My son went the JUCO route, and then in a program that Title IX killed. Therefore we went through the recruiting process three times.
If there was one thing that stood out all three times it was that you could always tell who REALLY wanted him.
One visit to a coach who views your son as a true impact player for his program will give you a whole different opinion of the recruiting process. It will make you rethink what the other coaches are saying and doing big time.
But FIT does not mean picking the program that wants you the most. Fit is very individual.
Some kids WANT to go to a program and be an impact player. Some kids want to go to a program where they will play all four years. Some kids prefer to go to a more competitive program, even though they sit on the bench 2 or 3 years.
Some folks are risk takers, some prefer a more stable choice. It has nothing to do with right or wrong, and everything to do with personal goals.
There is some risk in every program. Often more risk as the quality of the program increases. Your son is the only one who can decide how much risk he feels comfortable with.
.
Great post....reads like "The 6 commandments to recruiting"...
.
Great post....reads like "The 6 commandments to recruiting"...
.
AParent,
Agree on many good points except one. Title IX never killed any program. It can usually be traced back to school administrators who decide to support large football programs at any expense. I thank Title IX every day as my daughter, who's just as much a talented, fierce competitor as my son, has a chance to take it to the next level. Consider it part of the risk equation to which you referred. I'm not trying to divert the thread here, but your jab diluted your other good points.
Agree on many good points except one. Title IX never killed any program. It can usually be traced back to school administrators who decide to support large football programs at any expense. I thank Title IX every day as my daughter, who's just as much a talented, fierce competitor as my son, has a chance to take it to the next level. Consider it part of the risk equation to which you referred. I'm not trying to divert the thread here, but your jab diluted your other good points.
Va_Sportsmom
Give me a break. Title IX is the most misused rule in American history and has destroyed more opportunities for more male athletes and anything else could ever approach. It's an injustice and that ought to be rectified. I have daughters, as well, and I am not saying they should not have opportunities, but proportionality does not work and should never have been implemented. And if anyone does not believe that baseball scholarships are limited to 11.7 for any reason other than Title IX then they either are incredibly misinformed or just do not understand reality.
To blame it on football is even more ludicrous when football is the driving force in nearly every truly successful athletic program, with just a couple of exceptions.
Make the pie bigger if you want it done right, but don't try to tell us that Title IX has not flat out eliminated the pie for far too many male athletes in far too many sports.
To believe otherwise is simply amazing.
Give me a break. Title IX is the most misused rule in American history and has destroyed more opportunities for more male athletes and anything else could ever approach. It's an injustice and that ought to be rectified. I have daughters, as well, and I am not saying they should not have opportunities, but proportionality does not work and should never have been implemented. And if anyone does not believe that baseball scholarships are limited to 11.7 for any reason other than Title IX then they either are incredibly misinformed or just do not understand reality.
To blame it on football is even more ludicrous when football is the driving force in nearly every truly successful athletic program, with just a couple of exceptions.
Make the pie bigger if you want it done right, but don't try to tell us that Title IX has not flat out eliminated the pie for far too many male athletes in far too many sports.
To believe otherwise is simply amazing.
VA Sportsmom
Sorry but that statement was no "jab". When the baseball program was disbanded the reason given was Title IX compliance. Plain and simple.
It sure is interesting that a whole team of baseball players (of whom I think only 4 were on scholarship) was disbanded so money spent on that sport could be used to add other sports that might attract female students athletes.
Now, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against female ATHLETES. There are true female athletes and they deserve as good a chance as the male athletes.
What I am opposed to is taking female STUDENTS and offering them scholarships to BECOME ATHLETES so the numbers will be in compliance. These girls are not and will never be athletes, but they are smart enough to pick up a sport to pay for college. You may call that equity, but I do not.
When girls fill out rosters as non-scholarship athletes because they love the sport (like many boys do) then perhaps you can convince me of the NEED for more female scholarships.
I hope your daughters are never treated with as much disrespect as those boys were.
Sorry but that statement was no "jab". When the baseball program was disbanded the reason given was Title IX compliance. Plain and simple.
It sure is interesting that a whole team of baseball players (of whom I think only 4 were on scholarship) was disbanded so money spent on that sport could be used to add other sports that might attract female students athletes.
Now, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against female ATHLETES. There are true female athletes and they deserve as good a chance as the male athletes.
What I am opposed to is taking female STUDENTS and offering them scholarships to BECOME ATHLETES so the numbers will be in compliance. These girls are not and will never be athletes, but they are smart enough to pick up a sport to pay for college. You may call that equity, but I do not.
When girls fill out rosters as non-scholarship athletes because they love the sport (like many boys do) then perhaps you can convince me of the NEED for more female scholarships.
I hope your daughters are never treated with as much disrespect as those boys were.
