Appears another program is lost??

Wow! I was just congratulating a player and his father this weekend for committing there. I hope they announce it soon.

It looks like it will happen....there is a review that still has to be completed but all indications are the program is over after this year. Such a shame for the players and coaches.

The negatives of Title IX glaring their ugly teeth once again.

I was told they are dropping Baseball and Mens s****r and adding mens tennis?????
That means a net loss of one mens program ( down to 6) while maintaining 13 womens programs.

I know the # of teams is not determimng factor as it is ( I assume) # of scholarships across the department........ the "ugly teeth" that I see is the 80+ full rides for football and how do you begin to 'even' out the numbers. Until 'women's crew' gets 85 "rides" it will continue.

quote:

I know the # of teams is not determimng factor as it is ( I assume) # of scholarships across the department........ the "ugly teeth" that I see is the 80+ full rides for football and how do you begin to 'even' out the numbers. Until 'women's crew' gets 85 "rides" it will continue.

Towson only gets 63 football scholarships, but you're point is made.

No, if a school has 13 women's sports and 6 men's sports that's the problem.

And actually it's not based on scholarships, it's based on "opportunities."

So by starting men's tennis which would probably have like 10 spots? Instead of baseball with 30 and s****r with 20 you can see the huge difference in "opportunities."

Yet another good example of why you should choose a school that’s a good fit, even without baseball.

I’m sure there is a tremendous amount of spin to this announcement, but budget was obviously also a factor.

http://www.towson.edu/presiden...staskforce/index.asp

Towson’s undergraduate enrollment is > 17,000, and there are a number of excellent youth baseball programs within an hour of campus. Hard to believe they can’t make baseball work there. Seems shortsighted to me.

This is TwoTex, forgot my password so here I am as ThreeTex.

Josh, really don't get the "ugly teeth" comment - I really thought you were more highly evolved than that.

60% of the student population is female. If the genders are splitting sports opportunities 50/50, then guess who is getting the better side of it.

As a female who lived through the pre-Title IX years with practically no sports opportunties, I can tell you it has had a positive impact. If you are male, and especially males without daugthers, you might not have an appreciation of it.

Anyway, sad to see baseball cancelled under any circumstances.

quote:

Originally posted by T-town:
I was told they are dropping Baseball and Mens s****r and adding mens tennis?????
That means a net loss of one mens program ( down to 6) while maintaining 13 womens programs.

Actually sounds like a "net" gain to me.

quote:

Originally posted by ThreeTex:
This is TwoTex, forgot my password so here I am as ThreeTex.

Josh, really don't get the "ugly teeth" comment - I really thought you were more highly evolved than that.

60% of the student population is female. If the genders are splitting sports opportunities 50/50, then guess who is getting the better side of it.

As a female who lived through the pre-Title IX years with practically no sports opportunties, I can tell you it has had a positive impact. If you are male, and especially males without daugthers, you might not have an appreciation of it.

Anyway, sad to see baseball cancelled under any circumstances.

Next time, will it be "FourTex?" Or, if a fan of Fibonacci, "FiveTex?"

Anyway, you are correct. While it is sad to be on the short end of the stick, the alternative would be to have no stick at all for a lot of people. I don't have any sons, and I know that without Title IX, my daughters wouldn't have nearly the opportunities they have.

twotex- I am extremely a proponent of women's athletics and equality. I applaud the effort of the individuals who implemented Title IX, as it so positively affected not only women's athletics but women's education in general.

What upsets me about Title IX is the process of implementation. Taking away men's sports in order to make sure a quota is met is wrong.

I should have specified that in my original post, and I apologize for that. By no means am I implying anything detrimental to women's athletics or overall educational equality. What frustrates me is how these actions are implemented by those in charge.

quote:

Originally posted by J H:
What upsets me about Title IX is the process of implementation. Taking away men's sports in order to make sure a quota is met is wrong.

That's not what's happening, though, despite what some would have you believe.

This is a matter of budget, and ensuring that cuts do not disproportionately impact one gender over another (refer back to the Cal baseball thread).

quote:

Originally posted by ThreeTex:
This is TwoTex, forgot my password so here I am as ThreeTex.

Josh, really don't get the "ugly teeth" comment - I really thought you were more highly evolved than that.

60% of the student population is female. If the genders are splitting sports opportunities 50/50, then guess who is getting the better side of it.

As a female who lived through the pre-Title IX years with practically no sports opportunties, I can tell you it has had a positive impact. If you are male, and especially males without daugthers, you might not have an appreciation of it.

Anyway, sad to see baseball cancelled under any circumstances.

