th, 2004

Texas A&M Director of Athletics Bill Byrne has taken another strike at swimming. Following the elimination of the men's and women's swimming programs at Oregon and the men's program at Nebraska, Byrne has uprooted longtime Aggie men's coach Mel Nash.

hofffam
May 16th, 2008, 03:57 PM
I think Jay Holmes is a fine coach. He unfortunately has to work under the giant shadow of Eddie Reese. And Bill Byrne has so far proven his critics wrong - he has maintained men's swimming. I think Jay is good enough to have a top 10 program but he needs some help recruiting.

Maybe some of those ASU swimmers need a new team to swim for....

Allen Stark
May 16th, 2008, 09:20 PM
To say that football is a revenue producing sport is WRONG at almost all schools.I was told by a semi-reliable source that 6 Div 1 teams actually made money.Yes it is "prestigious" to have a good FB team,but by the time you pay for everything it takes to compete in FB it loses money.Add in the fact that many of the football players(and even more of the basketball players) don't really want to be in college and the whole situation becomes obscene.Maybe this has something to do with top college swimming coaches going back to clubs.

carlos_fernandez
May 16th, 2008, 11:27 PM
Let's be honest, ASU had 36 years to adjust to Title IX.
Not really.

The interpretation of Title IX has evolved, and the problem is that it hasn't evolved to accommodate social changes and the fact that women now have the opportunity to compete in sports.

We're not in the '60s!

I'd prefer that some money be spent on getting women through the glass ceiling that still exists for women, instead of offering more and more sports that women just aren't interested in.


Put $100K into programs for female graduate students w/ children so that they can finish their degree in a timely manner.

Put $100K into programs for female graduate students that will enable them to have children if they so desire and still reach tenure when they become a professor, which is a MAJOR issue.

Or put $100K into programs that link female business leaders w/ undergrads so that they can network, learn about which battles to fight and when, foster female solidarity in the business world, etc.


The reality is that women nowadays have played sports and take what they want from them.

The reality is that there are better ways to spend money on a student-body that reflects their true needs, not the standards put forth by an outdated, archaic piece of legislation.


Midas - good points. I think schools hide behind Title IX so as not to admit to financial stupidity.
To a degree.

But just like there's a knee-jerk reaction to blame everything on Title IX, so is "financial stupidity" a red-herring.


To say that football is a revenue producing sport is WRONG at almost all schools.I was told by a semi-reliable source that 6 Div 1 teams actually made money.
It's a loss-leader.

The reality is that w/o a football team, alumni just won't give nearly as much money per year.

The Fortress
May 16th, 2008, 11:51 PM
Not really.

The interpretation of Title IX has evolved, and the problem is that it hasn't evolved to accommodate social changes and the fact that women now have the opportunity to compete in sports.

We're not in the '60s!

I'd prefer that some money be spent on getting women through the glass ceiling that still exists for women, instead of offering more and more sports that women just aren't interested in.

Put $100K into programs for female graduate students w/ children so that they can finish their degree in a timely manner.

Put $100K into programs for female graduate students that will enable them to have children if they so desire and still reach tenure when they become a professor, which is a MAJOR issue.

Or put $100K into programs that link female business leaders w/ undergrads so that they can network, learn about which battles to fight and when, foster female solidarity in the business world, etc.

The reality is that women nowadays have played sports and take what they want from them.

The reality is that there are better ways to spend money on a student-body that reflects their true needs, not the standards put forth by an outdated, archaic piece of legislation.


To a degree.

But just like there's a knee-jerk reaction to blame everything on Title IX, so is "financial stupidity" a red-herring.


It's a loss-leader.

The reality is that w/o a football team, alumni just won't give nearly as much money per year.

Who says they're not interested? And what do you mean by the statement that women "take what they want from" sports? Don't much like the sound of that ... Is this somehow different than men? And if the new women's crew team is currently undersubscribed or unsuccessful because it's a fairly new women's sport, does that mean it will be 10 years from now when high school teams are more common? Let's not write off women's interest in sports off so quickly! I just read in the Post that the DC area has nationally ranked crew teams, but no school funding.

And how exactly can "financial stupidity" be a red herring in light of the dollar numbers we know are spent on football and basketball?

If alumni won't give money without a football team, it's a decent reason not to go to that school. After this third or fourth discussion of Title IX, I will continue to encourage my kids to pick their school for academic reasons. I have no regrets that I did.

carlos_fernandez
May 17th, 2008, 12:46 AM
Who says they're not interested?
The fact that it's so much harder to get women to participate.

It's not uncommon for schools to offer 10 female sports and 7 mens sports. And if you subtract the football team, there are still more men playing those 6 sports than women playing 10.

The reality is that women have now grown up playing sports. They're not being denied on a mass-scale like they were back in the 60's and 70's.

