Duquesne Baseball

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
Are there more softball scholarships per competing HS softball player or per competing HS baseball player?

Here ya go, Rob. (if this is what you meant)
NCAA Scholarship Allotment

quote:

When the NCAA ends the charade the players are all qualified college students and student-athletes I might agree with you. But until the NCAA ends the charade and admits these sports are nothing but a business with many players otherwise unqualified to attend college I'll stick with equal rights for all student-athletes. But Title IX does allow a partial exemption for football due to the cost.

You also might be surprised to know once you get away from the top fifty football and basketball programs in these two sports they lose money. I'll bet Duquesne's baseball revenue is ZERO, the same as softball.

There are plenty of students at the college level who are not "qualified" just like I'm sure there are several athletes who fit that category as well. To start, there should be a rule about the "One and Done" basketball players.

It's disappointing to see any sport dropped. If these sports are not supported by fans, only cost money, and are not winning then I can understand dropping them. BUT this needs to be applied EQUALLY with regards to all sports and other activities. What many don't understand is Title IX is not about sports. It also includes music and other extra curricular activities. But it is normally applied to sports and sports only.


I like someone's idea above of using the money earned on the women's side for women's athletics and money earned on the men's side for men's athletics. I know at my school the football team and men's basketball teams play these "guarentee" games but then never see a dime of that money. It goes to fund the female sports at our school.

quote:

Here ya go, Rob. (if this is what you meant)
NCAA Scholarship Allotment

Well, it isn't exactly, but it does prove one of my points: Baseball gets 11.7 scholarships with rosters limited to 35 players. Softball gets 12 scholarships, with rosters that are what, usually under 25?

So my question stands: Who argues this is fair or right?

Fair or right doesn't always (=) equal. If the issue is truly about fairness, then a law passed to ensure equal treatment should also ensure equal protection for both. But, I guess it can be argued it's proportionate. GED10DaD

Well we got our answer to the "why" to all of this.
Son and rest of the team are still in shock, but continuing to work hard for the season. Luckily some of the players are hearing from other teams already.

Equality doesn't add up when you look at the amount of head count sports for men vs. head count sports for women (full scholarships).
Men get more full scholarships than women, where is the equality in that?

TPM

Take football out of the equation and do your mathematics work?---we cannot include football in the equation

Who said I can't?

This means more men get full rides than women, right?

So what's all the grumbling that men's sports get the shaft?

But I have no problem with football getting the bulk of the reward, if it weren't for football and the money it brings to programs, most would have no other sports.

Where we are headed is football for men and all other sports for women. Obviously I'm overstating things to make a point, but if football is kept in the equation and courts don't take a different look at the current situation, this could be much closer to reality in the coming years than most would think, especially as more and more women enter college while fewer and fewer men do the same. Proportionality is bad now, but not close to what it might be in coming years.

Schools like Clemson, North Carolina, UCLA, Texas, Michigan and many other heretofor well-rounded and compliant schools might find themselves without baseball or men's track, tennis, s****r and other non-revenue sports. Wrestling -- not widely popular -- is well on the way to all but disappearing. Current trends say we have not seen anything yet without some fundamental change.

I welcome the development and flourishing of women's sports in college; I truly fear the future for my grandson(s). And the worst part is that it seems hardly anyone cares.

Who says a female can't join the football team? Last I checked, NOTHING. So therefore I don't see why it should count....

I want to say here the only sport that is "fully funded" is the women's basketball team.

Proportionality only makes things worse. By the year 2018 3 out of 5 graduates will be women. Assuming that the school population is the same 60/40; if you have an 85 man football roster you would need to have 130 women's team "spots" to achieve proportionality.

The only way to accomplish this is by funding nearly 100% of NCAA guidelines for scholarships for women before a single male sport every gets funded.

Proportionality as long as demongraphics keep changing will untimatly kill all mens sports; as long as football remains as the "1,000 pound gorilla."

An interesting read on this topic is The War Against Boys by Christine Hoff Sommers.

The book isn't just about Title IX. In fact it is mostly about how the K-12 schools systematically serve boys much less effectively than girls, reflected in all sorts of ways such as dropout rate, rate of learning disability diagnosis, disciplinary referrals, expulsions, grades, achievement levels, AP courses taken, etc.