The situation is disgusting in every way and by any measure and is the direct result of Title IX, which is well on its way to destroying opportunities for half the population. But, of course, very few care. And, also of course, without football at most schools, there is not money for anything. But that does not matter.

....."Fiscal Reallocation Plan to Increase Competitiveness" is what they are calling it.... as if money equals a more competetive program??

I understand that one can look at the #'s of male female participants.... and I agree that it should be reflective of the school pop. I am all for what has HAD to happen in the past to right a wrong with respect to female 'opportunities' for college athletics.

My question is .... why do you need 97 players on a football team??? 22 guys for off. and def. plus a backup for each with a few 'special team" guys..... of course we need a 'long snapper' AND 'placeholder' still puts you a long way from 97.

Too much 'slant' towards that old 'pigskin' game........... but hey... don't get me started!

quote:

My question is .... why do you need 97 players on a football team??? 22 guys for off. and def. plus a backup for each with a few 'special team" guys..... of course we need a 'long snapper' AND 'placeholder' still puts you a long way from 97.

Why do you need 30 players on a baseball roster? Why do you need 13 players on a basketball roster?

it's obvious that football is the sport that throws everything out of balance.

I don't know what the ideal number is for football, but some major college teams would be in big trouble if it were 50.

One college I'm close to has gone through a dozen or more running backs in the past three years. That is just one position. The number of injuries in football is astounding and therefore the number of scholarships actually make sense IMO.

I'm all for equality, but there is no women's or men's sport that compares to football in numbers or attrition. And football is the big revenue producer at most DI programs. It pays for many opportunities for both male and female athletes. That is the reason football coaches get paid so much.

I'm not very smart, but it sure seems like football should be exempt when it comes to Title IX.

One other thing... Money does equal more competitive programs. It takes money to hire the best coaches. It takes money to recruit the best athletes. It takes money to have great facilities. The majority of the top programs are also the ones with the biggest budgets.

BTW, here is an example of what is wrong with Title IX. There are many young boys who work hard at a specific sport. Their goal is to be a college athlete and receive a scholarship. Yet we know this is not possible for every young boy. For the most part this holds true for young girls, too. However, I know of one instance that changed my mind. A friend of mine had a daughter who was an outstanding high school basketball player. She had plenty of opportunities to play basketball at small colleges, but none of the big schools recruited her. She didn't play other sports because she devoted her time year around to basketball.

What does this have to do with title IX? A BIG 10 college offered her a large scholarship for ROWING! My friend said she had never rowed in her life. The coach said she had the strength and coordination to become a good rower. Isn't something wrong with the system when kids are getting scholarships for sports they have never participated in? Is that equality?

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
BTW, here is an example of what is wrong with Title IX. There are many young boys who work hard at a specific sport. Their goal is to be a college athlete and receive a scholarship. Yet we know this is not possible for every young boy. For the most part this holds true for young girls, too. However, I know of one instance that changed my mind. A friend of mine had a daughter who was an outstanding high school basketball player. She had plenty of opportunities to play basketball at small colleges, but none of the big schools recruited her. She didn't play other sports because she devoted her time year around to basketball.

What does this have to do with title IX? A BIG 10 college offered her a large scholarship for ROWING! My friend said she had never rowed in her life. The coach said she had the strength and coordination to become a good rower. Isn't something wrong with the system when kids are getting scholarships for sports they have never participated in? Is that equality?

This isn't a Title IX issue. This happens on the mens' side, too. S****r players get offered scholarships as kickers. Basketball players get offered scholarships as wide receivers. It happens--coaches are looking for the best talent available, even if it means they have to teach the execution.

Good question on the rowing. Why does the school have a rowing team? Maybe someone gave a bunch of money so the school decided to field a team. Someone made a budget choice, and rowing is not a cheap sport to fund.

Generally speaking, budgets are a zero sum game. Someone wins, someone loses. The art department complains that sports get too much money.

So what's the better way to build a mousetrap? Maybe the better approach is to differentiate between revenue and non-revenue sports. If a sport payms more that its own expenses, don't count it in the quota. Maybe that's how it works - I've never checked into it.

Sorry to hear this happening, as we do know someone in the program.

With all of the cuts taking place at the University of Maryland College Park flagship campus, I guess this might not be too surprising.

What struck me was reading the actual task force report - I wonder if they hired someone from one of those "buy a term paper" websites?

My favorite part is where their first recommendation ("The reinstatement of the Men’s Tennis program") kicks off with its first bullet point referencing the elimination of men's s****r and baseball.

Maybe some more $$$ should go to the English Composition curriculum.