The interpretation of Title IX hasn't taken into account a major paradigm shift that has occurred.


And what do you mean by the statement that women "take what they want from" sports? Don't much like the sound of that ... Is this somehow different than men?
Women AND men take what they want out of sports. Men and women play sports to the level they wish.

Don't read too much else into that.

College athletics are there for those that want to participate.


And if the new women's crew team is currently undersubscribed or unsuccessful because it's a fairly new women's sport, does that mean it will be 10 years from now when high school teams are more common? Let's not write women's interest in sports off so quickly! Sheesh. Real change happens in slo-mo.
40 years ago, few girls participated in sports.

Nowadays, the number of girls playing sports in the US is unparalleled.


And how exactly can "financial stupidity" be a red herring in light of the dollar numbers we know are spent on football and basketball?
B/c it is used in a misleading way.

It's a scape-goat just as much as Title IX.

Football -- which I hate, btw -- and basketball bring in money through alumni donations. THAT's why they still get promoted by universities. They're loss leaders.

Sure. There's the whole, "Wull. We've always pumped up hoops and foo'ball" factor, but the bottom-line is that bitching about hoops and football is going to get you nowhere b/c w/o those 2 sports, alumni donations dry up.

Have I mentioned that these sports are loss-leaders?


It sounds like you're blurring sports and academics/larger social issues. They're separate.
:shakeshead:

Why was Title IX passed?

Larger social issues that manifested themselves in sports.

Why am I calling for a re-evaluation/shift in Title IX?

B/c there's been a paradigm shift regarding gender roles in society, specifically w/ female participation in sports.


First you're discussing minority boys in high school and now you're concerned with mothers and potential mothers seeking tenure and working in corporate america.
Paradigm shift. Gender roles.

Men now have different needs than they did 40 years ago. Women have different needs.

Title IX = archaic. Doesn't reflect paradigm shift.


As someone who gave up a partnership, I know first hand that these are all very valid and troublesome issues, with no simple solution, but they are a little beyond the purview of undergraduate education and sports.
Sports, maybe.

But outside the purview of universities????

They're not. Go to any university health center or student services center and you'll see how these are important issues.

Did you know that service on these issues help professors qualify for tenure and raises? It's part of their job.


Perhaps graduate schools can work on budgeting that money. Certainly don't want my future undergraduates being encouraged to have children at that age!
:frustrated:

Not every undergrad is btw 18-22 years old.


Don't know what those larger social issues have to do with the plight of college swimming, football or Title IX.
B/c all of the afore-mentioned are affected by an archaic piece of legislation.


Maybe instead of penalizing women's sports,
We're NOT penalizing women's sports. I'm sorry. We're not in the 60's any more.

Men's sports are being penalized b/c universities have to have an equal number of male and female athletes.

Not sports. Athletes.


we could downsize our military spending just a wee bit to focus on these pressing domestic issues?
I would love it!


And if boys, including minority boys, don't want to be in college or are dropping out, perhaps they should be re-focused on something besides or in addition to sports at a young age?
And if girls are more interested in getting pregnant and dropping out of high school, maybe they should "re-focus on something else"? (in case it's not obvious, this is a ridiculous statement.)

Sorry for the strawman, but me personally, I'd rather address the issue through education and implementation of programs and policies based on facts , rather than throwing up my arms and saying "oh well".


Perhaps too many parents are concerned with kids being first string varsity instead of whether they're getting good grades?
W/ middle and upper class boys, it's mainly a question of "male privilege" and the fact that girls work harder.

But there are other factors that need to be studied.


If alumni won't give money without a football team, it's a good reason not to go to that school.
I would never, ever, ever advise a student to take this into account while picking a school. The real issue behind this boils down to human nature, not institutional culture.


After this third or fourth discussion of Title IX, I will continue to encourage my kids to pick their school for academic reasons.
Wise decision.

The Fortress
May 17th, 2008, 01:17 AM
Not worth arguing about ...

Lumpy
May 17th, 2008, 02:11 AM
Title IX doesn't work for the same reason that racial quotas (affirmative action) do not work. They force unrealistic and accelerated change upon institutions that are ill equipped to implement and manage them. Both have been shown ultimately to be counter productive and in this case, as many others, destructive.

carlos_fernandez
May 17th, 2008, 03:08 AM
It sounds like you want women who hates sports and have babies at a young age
Show me where I said that.


Not a fan of labeling undergraduate women as baby machines.
Then stop doing it.

I specifically stated graduate students. And I specifically stated that women beyond the age of 22. Shame on you for not catching it.

It shouldn't surprise me, though, given your complete ignorance of the scope of Title IX.


But throwing out Title IX because of your gender stereotyping when new girls sports arrive constantly? Blech.
1. You don't know jack about Title IX.