Yet at the same time, ALL the federal programs on gender equity operate from the assumption that it is girls, not boys, who are systematically discriminated against by the school system.

One outgrowth of the fact they have made schools so unfriendly to boys is the current M/F ratio in colleges.

And THEN, of course, proportionality rules the day for athletic scholarships!

Rob:

Try this one out; Why Boys Fail by Richard Whitmire.

Take a look at his website and all the articles which will "scare the blank out of you."

Why Boys Fail

There was a day when sports helped keep boys engaged and on track.

Should women have eqaul opportunity to college sports the same way that men have equal opportunity to college admissions? Yes. In fact, a very strong argument could be made that all gender differences should be eliminated from college sports and there should be one team for each sport and the team be comprised of the best athletes regardless of gender. Any allocation of resources that falls short of this ideal is ultimately a very subjective judgement call and it can be criticized as a form of discrimination by someone who feels that a group is being short changed.

If, on the other hand, we say as a society that mens and womens sports should be separated due to men's superior athletic abilities from thousands of years of genetic development, we should also acknowledge that this same gender difference indicates a stonger athletic interest on the part of boys in general and the financial allocations between the genders in athletics should also reflect this basic reality.

Rob and ILVBB, the prevailing literature is very clear that there is an ongoing and systematic war on boys. Title IX, like early civil rights legislation, was an excellent tool to enhance rights of those who were discriminated against, but it is now being used as an affirmative action tool to hurt other groups. Its a zero sum game they play.

The situation is bad for players, parents and fans of Duquesne baseball (and the other 3 sports).

Earlier this week, I spoke with the father of one of the players who signed his NLI in November. The family is re-starting the process, but they are, nonetheless, devastated by the news. While they did not burn bridges during the 1st process, many of their other options have already been filled.

Maybe this announcement should have been made PRIOR to the early NLI signing period, thus giving the kids who signed in Nov a chance to sign elsewhere. There is some chatter that AD "considered" announcing the decision sooner, but did not want to disrupt students before final exams (fall semester).

I have been a regular visitor to this website and message board for more than 4 years. I have learned valuable information from many people here which helped my son (and our family) thru the recruiting process and on his way to a D-1 scholarship. Through everyday conversations and thru presentations/clinics I do, I recommend this site to parents and players. However, I must say I do not recall ever reading posts here that are so inappropriate and out of place, pertaining to the topic, as RJM's. Wow!, is all I can say. In the future, I’m not sure what my advice (to others) will be.

Finally, in October 1998, at the beginning of the fall semester, Providence announced they were dropping baseball at the end of spring (1999) semester. The players and coaches rallied together, won the Big East title and made it to the Tallahassee Regional final before losing. Incidentally, a book has recently been written about this topic. The title of the book is “Strike IX” and the author is Paul Lonardo. Maybe some here should consider reading it.

I hope Duquesne can make a run like Providence did.

Any law or policy that attempts to correct past inequities by destroying other people's opportunities is a failed law or policy.

It is a law or policy born of revenge and hatred - not a law or policy born of common sense and a desire to correct the problem at hand.

The NCAA is a disgrace to this country. A joke. A corrupt institution. A political entity - not an educational entity.

They should be wiped out IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by itsinthegame:
Any law or policy that attempts to correct past inequities by destroying other people's opportunities is a failed law or policy.

It is a law or policy born of revenge and hatred - not a law or policy born of common sense and a desire to correct the problem at hand.

The NCAA is a disgrace to this country. A joke. A corrupt institution. A political entity - not an educational entity.

They should be wiped out IMO.

Ya think......maybe we can let the government take over and they can sell cars and hand out scholarships.

Peace out

quote:

Any law or policy that attempts to correct past inequities by destroying other people's opportunities is a failed law or policy.

I had to respond to this point. With law and policy there would still be "colored" bathrooms, water fountains, diners on the back side of town, etc..

RJM,

What does your statement have to do with opportunities that should be afforded to all citizens of this country?

Cant you read?

Must you inject inflammatory rhetoric into every ******* post?

Your statement is BS - and your agenda is suspect.

As far as I'm concerned - you are done.