Males have had all the breaks, thats why they need a Tile IX rule
Tell your story to the kids at Porvidence who after coming within one out of making it to the CWS get told in t October of the following fall that there will be no more baseball---what is that all about?--very simple--Title IX= Porvidence had and still has a huge female population, can e=we say party school, and thus the numbers didnt match so a baseball rpgram that is solid and a winner gets sold down the river
End Result--Ladies Handball, Rowing etc and none of those ladies ever played the sport, if we can call it a sport--it is a total disgrace
End Result--Ladies Handball, Rowing etc and none of those ladies ever played the sport, if we can call it a sport--it is a total disgrace
AParent, You hit the nail on the head!
njbb, What do you mean breaks? EVERY male that is on a baseball scholarship has EARNED that scholarship. The real harm is to the male players that have earned but cannot get a baseball scholarship simply because of Title IX.
Fungo
njbb, What do you mean breaks? EVERY male that is on a baseball scholarship has EARNED that scholarship. The real harm is to the male players that have earned but cannot get a baseball scholarship simply because of Title IX.
Fungo
quote:Originally posted by VA_Sportsmom:
Consider it part of the risk equation to which you referred.
Aint that the truth!
There are many risks that exist in our lives - everyday. Including Title IX.
Socialism will never work in America.
It has - and will - continue to destroy many deserving people and programs - and perhaps that will satisfy the selfish needs of those that feel it is righteous to gain at others expense. Those that feel it is moral to correct injustice by inflicting injustice on others.
But it will fail - because socialism always fails.
Flush Title IX down the toilet - right where it belongs.
Itsinthegame you are on your way very quickly to the HSBBW Hall of fame. Your recent posts have put you over the top on the voting. Outstanding post because it is the straight up truth without the political correctness bs that I am sick of. At one of our local D-1 schools this happened. A flyer was put out asking girls that were interested in becoming part of the rowing team to come to a meeting. At the meeting they were told that they did not have to have any experience in rowing they just needed to field a team. Girls that were chosen for the team would be given a full athletic scholarship. They did and they were. How can anyone in their right mind see this as a fair and equal playing ground.
players that disappear from rosters in college....
...Finally realizing they can go to the beach in the summertime...something that they haven't done since they were 8 years old.
...Kids finally realize that there is more to life in the summertime than jockstraps and cuts and bruises and strawberries and sore arms.
...Kids finally realizing that they will actually make more money in their working lives than what they could possibly make for that "shot" at making a grand a month in the low minors; that they are truly organizational players while truly having no chance to get to the big leagues.
...Kids finally realize that being a player at a major D1 program really means that you are truly under "pressure" every year for 3/4 years with each succeeding class.
I pushed and pushed and pushed my sons because baseball, the game, was near and dear to me because it kept me out of trouble; taught me to be a team player; taught me how to win and lose and be gracious about it.
Now that 2 of my last 3 are in college, I realize what they mean when they say that they want to have "fun" without the pressure to perform.
Took me a long time, but I think that I finally figured it out.
...Finally realizing they can go to the beach in the summertime...something that they haven't done since they were 8 years old.
...Kids finally realize that there is more to life in the summertime than jockstraps and cuts and bruises and strawberries and sore arms.
...Kids finally realizing that they will actually make more money in their working lives than what they could possibly make for that "shot" at making a grand a month in the low minors; that they are truly organizational players while truly having no chance to get to the big leagues.
...Kids finally realize that being a player at a major D1 program really means that you are truly under "pressure" every year for 3/4 years with each succeeding class.
I pushed and pushed and pushed my sons because baseball, the game, was near and dear to me because it kept me out of trouble; taught me to be a team player; taught me how to win and lose and be gracious about it.
Now that 2 of my last 3 are in college, I realize what they mean when they say that they want to have "fun" without the pressure to perform.
Took me a long time, but I think that I finally figured it out.
Awesome post, BeenthereIL,awesome............
I think your are correct, Coach May.
Fair ain't always equal and equal ain't always fair.
I think your are correct, Coach May.
Fair ain't always equal and equal ain't always fair.
Just because males have recieved a lions share of the pie for years doesn't mean they have a right to continue to recieve it. Women are the majority of the student body at most schools and the deserve a equal share from the college community.
njbb:
You could not be more wrong. On a personal level, I do not care because what I want for my sons is the opportunity far more than I want the money, which I can take care of myself. But there are plenty of male opporunities that have been eliminated -- forget the scholarships -- for bs reasons. Believe what you want, but you could not be more wrong, and America will be far better when injustice like this is at long last rectified.