It's NOT exclusive to sports. Your assumption that it is just shows your ignorance.

Read up on it, THEN come back and throw out accusations like that.

2. In no way, shape or form have I stated that Title IX should be thrown out. I've stated repeatedly that the problem is its interpretation.

The fact that you think that I think it needs to be dismantled boggles my mind.

Title IX is about equal funding and opportunities in academia for men and women. Shifting money from one service -- athletics -- that female students have conclusively stated they don't want to other services is... get this... in compliance w/ Title IX. :frustrated:

Just b/c you're ignorant about the full scope of Title IX doesn't mean that I am.

3. My opinions are based on working in higher education for 13 years. I've asked my students about these issues.

carlos_fernandez
May 17th, 2008, 03:17 AM
You were also talking about larger social issues that did not manifest themselves in sports, but much further down the line. The woman/baby/day care issue is way down the line and shouldn't effect Title IX.
Unlike some ppl, I am fully aware of the variety of students that attend universities. Even at elite institutions w/ "traditional" undergraduate populations, child-care is a major issue.

I said it earlier, but it bears repeating: not every undergrad is btw 18-22. It's quite the position of privilege to discard such an integral part of a university community.

And fyi: yes. Child-care and health services ARE a part of Title IX.

That's bc Title IX encompasses more than just sports.


I'm rather tired and can't respond to all the multi-quotes,
before you do, make sure you read up about the full-scope of Title IX.


but there's many contradictions. You say that women apparently "don't participate" in college, yet at younger levels their participation is "unparalleled." Maybe the current "unparalleled" participation will drift upward. Why should we discourage it?
How are we discouraging it?

Honestly?

Pointing out that female participation in sports tapers off over time -- as it does w/ men, but at a much higher rate -- isn't contradictory at all.

There just comes a time when after 35 years of real, tangible progress, you've got to re-assess all the issues at play.

Title IX isn't limited to sports. The reason why I, as an educator, keep referring to non-sports issues is that I understand that the legislation was aimed at equal access to education, services on campus, scholarly pursuits and extra-curricular activities, all areas in which male administrators historically alloted a hellovalot more funds to male-centric activities and male-centric scholarly pursuits.

It's no longer the case, or at least not as egregious, in large part due to Title IX.

But I find it a tremendous waste to fund lightly participated sports in order to comply w/ out-dated legislation instead of channeling that money into programs that fit the needs of the new millenium women.


Your arguments for attempting to evaluate Title IX are still based on high school boys and post-college women.
No. They're not.

They're based on the fact that in the 1970's, the legislation was designed to assure that women and girls got equal funding as boys; that they had equal opportunities, both curricular and extra-curricular activities.

The gap for dollar-per-student spent on men and women is extremely low in 2008. In other words, Title IX has served its primary purpose.


And how has there been a paradigm shift if you say women "don't participate" in college?
Because their participation in intercollegiate sports has sky-rocketed as compared to 40 years ago. That's a paradigm shift. The fact that virtually every girl in this country plays a sport as a child reflects a radical paradigm shift.

Forty years ago, women couldn't participate in sports b/c they were denied the opportunity. Today, they have the opportunity, and there's not nearly as much social stigma.


Sounds like they need to keep working on the new sports they'd added recently to comply with the horrific "gender equity" requirements of Title IX!
The only thing "horrific" about Title IX is its draconian interpretation and the gross misunderstanding by certain ppl that it can only be applied to sports.

Sports gets all the attention b/c it's easy to pick on them and/or b/c it's the most obvious. Who outside of academia wants to discuss the need for a biology department to get an FTE (full-time equivalencies, i.e. permission to hire a professor) before the chemistry department b/c bio has more female majors than chem and chem is so male-dominated and the university has to comply w/ Title IX?

Ask today's female undergrads -- who grew up playing sports -- what kind of services they'd like to have, and hands down they'll take anything over another women's sports team.

The opportunities are there for sports.

Tangible, effective leadership programs to make sure women are best equipped to bust through the glass ceiling? Too far and too few between at public schools, and one of the primary areas that private schools surpass public schools as far as service.

Pre-graduate school counseling so that students know exactly what to expect and how to succeed? Ditto.

THOSE are the issues students care about. Even the athletes and would-be athletes.


Maybe the "unparalleled" young girls will change things.
Um.

They arrived at the universities almost 20 years ago!

In that time, female participation in youth sports and intercollegiate sports continued to make increases. Now, it's leveling off at the university level, and not b/c of lack of opportunities.

We've reached a saturation point, or we just won't have the same level of growth.



If undergraduate women are not, as you assert, participating in sports but are older and having babies,

:shakeshead:

Wow.


should they be re-distributed money that goes to women in sports? Yeah, I don't get that. And why do women athletes have to suffer for women non-athletes giving birth? Ugh, just don't know about this.
And you don't know jack about Title IX, so you're on a roll.