And that is my last post on this subject.

quote:

I had to respond to this point. With law and policy there would still be "colored" bathrooms, water fountains, diners on the back side of town, etc..

I can't quite figure out what this means. Does it mean that you support laws and policies that destroy some people's opportunity in order to favor another's?

Or do you mean that you think laws that prohibited discrimination in access to public places somehow destroyed opportunity for other people? If so, how?

I can't quite figure out how someone can publicly denounce themselves from a forum and then proceed to come back and make 3 posts in the following 2 days.

Seems to me that there is an unnecessary yearning for attention. Providing good points is one thing, wasting people's time with your outlandish sentiments is another. Taking a woe is me approach for the world is not a very desireable trait in a person either.

Rob Kremer- Good questions. I'm incredibly curious as to what the answer is.

How could someone with over 1000 posts in their first month stop !!!

Maybe he can't quit cold turkey, and is just weaning himself.lol

J H,
I try to not "preach" about what is right or wrong so hopefully I won't here.
I am now 60 years old, have helped in raising 2 children and all I wanted was "the best for them."
Luckily, both my wife and I worked hard, got lucky, and both my children had all they needed. One, my daughter, had an athletic scholarship to Michigan and ended up graduating with high honors from the Univ. of San Diego.
Our son had no athletic scholarships, played at a DIII, did great and got drafted and did very well in Milb. Personally, I think he was going to make a small place pro-ball. An injury said he would not.
Now, my wife and I are mentoring an 11 year old Hispanic American who lives about 2 miles, as a crow flies. He comes from a broken home, and lives with a grandmother who works two jobs to make sure he has food and a home.
No one will ever tell me he has the opportunity for anything equal with our children, especially when it comes to an equal education.
We sent ours to private schools.
There was a reason for us and I assume for many. Education is a right. Everyone has the right to an equal education, not an equal right to an education. Our mentee does not have that right compared to kids living 2 miles away. He is perhaps in the majority. Maybe we can make a difference so he and his friends don't grow up being aware Tim Lincecum was arrested for marijuana but are completely unaware of the CY Young. Maybe we can have him mature and talk about his science grades and not who went to "Juvi."
Contrary to education, athletics are not a right, they are a privilege. Nearly every university in the US is a non-profit and gets tax breaks. Men's basketball and football coaches are making $5,000,000 to $7,000,000 in some situations, run by non-profits. The U of O is paying their baseball coach over $400,000 per year. Doubt softball is equal.
Equal opportunity: watch Jayne Appel,, or Camilla Wideman and Jennifer Azzi before her, play basketball at Stanford and I wonder how anyone would question the validity and wisdom of Title IX. I will never forget the intensity with which our daughter competed.
Why do they "deserve" any less opportunity to compete at their highest level? They don't and that is what Title IX seeks to provide though Congress passing the laws, a Republican president signing it and our Supreme Court upholding its application.
I read an article the other day that by 2015, India will be graduating more PhD's than the US will graduate college students. Why are we worried about Title IX when a "flat world" tells us the impact this stat shows is coming.
As ILVBB has posted, current information is that 58$ of those in college are women. Why focus on Title IX and miss that as the major issue needing attention. Why pay attention to Title IX when CSU Fullerton graduates 27% of their baseball players and Texas 40%.
Many of these issues were addressed and resolved by the US Supreme Court in the U of Michigan case. Some of the most probative briefs in support of advancing the opportunities of women and others came from the military services.
None of these are black/white or crystal clear issues. They are balancing issues to provide equal opportunities.
It took me 60 years, a daughter and an 11 year old to realize this is not about what is right for me or my son. It is a very big world with so many issues. For once, I got outside "my world" and got into that of others and know that equal protection and Title IX are both necessary to make our society afford opportunity.
The more who have opportunity, the better the end result, provided we also realize none of this is perfect and it isn't about "ME" as I made it for so many years.

I find it strange that we have no Title IX here and everyone has equal opportunity whether you are rich or poor.
Average university tuition is just under 5 grand and if you can't pay the government will provide the money for you through grants and cheap loans. From what I have witnessed Title IX has flaws that go beyond equal opportunities.

Title IX has evolved into a destructive mess. A weapon of destruction.

