Hate to see this happen

quote:

All I ask is that NCAA does it right

It would be nice, wouldn't it? But often it's the schools that are the problem. They're out of compliance. Then they're scrambling to get it done rather than getting it done right.

Short cut below to article outlining underlying reasons behind Northeastern and Hofstra eliminating football.

http://savingsports.blogspot.c...ollege-football.html

You would think that if you are in favor of gender quotas for athletics that you would also be in favor of gender quotas for something much more important like overall admissions to the school. Why doesn't the quota crowd doesn't demand equal representation on college campuses between the genders?

When one gender is represented on college campuses by a 58-42 % margin, isn't that difference discrimination and shouldn't that discrimination be protected by Title IX?

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. Also, football gets somewhat of a financial pass on Title IX due to the extent of it's expense. The bottom line at Northeastern is they couldn't sustain the cost of the football program with an average attendance of 2,000 fans. College football doesn't sell in the Boston area. BC's (ACC) stadium only holds 45,000 and often doesn't sell out.

One thing you won't see at Northeastern games anymore is the centerfielder going back, he's at the 40, the 30, the 20, the 10, what a catch in the back of the endzone for the third out of the inning. It's 455 to dead center. I'm guessing without football they'll bring in the centerfield fence.

Hofstra was in the same boat. 4,000 attendance with only 500 students at each game. They were losing $5 million per year.

I can't speak for the rest of the country but in large cities in the Northeast college sports are a distant second to pro teams. Especially football. In the Philadelphia area Temple football has struggled for years and Villanova couldn't support a D1 program. Penn is Penn and forget anybody else.

Most people I know barely mention local college football when talking sports. From what I hear and see NY and Boston aren't much better.

Hoops is a little better with Nova being a national level team and the Big Five hanging on, but only Nova draws over 5,000 a game.

"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."

The author of the blog was 100% accurate. Congress updated the law a few years ago because they were getting heat that mens sports were being dropped because of Title IX. So instead of dealing with the issue directly they simply said schools couldn't state they were dropping mens sports for that reason. Schools now say they're doing it for budget reasons (compared to the financially flush women's sports teams no doubt) and by the way, we now just happen to be compliant with Title IX.

Complete intellectual dishonesty but it provides cover to the gender quota crowd which is the only reason why the law was updated. It's a complete fraud.

quote:

Originally posted by fillsfan:

I can't speak for the rest of the country but in large cities in the Northeast college sports are a distant second to pro teams. Especially football. In the Philadelphia area Temple football has struggled for years and Villanova couldn't support a D1 program. Penn is Penn and forget anybody else.

Well we all know college football should only be played in the south.

OK I just read the Duke article. Am I the only one that just feels like it was written by a Tar Heel.

scotty


I hate to inform you that football is a cold weather sport whether it be at the college or pro level

There is some seriously flawed understanding in these posts. Check out this recent Washington Post article concerning civil rights probes resulting from the fact that women applicants currently outnumber men by such a large degree that some colleges have been discriminating against women in the admissions process in order to BALANCE the quota in MEN'S favor. Quite simply, there are more - and often more highly qualified - women applicants (I've read that 56 - 58% of the college applicant pool is comprised of women) and colleges that want a 50/50 gender ratio are engaging in affirmative action towards MEN.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...?wprss=rss_education

Confused Here [Robert VerBruggen]

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.

Another example could be the financing of collegiate sports. If you accept the premise that women are just better students and have earned the right to be represented by a 60-40 majority on campuses you should also acknowledge that men's sports have "earned" the monies that flow into them and women should not have access to those monies through Title IX protection. Let them earn their monies from their sports and allocate them how they wish just as men should have to earn their way onto college campuses.

Not that it matters too much what I think, but I'll opine anyways that it is fine with me if colleges engage in affirmative action towards men in order ensure more equal gender representation on college campuses. Quite importantly in my mind, men and women mature at different rates; why not consider this and look at applicants' "upward trending" when making college admissions decisions? Only fair and rational. And my point in my prior post is that it is being done on many college campuses.
As to women in sports, they have not had nearly the opportunities that men have had (this can be traced back to the ancient Greeks and Romans) and Title IX has helped them to gain access to and benefit from sports in the same sort of way that men have, generation after generation. Quite frankly, from what I've seen over the years, the generation of young men that this site is dedicated to quite admires and appreciates sports-minded women. It adds an interesting dimension to their ability to relate to each other and I have never sensed any sort of resentment on the behalf of younger men towards female athletes - only admiration. So, while I'm about as far from left as a person can be on most issues, I appreciate the aspects of Title IX that have opened closed doors for women and feel that the benefits extend way beyond college sports, into corporate board rooms, court rooms and operating rooms.

quote:

Not that it matters too much what I think

1stand3rd,
What you think really "does" matter. I'm only against Title IX when it deals with baseball. Other than that I'm all for all the opportunities it has created for women.

quote:

Originally posted by 1stand3rd:
Quite simply, there are more - and often more highly qualified - women applicants (I've read that 56 - 58% of the college applicant pool is comprised of women)

I am sure my son will be happy to hear this.

For those who think Title IX is not being used as a sword to cut and, in many cases, eliminate college baseball, I might suggest reading a book entitled Strike IX.

Here's a review:

Strike IX, The Story of the Big East College Forced to Eliminate its Baseball Program and the Team that Refused to Lose by Paul Lonardo ISBN 0-7414-5690-7

In October 1998, as fall practice was getting underway for the Providence College baseball team, the players and coaches learned that their sport was going to be eliminated after the 1999 season in order to comply with Title IX provisions, a federal law enacted to ensure that schools did not discriminate against female athletes. Knowing that this was going to be the last year that baseball would be played at PC, the team decided to put their emotions and anger aside and make it a season to remember. The Friars went out and had what was arguably the best season in the 80-year history of the school sport. They worked hard—and partied hard—and were eventually crowned Big East Champions (click here to view players statistics), but were not satisfied with that as they advanced into the Division I NCAA playoffs. Strike IX is the story of this historic year and the players who decided to make their statement on the field and show the school administration that they made a mistake.