1. Female athletes aren't suffering. They're not the ones getting their programs dropped left and right.

2. Cute how you completely ignore any of the other services mentioned and focus on "babies".

Btw: ask female undergrads about these services for non-traditional students -- you know... that department that most universities dedicate several full-time staff-members to serve -- and they'll tell you they're in full support of them getting additional services.

If only the general public weren't so myopic...


And don't men have something to do with undergraduate women having kids?
Yeah.

And guess what?

Health services and counseling services to them counts towards Title IX.


Oh, and you only subtracted football, not other male sports.
That was the point!!!!!

That even w/o football, there are more male student-athletes in less sports than there are female student-athletes, despite the ladies having more opportunities to play sports.

Again. Title IX was *supposed* to be about opportunities.


But that confirms it. You DIDN'T read any of my post.

You read what you wanted to read. You wanted to read a female-basher, so you projected that onto me, completely ignoring any reference to building leadership skills in today's students, completely ignoring any reference to building up tenure-qualifications for future female professors, completely ignoring programs designed to support women that have fallen through the cracks.

carlos_fernandez
May 17th, 2008, 03:34 AM
Look, I hear you, but there has to be a better solution to the "male privilege" or minority under-achievement problem than cutting women's sports.
1. Who said anything about cutting women's sports?

2. You really don't know anything about Title IX. B/c traditionally schools had dedicated more money to their male students, Title IX was passed to eliminate that gap.

So if you cut a program designed for women and take that funding and apply it to a program for men, you'd be in severe risk of getting sued for non-compliance.


I don't buy your argument that the 1970s goals have already already implemented. They're really not. That's why we're still seeing new women's sports all the time.
We see new women's sports all the time b/c schools are required to have the same number of male and female athletes. When schools get threatened suit or fines for non-compliance, they add female sports and cut male sports in order to say, "Look... we're trying!!!"


Your social agenda is great. But let's find some different targets for change besides women's sports.
Find where I put a target on women's sports.

Try.

There's a difference btw, "Instead of adding yet another female sport that will satisfy a dozen women, let's put the money into something that female students have stated they want more of, will serve more students AND will have a long-term public benefit" vs. "slash and burn women's sports".


Why can't you go pick on men's sports to support your social agenda?

My "agenda" is my profession: to serve my students. All of them, regardless of age, race, gender, religion, social class or creed.

Hardly an agenda. :rolleyes:

hofffam
May 17th, 2008, 09:57 AM
From the wiki:

"Although the most prominent "public face" of Title IX is its impact on high school and collegiate athletics, the original statute made no reference to athletics[2]. The legislation covers all educational activities, and complaints under Title IX alleging discrimination in fields such as science or math education, or in other aspects of academic life such as access to health care and dormitory facilities, are not unheard of. It also applies to non-sport activities such as school bands, cheerleaders, and clubs; however, social fraternities and sororities, gender-specific youth clubs such as Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, and Girls State and Boys State are specifically exempt from Title IX requirements."

The full article is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX).

Carlos - you comment on many things I can't add to.

I just want to add a few things:

1. at the Div 1 level, most athletic departments are independent organizations. They have revenue and expenses. Their revenues come from many places. The majority may NOT be donations. It includes ticket sales, corporate sponsorships (e.g. Nike, Coca Cola), and television. Football loses money at many schools but at others it generates HUGE amounts of cash.

2. The article below goes into detail just how ridiculous this can get for a school like Texas:

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

3. I agree with you that football and basketball are key drivers for alumni donations. They are also the sports most popular with the student body. Women's basketball draws a good crowd at a few schools. Women's soccer averaged almost 5,000 per game at Texas A&M.

One of the reasons I enjoy college football is how alive the campus becomes on game day. Just about nothing else can do that to a large campus.


That even w/o football, there are more male student-athletes in less sports than there are female student-athletes, despite the ladies having more opportunities to play sports.


Is this true? A football roster, including walk-ons, is ~ 100. A Title IX compliant university should have male/female participation counts approximately proportional to the male/female ratio of the student body. Assuming a 50/50 ratio taking football out should leave more female athletes.

The Fortress
May 17th, 2008, 10:02 AM
I hope you had a nice time hurling all the insults. Perhaps you could tone it down a bit and stop calling people idiots? I was attempting to turn the discussion back to sports because this is a swim forum, not a forum to debate larger social issues. You could start a discussion in the NSR section on non-swimming related issues of Title IX.

Don't tell me to shut up again, Carlos. It's really unnecessarily rude. Or take your own advice. I was just advocating a position and perhaps playing devil's advocate. That happens on the forum; I'm not required to respond directly to every little thing you say or agree with you based on your supposed superior reasoning. No "male privilege" rights. As is evident from your long-winded posts, you just flipped out and launched into an unrelated tirade. Perhaps you can hit the pool to calm down.