Instead of creating new opportunities for women to achieve "equal opportunity" - we now destroy existing opportunities for male athletes to achieve that balance.

We hide behind funding or other excuses to cover up our failure to solve the problem constructively.

We destroy - in the name of equal opportunity.

We are supposed to be leaders - but in reality we are inept, politically motivated bureaucrats.

We are the worst this country has to offer - and we are members of The Baby Boomer generation.

The worst generation this country has ever had.

I hope that future generations learn from the mistakes of my witless and gutless generation - and learn how to solve problems constructively - as opposed to destructively.

Just my opinion.

The following article sums up the situation quite well:

Title IX stupidity rising to some new lows
By John Steigerwald


Title IX stupidity strikes again. Before we get to what happened at Duquesne this week, let's pause for a moment and think about the father of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison, coming back to life and finding out that the federal government, whose powers and influence he did his best to minimize, was in the business of determining whether there are enough girls playing volleyball on college campuses around the country.
Duquesne waited several days before finally explaining why four men's teams were dropped. On the athletic department's web site, the reasons for the move are listed: Financial impact, facilities limitations, gender equity, Atlantic 10 Conference support/affiliation, global warming, nuclear proliferation and Hurricane Katrina.

OK, I made those last three up, but whatever came after or before "gender equity" was unimportant.

You can be sure that there are now 10 women's teams and only six men's teams at Duquesne because of Title IX. That's the law that was passed in 1972 to prevent any person from being excluded on the basis of *** from any educational program or activity receiving federal funding,
The guys who played baseball for Duquesne up until a few days ago should be feeling discriminated against right now. Their team disappeared because of budget issues but also because the percentage of women enrolled at Duquesne has to match the percentage of women playing sports.

In other words, their team was taken away from them because they're men.

Title IX was never intended to be interpreted that way. It was supposed to be about providing equal opportunities for both genders, not equal outcomes. Feminists took over the enforcement of Title IX in the mid-'90s and succeeded in making enforcement of the law about outcomes.

In the beginning, the law actually made some sense. It required institutions that were getting federal funding to provide equal access to male and female students interested in participating in athletics. By the time the feminists were through distorting the law, all over the country, colleges were desperately trying to cajole semi-interested women into playing sports while they were eliminating men's teams. In June, 1972 Congress passed Title IX and here is a passage from the law as it was written:

"Nothing in the law shall be interpreted to require any educational institution to grant preferential or disparate treatment to the members of one *** on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of that *** participating in or receiving the benefits of any federally supported program or activity, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of that *** in any community, State, section or other area."

That, of course, is exactly what has happened. It's why the Providence College baseball team was not allowed to use private funds it had collected to keep the program going after it had been eliminated by Title IX a few years ago. If it had been reinstated, the percentage of men playing sports would have been higher than the percentage of men in the student body and that couldn't be allowed to happen even if the players were paying their own way.

In fact, the baseball team was told that, if it raised enough money to field a team, it would also be required to raise enough money to field enough women's teams to compensate for the 28 male athletes.

The team needed $380,000 to operate but it would also be required to raise 59 percent more money in order to be in compliance with the now totally distorted Title IX. The baseball team was told that, in order to be allowed to exist, it had to raise $750,000 a year even though their costs were only $380,000. Baseball was dropped.

Stupid enough for you?

So, the federal government succeeded in creating the exact opposite of the effect that was intended.

And it's why, if he were to come back to life and see what's been done to his work, Madison would never stop throwing up.

The scariest thing about all of this is that it's taking place in places where we're told our smartest people are hanging out.

That pretty much sums it up.
My son's college has no lights on the BB field. An alumni donated over 400 grand to put lights up. The team was told they could not accept the donation unless he made a similar offer to a ladies sport.

Bobble- this mandate was made to the school by the NCAA?

The college AD informed the parties that they couldn't donate without doing a similar donation for a ladies sport at the the college.

We (the bb booster club in HS) built new cages at HS the year the hurricane hit, and told that we had to share with the softball team, regardless of who raised funds.

" Originally posted by igball:
The main reason they don't mention Title IX in the offical response is because they can't. Due to a lot of negative press about it Congress updated the law and schools now can't mention Title IX compliance when they cancel mens' sports.