Interesting read in the Baltimore Sun about Towson's
trip to LSU this past weekend.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/bu...1001,0,1486762.story

The article closes with this on AD Waddell

He works closely with coaches to set team schedules, he said, but "every decision we make is about money.

Wow, that is an amazing and disturbing article.

Twotex,

My 8th grade daughter, who is athletic, actually has more opportunities than my single-minded (baseball)son. She plays socker, lacrosse, basketball, and field hockey. She will probably play 2 varsity sports as a Frosh next year at a school with 4,000 kids. I do not think opportunity is an issue any more. I think exempting revenue producing sports from compliance would go a long way. UCONN women would also be exempt!

quote:

And football is the big revenue producer at most DI programs

While I do not have any #'s to point to.... I think that very few ( out of several hundred?) football programs add to the 'war chest' of the ahletic dept. I'm sure someone has the figures.... yes they provide $$ for other sports at those few schools...... of course at those BIG programs there are TONS of $$ coming in from outside sources ( TV revenue and the like).

But...... win.... and things are good! win your conference.... everyone loves ya.

quote:

While I do not have any #'s to point to.... I think that very few ( out of several hundred?) football programs add to the 'war chest' of the ahletic dept. I'm sure someone has the figures.... yes they provide $$ for other sports at those few schools......

I would say that a lot more football programs provide some dollars to the other sports than say track and field or baseball.

One way of doing so is through staffing and facilities. Without football, I would hazard to say that most schools would not have the weight room, athletic training rooms, or the artificial surfaces for which many teams utilize.

There was a website I visited a short while ago which gave the information on how much money was generated and consumed by various sports at a college. I don't remember where it was - maybe Forbes?

In the FBS division there are 127 schools.

In the FCS division there are 122 schools.

Many of the FCS schools bring in revenue by playing at the FBS schools.

I'm not sure how many football or basketball programs are profitable. Here are a couple old articles.

money in college football[/URL

[URL=http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/06/20/which-football-and-basketball-programs-produce-the-largest-profits/]revenue college sports

Not sure what happened, I couldn't link the other article.

quote:

Originally posted by jemaz: The situation is disgusting in every way and by any measure and is the direct result of Title IX, which is well on its way to destroying opportunities for half the population. But, of course, very few care. And, also of course, without football at most schools, there is not money for anything. But that does not matter.

jemaz: Face it, the male of the species has had it pretty good for, well, forever. The playing field is being leveled (because, if left to its own devices, in a million years higher education would never rectify the situation itself) and you're complaining that Title IX is "destroying opportunities for half the population"?!

That's rich.

Obviously the solution is instituting five-on-five football.

Good one Slotty....
"Obviously the solution is instituting five-on-five football"

I could even go with 7 on 7.... then they could each have 3 reserves..... just in case of the inevitable injuries.... and still be down below half the number they are carrying.

quote:

Originally posted by dad43:
It looks like it will happen....there is a review that still has to be completed but all indications are the program is over after this year. Such a shame for the players and coaches.

Well clearly they din't have a wrestling program to cut, that is usually the first to go in these situations.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:

quote:

Originally posted by J H:
What upsets me about Title IX is the process of implementation. Taking away men's sports in order to make sure a quota is met is wrong.

That's not what's happening, though, despite what some would have you believe.

This is a matter of budget, and ensuring that cuts do not disproportionately impact one gender over another (refer back to the Cal baseball thread).

That might be the case if womens sports are being cut as well. But they are actually adding opportunities for women while removing opportunities for men.

I don't believe the playing field is being leveled.

I could be wrong but it would seem that more scholarship money goes to women per capita than to men when one includes both academic and athletic scholarships.

Why should we stop equality at sports? Why not just insist that both genders be equally represented with merit based scholarships, including both athletic and academic, at a given school? Then let the schools decide how they'll divide up the scholarships between men and women within the athletic scholarships. If they decide to give more athletic scholarships to men then they'll have to give more of the academic scholarships to women. People are more interested interested in watching men's sport than women's sports. That's a fact.

If BTW, men are still receiving more merit based scholarship dollars than women per capita then I'm all for making it even overall. In fact, as far as I'm concerned playing sports in college is a privilege and in an ideal world there wouldn't be sports scholarships at all. I'd much rather see people who came from less privileged backgrounds get scholarships for their academic potential than for sports. Let the professional sports develop professional athletes.

When we were at the Olympics we watched beach volleyball. The women's match was on first and it was interesting but only because we hadn't seen the much, much more talented men play first. Tennis is a sport where there is interest in the women's game. Men's tournaments draw far better than women's tournaments but at most events where they play together the prize money is "legislated" to be equal. However, despite the equal prize money they charge more to see the men's final at Wimbledon than they do to see the women's final.