And for the record, I personally do not know of a single 18-22 year old traditional undergraduate at an elite school that needs daycare, as you previously said. I know very many that play sports. I understand you know a lot about education, but you don't know everything. Interviews with women at your school in Oakland can't necessarily be extrapolated to the world at large. And I never said you were "Cro-Magnon," nor implied it. You erroneously construed it as a personal attack. I'm perfectly within my rights to support women's undergraduate sports, as you are within your rights to support increased day care. I don't want to return to the prior status quo with respect to women's collegiate sports when football scholarships can easily be capped. Perhaps that money can also pay for some of the other programs you champion.

carlos_fernandez
May 17th, 2008, 10:20 AM
I was attempting to turn the discussion back to sports because this is a swim forum, not a forum to debate larger social issues.
In an issue as complex as the reasons why a prominent school drops a sports team, larger issues come into play.

Most ppl don't know that Title IX isn't just about sports. Title IX shows that sports fit in a much larger landscape.


Don't tell me to shut up again, Carlos. It's really unnecessarily rude.
I think it's equally rude to misrepresent what someone says, especially when that misrepresentation attempts to portray someone (me) as straight out of the Cro Magnon age.

I really took offense to you claiming that I was advocating undergrads getting pregnant and that I was stereotyping women.


I was just advocating a position and perhaps playing devil's advocate. As is evident from your last few posts, you flipped out.
Pot. Kettle. Kettle. Pot.

I know my posts were lengthy, but nowhere did I say the things you accused me of saying. You skimmed my posts, flipped out and projected what you wanted to on them.


Sorry for telling you to shut up.

carlos_fernandez
May 17th, 2008, 10:38 AM
Is this true? A football roster, including walk-ons, is ~ 100. A Title IX compliant university should have male/female participation counts approximately proportional to the male/female ratio of the student body. Assuming a 50/50 ratio taking football out should leave more female athletes.
"Should".

Schools are granted a bit of lee-way for "trying" (i.e. adding female sports and dropping men's sports).

From what I can remember, most schools aren't 100% compliant regarding sports. And from what I can gather, virtually every school is compliant regarding dollars-spent on male and female students, which wasn't the case 35 years ago, w/ male students and male-centric curricular and extra-curricular activities receiving far more funding.

Sports become the easy target when in reality there's no longer the need to force the issue.

Another thing that complicates the issue for small, private colleges: administrators are beginning to say that small colleges are becoming a de facto Country and Fitness Club. They use sport participation as a way to bring in students. They can't compete w/ the elite schools for students, so this is one way they can do it.

Now. Throw in the declining academic performance of boys, throw in strict Title IX guidelines, and you end up tying small colleges' hands in their attempt bring in desperately needed students.

Their high-performing female students want better mentorship programs, better pre-grad school orientation and preparation, better liaison with the business community, better student services in general, etc. Not more sports teams.

Chris Stevenson
May 17th, 2008, 05:59 PM
I agree with you that football and basketball are key drivers for alumni donations. They are also the sports most popular with the student body. Women's basketball draws a good crowd at a few schools. Women's soccer averaged almost 5,000 per game at Texas A&M.

One of the reasons I enjoy college football is how alive the campus becomes on game day. Just about nothing else can do that to a large campus.

This statement is often made and simply assumed to be true. Have either of you seen proof of it? Since it is often used to justify the existence of (marginal) football programs it would seem in need of some examination. I don't think it would be all that difficult to do.

A friend of mine -- a former college swim coach -- claims to have seen studies that disprove it (or, more accurately, fail to prove it). I have not followed up myself.

Personally, I doubt that it is true for ALL types of schools. Where I work, football games are poorly attended -- the campus certainly does NOT "come alive" on game days. If current students don't care much about the team, how would it induce them to give more money after they graduate?

My own giving to my alma maters (one of which is a "football school") is not at all correlated to the existence of the football program or how well the team is doing.

What seems to me to be important for alum giving is to create "warm fuzzy" feelings associated with a school (school pride, etc). Football can accomplish that, but so can other sports (as Dan himself says) and even non-sport organizations. So I suspect that the common assertion that we must keep football programs to raise money for the school is a weak one, except for the big powerhouse programs whose football programs directly generate lots of revenue.

Paul Smith
May 17th, 2008, 06:12 PM
Some interesting stats on athletic spending vs. academic:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2004-02-18-athletic-spending-cover_x.htm

hofffam
May 17th, 2008, 07:14 PM
Chris Stevensen - my comments were really about football-centric Div 1 programs. On a home game day at many of these schools, there are at least 50,000 people in the stadium. I certainly don't have any data to show about alumni giving. But when has a swimming pool, volleyball court, etc. been built with an alumni donation?