Can you provide a link or better a reference to the actual law that supports this?"

igball, this question is still pending from 3FG in the other thread about Duquense.
In terms of this article you are quoting, are you saying colleges have an obligation to provide baseball as a sport and also baseball scholarships?
We know they don't. So, if they don't have any obligation to provide either, and there is no legal right to have either or both, there cannot be "discrimination" when, due to economics, the school chooses to provide football and not baseball.
St. Mary's college in Ca faced the exact same issue a few years back and chose to eliminate football and upgrade basketball, baseball and other sports with the additional revenue.
They now have a nationally ranked basketball team and a baseball program many think is on the rise.
Tough economic decisions exist in college athletics.
Stanford laid off a number of coaches and support personnel in their athletic program last Fall due to economics. They had a $5,000,000 deficit to cut and they did it and it was very hard on their employees. Losing jobs is at least as difficult, and probably more, than losing a scholarship. However, the tough decision to eliminate some jobs and not others and to keep all sports and coaches isn't discrimination.
Any baseball player on scholarship is subject to it not being renewed on an annual basis. It happens all the time according to this board. If a junior's scholarship is not renewed in favor of some hot incoming DI or JC prospect, that happens and it is viewed as unfair, a hardship, distasteful and the like but it is in fact the business side of allocating however much money a program allots.
Whether the player loses it to the hot shot recruit, a new coach, or other reasons or no reason, or cancellation of the program to keep football, it cannot be discrimination if there wasn't a legal right to have it and a legal obligation to provide it.

Infieldad,

How about as a source none other than the definitive mouthpiece for current Title IX legislation, RJM who said,

quote:

The author of the blog hasn't done his homework. A few years ago an amendement was made to Title IX not allowing colleges to drop men's sports to be in compliance.

So now just like the author of the column stated, we have AD's saying that everything else is the reason for the cuts, not Title IX.

If the gov't mandates that colleges resort to intellectual dishonesty when they adher to a twisted law, there's an excellent chance that that law, even though a well intentioned one to begin with, is not a very good one presently and needs to be changed.

As far as my personal beliefs on the subject, I'm the most liberal of them all. I believe all gender differences in sports teams should be eliminated and the best players participate regardless of gender. This way you could save a fortune by eliminating all the duplicate teams and we would never have to discuss "fairness issues" and truth and light will be forever be with us.

Now I am really confused on one point but clear on another.
RJM's post, now that you seem to be relying on it, does not say there is a law that mandates confidentiality of these decisions. So, I am confused about your response to 3FG's question.
What seems clear is that you want everyone to compete equally and the best participate.
So, for instance, the Vet who returns from Irag with a brain injury will need to compete equally when he tries to get his education in a college supported by federal funding? He or she either competes equally with every other student or they don't go to college? Title IX applies to education in the classroom too, doesn't it?
Similarly the Miracle league kids referenced in K Complex' thread..they will either compete equally or not compete.
What is funny about your compete equally approach is how many parents with son's would scream from ages 8-13 or so. I coached a women's basketball team a few years back from 6-8th grade. The center was 6'2", the point guard was 5'11" and their average height for the starting 5 was 5'11".
They went 77-0, in spite of the coaching. They were bigger, faster, stronger, more athletic and better than most boys teams of the same age. After we beat 3, others would not play them.
You can take the calls from the parents of all those with son's who either don't play or sit from ages 8-13 because their female peers matured earlier and are bigger, faster and better in basketball, so##er, swimming and in some circumstances, baseball. Boy, would that be a hoot!!!

infieldad,

You're having a very nice dialogue with yourself so I'm not sure I should interrupt, but I'll give it a try.

The issue is not about confidentiality (which I know you know) but instead about not disclosing the real reason behind all the cuts in mens sports.

I'm against brain injured vets coming back from Iraq? Another poster has made similar silly posts and has just taken flight.

Those who claim to be so pro-equality and anti-discrimination are strangely very quiet when it comes to why men make up only 40% of college campuses. Any business that discriminated against a pool like that would face incredible liabilities (assuming that the group that was discrimiated against was part of an accepted victim class).