BTW, I do realize that although the gap continues to close men receive more in athletic scholarships than women as schools are allowed to have uneven distributions if they are making progress toward having an even distribution or if there are not enough women interested in receiving athletic scholarships. Good luck finding a situation where there are not enough men interested in receiving athletic scholarships. I'm sure it is out there if you look hard enough.

The reality is that the competition is far greater for men than for women when it comes to getting an athletic scholarship even though there is more money available for men.

Men are inherently better at sports than women and if we are going to have sports scholarships at all then the preponderance should go to men. Men are almost the equals of women academically and so the academic scholarships should be roughly equal per capita. However, that would penalize women overall so if we are going to have sports scholarships then we need to make up the difference with academic scholarships so that women are not unduly penalized.

quote:

Originally posted by slotty:

quote:

Originally posted by jemaz: The situation is disgusting in every way and by any measure and is the direct result of Title IX, which is well on its way to destroying opportunities for half the population. But, of course, very few care. And, also of course, without football at most schools, there is not money for anything. But that does not matter.

jemaz: Face it, the male of the species has had it pretty good for, well, forever. The playing field is being leveled (because, if left to its own devices, in a million years higher education would never rectify the situation itself) and you're complaining that Title IX is "destroying opportunities for half the population"?!

That's rich.

Obviously the solution is instituting five-on-five football.

The field has not been level for years and it is getting worse all the time. But, maybe you are right. The education system is contantly changing to ensure the de-masculinity of boys and all but ensure their failure in the broadest sense, not just in sports.

Because it was not level in the past, retribution is important now, and what do young men matter anyway? Fewer and fewer of them qualify for college anymore and especially not for graduate school. The good part is that the nation will have a large supply of laborers -- if there are jobs at all for laborers.

Title IX is nothing but a liberal application of affirmative action. Colleges are famous for taking in consideration race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and national origin in every decision that they make. The original intent of affirmative action is that all these aforementioned factors should be irrelevant and that the most qualified human being should be afforded an opportunity based on merit. All it does is reverse discriminate under the guise of fairness and equality. By the way, why do we even have men's and women's teams? Let's have collegiate baseball and collegiate softball........ etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:

quote:

Originally posted by J H:
What upsets me about Title IX is the process of implementation. Taking away men's sports in order to make sure a quota is met is wrong.

That's not what's happening, though, despite what some would have you believe.

This is a matter of budget, and ensuring that cuts do not disproportionately impact one gender over another (refer back to the Cal baseball thread).

It is a fact that X amount of $$$ is available, and according to Title IX, budgets are not relevant. Therefore mens programs do get cut to make way for womens sports, EVEN if there are no women to play that sport initially.

One such program added womens rowing even though the school had no boats nor participants. The school assigned several staff members to essentially go around campus, find women that were big, especially in the shoulders, and ask if they wanted to be on the team and get free/reduced tuition.
At other schools similar things have happened, and the men have suffered. One school had a mens tennis team that did fairly well. The coach was called in to say the school was dropping mens tennis to make room for more womens teams.
The coach was devastated, and asked about his scholarship players. He was told all their scholarships were revoked effective immediately, and they had to pay or find another school. The coach also lost his job as a result.

So don't think for a minute that Title IX has not had adverse effects on male athletes.