Paul Smith
May 17th, 2008, 07:47 PM
But when has a swimming pool, volleyball court, etc. been built with an alumni donation?

Belardi Pool-Stanford
Spieker Aquatic Complex-Cal Berkely

To name two....

Pretty sure the new pool being built at U of A is as well...

jim clemmons
May 17th, 2008, 08:29 PM
But when has a swimming pool, volleyball court, etc. been built with an alumni donation?

Trefethen Aquatic Center, Mills College, Oakland, CA

shark
May 17th, 2008, 09:47 PM
Allan Jones Natatorium, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

The Fortress
May 17th, 2008, 09:53 PM
when has a swimming pool, volleyball court, etc. been built with an alumni donation?

At Dartmouth College, men's and women's swimming are currently financed by an alumni endowment.

Here's how they saved swimming after both programs were cut: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3883/is_200303/ai_n9173232/pg_1

smontanaro
May 18th, 2008, 07:37 AM
I'm pretty sure most of the Henry Crown Sports Pavilion (consisting in part of the Norris Aquatics Center and Combe Tennis Center) At Northwestern was built with alumni money.

gull
May 18th, 2008, 11:17 AM
Blodgett Pool at Harvard.

james lucas
May 18th, 2008, 12:41 PM
Pools come from donors, one way or another - that seems almost always the case with one Div. III conference:

At one of the last of the men’s liberal arts colleges, there’s The Class of 1950 Natatorium: http://www.wabash.edu/sports/swimming/facility ...

The Timken Natatorium marks a donation to by the maker of ball bearings to the small college in its community: http://athletics.wooster.edu/facilities/natatorium.php (http://athletics.wooster.edu/facilities/natatorium.php) ...

This pool, http://www.oberlin.edu/vrsswim/photopath/photo1.html (http://www.oberlin.edu/vrsswim/photopath/photo1.html) , honors a long-serving and much-loved college president
http://www.oberlin.edu/external/EOG/OCPresidents/RobertCarr.html (http://www.oberlin.edu/external/EOG/OCPresidents/RobertCarr.html) who retired in the same year the college built its pool.

In the same Div. III conference, a new $59-million facility is breaking ground - it's part of a larger facilities program but it's unlikely the donors were surprised to hear there's a new pool along with some chemistry facilities: http://www.collegeswimming.com/news/2008/apr/29/denison-moves-ahead-new-pool/ (http://www.collegeswimming.com/news/2008/apr/29/denison-moves-ahead-new-pool/)

Here’s an interesting approach to sports fund-raising in this conference: the "Remember Branch Rickey” campaign http://mrrickey.owu.edu/pledge.html ... Mr. Rickey, an alum of Ohio Wesleyan, was known for signing Jackie Robinson, but he “also was credited with developing the farm system of minor league teams while with the St. Louis Cardinals in the 1920s and 1930s and pioneering the use of batting helmets while with the Pittsburgh Pirates in the 1950s. After retiring from the Pirates, his plans to begin a third major league helped prompt the first expansion of Major League Baseball.”

But, when a Div. I men’s team is cut, the issue seems to be the operating budget, not the pool (i.e., the capital budget). Check out UCLA’s great facilities:

http://www.recreation.ucla.edu/recreate/facilities_sub.aspx?main=5&sub=298&mymenu=12 (http://www.recreation.ucla.edu/recreate/facilities_sub.aspx?main=5&sub=298&mymenu=12)

http://www.recreation.ucla.edu/recreate/facilities_sub.aspx?main=5&sub=241&mymenu=14 (http://www.recreation.ucla.edu/recreate/facilities_sub.aspx?main=5&sub=241&mymenu=14)

As the Dartmouth example shows, it's a lot harder to raise money for an operating budget. For the Div. III schools, facilities account for proportionately a larger share of the budget (they travel mostly in their regions, they give no scholarships, and the facilities serve a lot of other recreational programs as well). The operating budget is higher if you aspire to compete, as ASU did, in a tough conference. If you want to fund an annual operating budget of more than $2 million through an endowment, you might need donations of more than $25 million - apart from facilities costs and Title IX impacts. Such a number is a challenge for a place like Dartmouth; it would seem to be a much larger challenge at a big public school with so many competing demands and needs ...

ALM
May 18th, 2008, 01:05 PM
Interesting column today from Jason Whitlock, the always-controversial sports columnist for the Kansas City Star:

Full column:
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/columnists/jason_whitlock/story/624817.html

Bad guy is NCAA, not KU’s Arthur
By JASON WHITLOCK
The Kansas City Star
May 18, 2008

Excerpts:


"The bad guys are the people running the NCAA who refuse to acknowledge that their current system is almost completely void of consistent academic integrity, the people unwilling to recognize that it’s criminal to allow the young men who generate all the money to rot in academic wastelands until age 18.