You could not be more wrong. On a personal level, I do not care because what I want for my sons is the opportunity far more than I want the money, which I can take care of myself. But there are plenty of male opporunities that have been eliminated -- forget the scholarships -- for bs reasons. Believe what you want, but you could not be more wrong, and America will be far better when injustice like this is at long last rectified.
equal share of what, njbb?
njbb
equal share?
Don't forget that Title IX only covers athletic scholarship funding.
It glosses over the fact that the same colleges give out art, music, band, dance and other scholarships. There are no gender equity requirments in these areas because the women are not on the short end of the stick.
Would be real interesting to see how equal the TOTAL really is.
Anyone know those figures?
equal share?
Don't forget that Title IX only covers athletic scholarship funding.
It glosses over the fact that the same colleges give out art, music, band, dance and other scholarships. There are no gender equity requirments in these areas because the women are not on the short end of the stick.
Would be real interesting to see how equal the TOTAL really is.
Anyone know those figures?
VA-Sportsmom:
In this case, you are mistaken. Title IX has done damage. I have nothing against having women's sports, but the method that has been mandated for it's implementation is terrible.
Instead of talking about feelings, look at the numbers:
The OLD days
1982, Women's NCAA sports teams, 4,776
1982, Men's NCAA sports teams, 6,843
Obviously, the situation needed some attention, but you also must consider that a MUCH higher percentage of males are interested in playing sports. I'm not talking individual cases, I'm talking numbers. The ratio that existed in 1982 wasn't right. The method to correct it is worse.
Now jump forward to 2004
2004, Women's NCAA Championship teams, 8,948
2004, Women's "Emerging Sports" teams, 84
2004, Women's Total Sports teams, 9,032
2004, Men's Championship teams, 8,009
2004, Men's Non-Championship teams, 122
2004, Men's Total Sports teams, 8,121
Now, just looking at the data, it looks like everything is fine on the surface, Both are growing, but the women are growing faster, right???? WRONG ...
What's the rub then???
What the statistics FAIL TO MENTION is that the number of NCAA Member institutions has ALSO grown in the same time. So that great growth you are seeing in Women's sports is a product of "fudging the numbers" and the good growth you are seeing in Men's sports is totally imaginary.
In reality
The Average number of Student-Athletes per Institution is the statistic that is ignored but needs to be studied.
Year, Men, Women
1984, 254.2, 115.9
1994, 199.7, 116.7
2003, 209.2, 156.6
Average number of women's teams supported PER institution has increased by 2 in this time period.
Average number of men's teams supported PER institution has decreased by 1 in this time period.
In 6 of the past 10 years, there were a decrease in the average number of male student-athletes per institution. In that same period, there was a decrease in women's sports only once (0.1 participates less per institution in 1990-2000 verus 1998-1999)
Now, lets look at what the total number of NCAA institutions do ... They are adding and dropping sports all the time, but to disband an existing program is something that needs to be looked at. Since 1988, 1201 more men's sports programs have been disbanded at NCAA institutions than women's sports programs.
.... but I did say that sports were being added too ... it's only fair to look at the difference in the number of sports programs added for men versus the number added for women over the same period. Well, they added 1230 more sports programs for Women at NCAA institutions than they did for men.
So now, you are down to looking at the Net Change in the total number of sports programs for Men versus Women within the NCAA.
Since 1988, the Men have added 42 programs.
Since 1988, Women have added 1,971 (97.9 percent of the growth).
Narrowing the view
If you look at D1 (a much smaller sub-section), it's probably better .... and there is a reason. D1 school are (generally) bigger and they have been in the NCAA longer, they are established, so members entering or leaving have less of an impact on the "numbers".
Since 1988, in D1 ONLY ...
661 Women's sports programs added.
239 Men's sports programs dropped.
....................
Title IX is socialism at it's worst. It's political correctness run amuck.
In this case, you are mistaken. Title IX has done damage. I have nothing against having women's sports, but the method that has been mandated for it's implementation is terrible.
Instead of talking about feelings, look at the numbers:
The OLD days
1982, Women's NCAA sports teams, 4,776
1982, Men's NCAA sports teams, 6,843
Obviously, the situation needed some attention, but you also must consider that a MUCH higher percentage of males are interested in playing sports. I'm not talking individual cases, I'm talking numbers. The ratio that existed in 1982 wasn't right. The method to correct it is worse.
Now jump forward to 2004
2004, Women's NCAA Championship teams, 8,948
2004, Women's "Emerging Sports" teams, 84
2004, Women's Total Sports teams, 9,032
2004, Men's Championship teams, 8,009
2004, Men's Non-Championship teams, 122
2004, Men's Total Sports teams, 8,121
Now, just looking at the data, it looks like everything is fine on the surface, Both are growing, but the women are growing faster, right???? WRONG ...
What's the rub then???