Vector, one might assume you are a private person on topics you select to be private and pretty outspoken on others, like this one.
I am not quite sure how this all shakes out.
Within the next 2 years, Hendrix College, Texas Lutheran University and Southwestern College will all be starting college football programs at the D3 level. There may be more. Those are the ones I know and the ones which will provide opportunities for 80-90 young men, per team, to play college football.
On this site, within the last week there is news of Marymount College(VA.) starting college baseball which will probably provide 35 or more opportunities for young men and 3-5 opportunities for male coaches.
Out in the real world, even here in Silicon Valley, the opportunities and pay for women are not equal or in most situations close to equal with men, especially in management and upper level management positions.
Finally, budget issues and the skills(competence) of AD's remain a legitimate question in my mind, before we indict Title IX, completely. Taking the Cal situation, I am not at all convinced baseball is free and clear. Their football stadium/locker room renovations cost about $350,000,000. They budgeted those costs would almost completely be borne by private seat licenses in the new stadium. Bad budget. As of August, the PSL's were less than $100,000,000 and it is becoming clear there is going to be at least $200,000,000 or more of debt to be borne by the athletic department, university, taxpayers, or some combination.
Add to that there isn't much news that Cal raised more than $10,000,000 for baseball. The new contract for the HC runs close to $400,000 per year. Cal baseball was running a $1M deficit before the PR disaster surrounding the department and baseball. As I understood the "rules," Cal baseball needs to be fully funded, privately, to continue and the UC estimates were it would take an endowment of $70,000,000 to $80,000,000 to make it work. None of this adds up and Cal football is creating a potential major money drain which may only be partially met by the revenue from the Pac12 TV contract.
I have no idea about Towson State and the budget and football revenue but my guess would be it is negative, not positive. The school chose to keep football and make a run at future revenue growth, it appears.
To say young men have less opportunities in college, well, I am not sure, if we include opportunities evidenced at the D3 level. Adding at least one D3 baseball program and 3 D3 football programs appears to be growth, not subtraction.
If Cal if any indication, there appear to be plenty to question on budgeting and choices in some universities.
Does Title IX probably have infirmities in application also? Most probably.
Is this all one sided or another or a problematic combination of law and budget and skill sets in the AD and administration of some Universities, and terrible revenue projections like those which appear at UC Berkeley? That would be my best judgement.
The real bottom line: women still don't succeed equally in our workplace for positions, earnings and especially for management equality.
This situation is due to multiple reasons, not one or another, just like Title IX and college athletic opportunities isn't one..or the other.

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:
Vector, one might assume you are a private person on topics you select to be private and pretty outspoken on others, like this one.

I believe you are mixing up private as it relates to my family, vs. expressing opinions/knowledge on various subjects.

I responded to your PM, so please respond back.

quote:

Originally posted by jemaz: The education system is contantly changing to ensure the de-masculinity of boys and all but ensure their failure in the broadest sense, not just in sports.

Because it was not level in the past, retribution is important now, and what do young men matter anyway? Fewer and fewer of them qualify for college anymore and especially not for graduate school. The good part is that the nation will have a large supply of laborers -- if there are jobs at all for laborers.

Phew! Where to start?

Here's what Title IX says (in part): "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of [s-e-x], be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of [emphasis mine], or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance..."

So there are only two possibilities regarding your stated opinion, as far as I can see:

(1) You believe that men are, generally speaking, more deserving than women; or

(2) You believe that our tax dollars that are shared with colleges/univeristies should, proportionally, be spent more on men than women.

It's not as though the Yannkees are being forced to give a contract to a woman. We're talking about federal monies (i.e. our tax dollars) being directed to institutions of higher learning, dictating not how it should be spent but only that if it is spent, that is should not be spent disproportionately on one [s-e-x] or the other.

I understand there was a huge problem years ago. There is no doubt that women were slighted in many ways when it came to getting certain jobs and earning equal pay.

That still exists today, but it has been getting better. I believe that females should receive the same pay as males provided they do the same job.

However, this is about athletics. You don't see many women managing or coaching mens sports. Is it because they are not the most qualified or are they being slighted?

Sometimes this whole male - female thing gets kind of silly. In Iowa a couple years ago there was a female high school wrestler. She was actually pretty good. But isn't this taking equality to a strange level? One opponent forfeited his match because he couldn't wrestle a girl.

I've never understood all of this. We hear stories of girls playing football and baseball. At a very young age I suppose this is OK, but when does it end? If it were truly equal they would start girls wrestling and a boy could go out there and win championships. After all, nothing disallows that girl from winning a state championship in Boys wrestling. Things have to be equal, right!

I love women's athletics. But how many people are adversly affected if a college does not have a rowing team? Why not start a different more interesting sport for women to compete in at college. A scholarship that has been earned, like in most other sports.

Can't speak for anyone else, I'm sure to some it is great, but I wouldn't cross the street to watch a rowing championship. Wouldn't make any diffgerence if it were Men's or Women's rowing.

On any campus you can see lots of people jogging or walking or riding a bike, it's great exercise, just like rowing... Why not just give some of them a scholarship... No expenses, no coaches, but perhaps it will somehow make things more equal.

Speaking of equal... why does one person get a scholarship when most others don't? That is not very equal for either males or females! Seems like sometimes we try to make things just right and we end up with a mess.

Before anyone thinks I have a problem... Some of my best friends happen to be women! Seriously, some of the most kind, intelligent, talented, hardest working people I have ever known are females. But if I'm looking for a baseball coach it's probably going to be a male that's more qualified.

All I know is that I have been waiting for years for a seed spitting scholarship.

(I betcha PG would come to watch that!)

But so far - no luck.

By the time the NCAA gets around to that one - I will probably be dead. LOL