The NCAA knows that nearly all of its member institutions recruit a good handful of kids in football and basketball who are totally unprepared for college. When you’re talking about elite-level hoopers — kids in Rivals.com’s top 250 — I’d venture to conservatively estimate that 70 percent of them are unprepared academically.

I’m not talking about meeting minimum eligibility requirements. I’m speaking of hitting campus ready to take advantage of the full academic experience a university has to offer. They’re not ready. They need almost 24-hour tutoring or remedial courses....."



"....The NCAA should finance basketball and football academies for elite athletes starting in ninth grade for football players and eighth grade for basketball players.

You want athletes prepared for college? Prepare them yourself. Don’t leave them to rot in poor schools or with jock-sniffing teachers. Get involved with them before the street agent. Take a significant interest before they’ve covered themselves in tattoos and owe a debt to someone who cares little about their intellectual evolution....."

coachdia
May 21st, 2008, 12:32 PM
It is important that we do not let the cutting of Arizona State Men's Swimming Team go unchallenged. The administration has told the team that they must raise funds for an endowment of 5 million dollars to guarantee the permanent future of the men's team. In the short term they need to immediately raise 250,000.00 and have a guarantor for the next few years, until the 5 million is raised. As a swim community, if we all give a little, then perhaps we could help save this NCAA D-1 program with a rich history of devloping some of the best student athletes in the world. I have donated and made a long term commitment. I do not have kids in the program. As a US Masters Swim Coach and USA Swim Coach, I understand the importance of college swimming to the Olympic Movement or the future of the sport in general. It was easy to help:angel:, you just go to:
www.saveasuswimming.com (http://www.saveasuswimming.com)

cdrcld
May 21st, 2008, 04:13 PM
But when has a swimming pool, volleyball court, etc. been built with an alumni donation?

Kenyon College - $70 million

cdrcld
May 21st, 2008, 04:18 PM
I understand the importance of college swimming to the Olympic Movement or the future of the sport in general. It was easy to help:angel:, you just go to:
www.saveasuswimming.com (http://www.saveasuswimming.com)

Did anyone notice that almost half of the swimmers were from countries other than the U.S.? Brazil, Israel, Croatia, Sweden, Australia...etc.

scyfreestyler
May 21st, 2008, 04:32 PM
Did anyone notice that almost half of the swimmers were from countries other than the U.S.? Brazil, Israel, Croatia, Sweden, Australia...etc.


Sure. What about it though?

tjburk
May 21st, 2008, 08:23 PM
That's a can of worms that was debated extensively on another thread!!!

cdrcld
May 21st, 2008, 09:53 PM
That's a can of worms that was debated extensively on another thread!!!

Okie dokie. I'll stay away then.

gull
May 22nd, 2008, 08:56 AM
That's a can of worms that was debated extensively on another thread!!!


And the final conclusion was that the foreign athletes should not be receiving scholarship money.

aquageek
May 22nd, 2008, 09:04 AM
And the final conclusion was that the foreign athletes should not be receiving scholarship money.

Yes, that is what we all agreed upon.

BTW - are the Smiths lurking in your office threatening to speer you with their spindly arms?

gull
May 22nd, 2008, 09:31 AM
Yes, that is what we all agreed upon.

Although I thought your idea of closing our borders was a bit extreme.

coachdia
May 23rd, 2008, 04:11 PM
The funraising continues to reinstate the Men's swim team at Arizona State University. Go to www.saveASUswimming.com (http://www.saveASUswimming.com) to help. Large or small every contribution counts. We appreciate your help in saving this Olympic Sport with a rich history and tradition of excellence at ASU. I donated. It was easy. I have three college age boys. Although they do not swim for ASU, I understand the need for positive opportunity and sport in college. Sport has keep my boys engaged in positive activity and out of trouble. They are healthy and focused on their education. Swimming has taught them and other young men like them so much. I also undertand that action must be taken now by those of us who care about the future of swimming in order to preserve this opportunity for young men.

Coach Dia
SVAM Master Coach
MCAT Head Coach USA Swimming
Mom of 3 Swimmers who are young men

Paul Smith
May 23rd, 2008, 08:42 PM
Apparently the men's wrestling program was just full reinstated...no details as to how much money it took to get it back:

http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com...imming%20Next?

ALM
June 28th, 2008, 04:28 PM
From:
http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/679692.html

The story is about how KU (Kansas) is selling plush leather recliner seats in the end zone at their football games ($2,500 for the season). But notice the quote highlighted in bold below:



“The end zone’s not that good of a seat,” he said. “If I’m paying $2,500, I want a seat on the sidelines away from the riffraff.”