What the statistics FAIL TO MENTION is that the number of NCAA Member institutions has ALSO grown in the same time. So that great growth you are seeing in Women's sports is a product of "fudging the numbers" and the good growth you are seeing in Men's sports is totally imaginary.
In reality
The Average number of Student-Athletes per Institution is the statistic that is ignored but needs to be studied.
Year, Men, Women
1984, 254.2, 115.9
1994, 199.7, 116.7
2003, 209.2, 156.6
Average number of women's teams supported PER institution has increased by 2 in this time period.
Average number of men's teams supported PER institution has decreased by 1 in this time period.
In 6 of the past 10 years, there were a decrease in the average number of male student-athletes per institution. In that same period, there was a decrease in women's sports only once (0.1 participates less per institution in 1990-2000 verus 1998-1999)
Now, lets look at what the total number of NCAA institutions do ... They are adding and dropping sports all the time, but to disband an existing program is something that needs to be looked at. Since 1988, 1201 more men's sports programs have been disbanded at NCAA institutions than women's sports programs.
.... but I did say that sports were being added too ... it's only fair to look at the difference in the number of sports programs added for men versus the number added for women over the same period. Well, they added 1230 more sports programs for Women at NCAA institutions than they did for men.
So now, you are down to looking at the Net Change in the total number of sports programs for Men versus Women within the NCAA.
Since 1988, the Men have added 42 programs.
Since 1988, Women have added 1,971 (97.9 percent of the growth).
Narrowing the view
If you look at D1 (a much smaller sub-section), it's probably better .... and there is a reason. D1 school are (generally) bigger and they have been in the NCAA longer, they are established, so members entering or leaving have less of an impact on the "numbers".
Since 1988, in D1 ONLY ...
661 Women's sports programs added.
239 Men's sports programs dropped.
....................
Title IX is socialism at it's worst. It's political correctness run amuck.
H3 - Thanks for the numbers. I've said before - I have a son and daughter. Glad for the opportunities my daughter/females have been given, but this should never have been done at the cost of my son/males.
HHH,
I do stats for a living and your analysis fatally flawed. Be happy to discuss offline since this thread is already too diverted and I know how stats put poeple to sleep. Bottom line - administrators have options other than reducing men's programs. AParent says IX was cited as the reason for scrapping men's baseball. That's administrators hiding behind the fact that they rejected the other options. It is indeed as disgrace that administrators resort to things like manufacturing women's handball programs to balance the ridiculous number of football scholarships, but IX isn't forcing them to do it. There's plenty of gold-plating they refuse to touch. Sure men have historically shown higher numbers interested in sports. Wonder why? For one, there was potential payoff like college scholarships. Now that HS girls have that option, they're demand is growing too. It's not just "feelings". Until recently, one of our HS girls teams had no locker room and had to change into their parent-purchased uniforms in THE CAFETERIA. Not too many girls attracted to THAT option. Of course the demand and growth are compressed into recent years. I'm not saying abuses aren't happening in trying to comply with IX, but I have sons and daughters in HS and now college athletics and it doesn't compare to the abuses and neglect the girls have suffered(and still do). Do we need a separate thread here? I was getting bored comparing rosters year to year anyway...
I do stats for a living and your analysis fatally flawed. Be happy to discuss offline since this thread is already too diverted and I know how stats put poeple to sleep. Bottom line - administrators have options other than reducing men's programs. AParent says IX was cited as the reason for scrapping men's baseball. That's administrators hiding behind the fact that they rejected the other options. It is indeed as disgrace that administrators resort to things like manufacturing women's handball programs to balance the ridiculous number of football scholarships, but IX isn't forcing them to do it. There's plenty of gold-plating they refuse to touch. Sure men have historically shown higher numbers interested in sports. Wonder why? For one, there was potential payoff like college scholarships. Now that HS girls have that option, they're demand is growing too. It's not just "feelings". Until recently, one of our HS girls teams had no locker room and had to change into their parent-purchased uniforms in THE CAFETERIA. Not too many girls attracted to THAT option. Of course the demand and growth are compressed into recent years. I'm not saying abuses aren't happening in trying to comply with IX, but I have sons and daughters in HS and now college athletics and it doesn't compare to the abuses and neglect the girls have suffered(and still do). Do we need a separate thread here? I was getting bored comparing rosters year to year anyway...
quote:one of our HS girls teams had no locker room and had to change into their parent-purchased uniforms in THE CAFETERIA.
Va Mom - "PERCEPTION RULES" - I can only imagine how they FELT!
with the exception of football, all our hs uniforms & equipment are purchased with parent funds -
as are those of most local DIII/NAIA baseball programs in this area
and . . . our hs didn't even have a cafeteria till last yr
ps - our hs was forced to decline a donation of lights for the baseball field, because it would leave the girls field unlighted - and the world would be out of balance??