Of course I'm not against youth programs for girls (I'm surprised you didn't add daughters of brain injured Irag vets) since we are talking about the drastic cuts affecting mens sports in colleges across the country. At the same time I've been reading alot of posts about how great (superior) women athletes are at the college level, so if that's the case, why have so many teams with at so much additional expense? Let's truly level the playing field (with the possible exception of brain injured Iraq vets).

quote:

Those who claim to be so pro-equality and anti-discrimination are strangly very quiet when it comes to why men make up only 40% of college campuses. Any business that discriminated against a pool like that would face incredible liabilities (assuming the group that was discrimiated against was part of an accepted victim class).

Huh???
Why not enlighten us?.

We are all worried about baseball and you are proposing there is a national conspiracy to deprive men/males of a college education?
I try to keep myself current and reasonably well read on issues outside of baseball. I have neither heard of this nor even seen it referenced in an anecdotal way.
What would be the reason for this "discrimination?"
What is the support for this conclusion about such pervasive "discrimination?"
Starting from your baseline, I can follow your rationale.
I just cannot figure out how you got your baseline.

The following is an excerpt from an expert in the field of employment discrimination:

"When an employer hires people of a given "race, ***, or ethnic group" at less then four-fifths the rate that it hires members of another group, the federal government sees that as a great reason to investigate the company for discrimination against the underrepresented group.

When colleges admit classes that are, on average, about 60 percent female — that is, the colleges admit only two-thirds as many men as women — the federal government sees that as a great reason to investigate the schools for discrimination . . . against women.

So, which is it? If we're going to assume that all groups of people have the same exact distribution of skills, and that therefore a "disparate impact" in hiring is evidence of discrimination, let's apply that notion across the board — not just when it benefits the Left's favored groups. Or, we could face the fact that for whatever reasons, different groups of people perform differently, and kill the four-fifths rule. "

quote:

When colleges admit classes that are, on average, about 60 percent female — that is, the colleges admit only two-thirds as many men as women — the federal government sees that as a great reason to investigate the schools for discrimination . . . against women.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
What schools have created "great reason" to be investigated for discrimination against women, when they are admitting 60% women, i.e. they are admitting 3 women for every 2 men? What schools with this/these numbers are being investigated for having a "great reason" to think/believe/investigate they are discriminating against women?

I think this thread has come full circle now.

The person writing about discrimination law wasn't talking about Duquense but might as well have been. Think about this situation for a minute in light of the law that he referenced (Infieldad, you can use the Cliff-notes). Given the "disparate impact" involved with Duquense admitting 60% women, the school should have been a target of the Federal gov't for discriminating against men in college admission (of course the reason they were not a target is due to the group in question, men, don't rise to the level of acceptable victim group, ie. women, blacks, gays, terrorists at Guantanomo Bay). Instead the school eliminated 4 men sports because they thought they were a potential target of the federal government- for discriminating against women!

We have now officially entered Alice in Wonderland.

Interestingly, when this blatant hypocrisy is mentioned on a baseball related message board you get friendly fire and comments are thrown your way such as you must be a sexist Neanderthal (RJM) or in favor of discrimination against brain injured Iraqi vets (Infieldad). These comments would be more understandable if posted on a women's volleyball site (or one about Russian aircraft).

By reading such comments you are able to measure the depth of brainwashing that's occured over the years.

Free speech is great.

igball,
I wasn't the one who posted that the laws now required Title IX decisions to be kept confidential.
You did and when 3FG asked, you didn't respond until questioned again.
Now you acknowledge there is no such law. Why post false information when you knew it was false and try to slough it off to RJM?

You post that the federal government is investigating a school that is admitting 60% women for discrimination against women. When asked which one, again, no response to support your assertions.
When I asked what support there was for your blanket assertion that there is blatant discrimination against men in college admissions, it looks like your response is similar to .
There is no response.
Just a change in subject and more blatant allegations.
Look we just view this from diametrically opposed positions.
I work with facts that can be analyzed to reach a conclusion.
You post allegations and conclusions, at least one of which we know is false, but no facts.
The injured Vet illustration and Title IX involve similar legislative purposes including equal protection, equal opportunity and affirmative action.
We are lucky to live in a richly diverse country.