KU is counting on its loyal fans to see it differently. Ticket sales are one way athletic departments keep up in an increasingly competitive collegiate environment. Only 30 percent of Division I football programs turn a profit, according to the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

“The truth is, for the vast majority of schools, athletic expenses exceed athletic revenues,” said Chuck Wynne, an NCAA spokesman. “That means athletic departments across the country are being forced to find new ways to raise revenues and cut expenses.”

tjrpatt
June 28th, 2008, 04:30 PM
That is crazy. Wow!

Paul Smith
July 10th, 2008, 10:05 AM
A major announcement expected later this week..stay tuned.

Also, a very interesting discussion on men's swimming between Eddie Reese, Frank Busch, Richard Quick, Frank Bauerle & Mike Chasson:

http://swimming.flocasts.org/videos/series/view_video/275-all-swimmers-unite/69512-coaches-round-table

pwolf66
July 10th, 2008, 10:15 AM
I have just sent a donation of $200 to ASU for the men's swimming program. I challenge anyone to match it.

SwimStud
July 10th, 2008, 10:23 AM
I have just sent a donation of $200 to ASU for the men's swimming program. I challenge anyone to match it.

You'll be getting an email from me about my charity swim soon :D

pwolf66
July 10th, 2008, 10:25 AM
You'll be getting an email from me about my charity swim soon :D
Stud, any swim by you could loosely be called 'charity'

SwimStud
July 10th, 2008, 10:27 AM
Stud, any swim by you could loosely be called 'charity'

*GASP*

That won't be the Piano falling on you during your race at Zones it'll be me!


:rofl:

pwolf66
July 10th, 2008, 10:28 AM
*GASP*

That won't be the Piano falling on you during your race at Zones it'll be me!


:rofl:

That's my point, it's real charitable of you. That piano's gotta fall somewhere and there you are waving 'hit me, hit me'

SwimStud
July 10th, 2008, 10:30 AM
That's my point, it's real charitable of you. That piano's gotta fall somewhere and there you are waving 'hit me, hit me'

Not it'll be me landing on you...
"Hulk no like piggy back.. hulk drink too much pool water.. Glug..."
Anyway harass me on another thread....this is about ASU.

TheGoodSmith
July 10th, 2008, 10:37 AM
That was a very good discussion on the state of men's collegiate swimming on flocast.

The future does not look good.


John Smith

funkyfish
July 10th, 2008, 05:48 PM
I have just sent a donation of $200 to ASU for the men's swimming program. I challenge anyone to match it.

Was not able to match it, but your post about donating got me to do the same. I'm an ASU graduate college alumnus. I didn't get to swim on the team (eligibility was used up in undergrad school even though I didn't play a sport), but would have loved to "walk-on."

Just felt that I should add my voice to the choir regarding the elimination (saving?) of men's collegiate swimming. We'll see…
:bouncing:

smontanaro
July 10th, 2008, 10:32 PM
Paul (or whoever),

Here's a fundraising suggestion. I sell stuff I've accumulated on eBay from time-to-time (mostly old bike and car parts). It's not a business, mostly just an alternative to a garage sale.

As a result I wind up with some money in my PayPal account. I sort of treat it like a "slush fund". It's much easier for me to rationalize donating a few bucks out of that pot than charging my personal credit card. You might suggest to the folks running the Save ASU Swimming website that they set themselves up to accept payments via PayPal in addition to the traditional credit cards. It might expand the base of donations a bit.

Skip Montanaro

craiglll@yahoo.com
July 11th, 2008, 02:11 AM
I think it is terrible what happened. I am, as some of you know, of going back to grad school. ASU is one of my top choices. It seems to me though that although many programs have been dropped, men's elite swimming does seem to be rather deep right now. Much deeper than I thought it would be when the NCAA finals were going on .

ande
July 16th, 2008, 04:22 PM
the coaches round table talk really pertains to this thread

http://swimming.flocasts.org/videos/series/view_video/275/69512-coaches-round-table

www.SaveASUswimming.com

scyfreestyler
July 16th, 2008, 04:39 PM
ASU Swimming reinstated. I am amazed that nobody has posted this yet...

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/asu/articles/2008/07/15/20080715asuswim.html

I got an email about it yesterday afternoon and figured it would be on USMS in short order. Well, I got tired of waiting so here it is.

Paul Smith
July 16th, 2008, 05:31 PM
ASU Swimming reinstated. I am amazed that nobody has posted this yet...

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/asu/articles/2008/07/15/20080715asuswim.html

I got an email about it yesterday afternoon and figured it would be on USMS in short order. Well, I got tired of waiting so here it is.

I spoke to Mike & simon about it yesterday morning...wanted to sit tight till it was offically out. Now the REAL hard work comes...getting to $5 mil!

PS: I want to thank those on this forum who helped out...this was achieved from thousands of donations not a handful with deep pockets.