Title IX

Forums General General Title IX

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #11984
      swim826
      Member

      So I know this doesn’t affect anyone on this forum, but a lot of D1 schools are being forced to cut their mens swim teams due to Title IX. I know this is nothing new and has been happening for years, but I still think we should support these teams in any way we can. For those of you on facebook, there is a group forming to support the James Madison University mens team, who were told on Friday that their program was being cut. They need all the support they can get. The least we can do is join their group, DDP Swim Team, and hope that with enough support they can keep their program. Thanks!

    • #30768
      gomez2354
      Member

      James Madison Unversity in virginia is a d1 school but had no scholarships for swimming. Alot of my freinds and rivals from highschool go there. Their program was axed, along with their track and cross country team. Their cross country team was up until about 2 years ago constantly in the top 10 in the nation and has produced all sorts of great runners. This is bullshit that they could cut their most sucessful team.

      My biggest rival in swimming to date is a freshman at JMU right now, and his program is to be cut at the end of the year. I told him to transfer. I’m pissed off about the whole thing, so this post probably doesn’t make sense

    • #30769
      JHU84
      Member

      reality is most schools would rather have a piss poor football basketball or baseball team than a top swimming, xcountry track or wrestling team. Sad but true. And who are the best student athelete? …. Hint not the former teams mentioned.

    • #30770
      Anonymous
      Member

      It’s overly simplisitc to blame Title IX. The real villains in any of this are colleges’ misallocation of resources towards revenue producing sports at the expense of non-revenue sports. Title IX simply forces colleges to comply with representative resourcing and many colleges respond by cutting programs rather than adding programs to keep the scales balanced. I just wish more schools would take the approach of adding rather than subtracting to keep the balance. Ohio State did a good job in this regard but then again they have financial resources that allow for expansion that other schools simply don’t have.

      These decisions to cut simply reflect what our sports culture value. As long as society values football and basketball the most, those two sports will get the lion’s share of the resources (i.e., scholarships) at the expense of those that are less valued. Swimming is an easy target because it has a small fan base and is non-revenue. If UCLA can drop men’s swimming like they did 10+ years ago, just about any program is vulnerable.

    • #30771
      DonCheadle
      Member

      It is a misconception that football is a revenue producer. I don’t have the facts in front of me, but at a school like JMU, if they have football(?) then it (football) is actually the biggest drain on the budget.

      I agree, it is too simplistic to blame Title IX. Title IX simply makes the equal the opportunities for men and women. In the past, swimming was only possible because more money and scholarships were being spent on men. It has not been possible to add women’s teams, thus leveling opportunity, without adding to the budget, and athletic budgets simply cannot continue to expand.

      The real blame, if there is any, is that schools won’t pay the extra money to keep their sports teams. What are the solutions: raise taxes/ divert more academic money to athletics? Of course not. Private funding worked at Dartmouth, but how realistic is that? A really hard question to ask: As much as it is a tragedy for JMU to lose their team, and I really do feel badly for the individuals affected, they simply were not fielding a D1 caliber program. They would have finished outside the top 10 at D3’s. From an unbiased stand point, why pay for that?

    • #30772
      Anonymous
      Member

      You’re correct that some schools can’t make money on football. Without serious television revenue most schools can’t pull it off. I doubt (though I don’t know) that JMU is revenue producing. And sometimes having the television exposure is no guarantee. It’s well-documented that the year that Michigan won the national title in football that they lost money. I guess that those “multi-million dollar weekends” in Ann Arbor don’t go as far as they use to when it come to paying for the big time program. That’s one of the compelling reasons that they’ve debated the advent of luxury boxes at Michigan Stadium.

      Enjoy your day …

    • #30773
      Chris Knight
      Member

      I agree that the blame cannot be placed solely on Title IX. The problem is a combination of factors: Football, Title IX, and AD’s and Presidents who only look at the bottom line.

      There are many ways to stay Title IX compliant, but the most widely followed is having a proportional number of spots go to men and women based on your student population. So assume that there are 60% women and 40% men on a given D1 campus (not an uncommon ratio). Then factor in a 100 man roster on the football team. If you have equal numbers in the sports you have men’s and women’s teams in, then you have to have enough additional women’s teams to support 100 more athletes. Which is why men’s teams get cut.

      However, I believe I once read (but cannot remember where) that if a school takes a thorough survey of it’s female students that indicates that the majority are satisfied with the athletic opportunities at their disposal, then the school can use that survey to demonstrate Title IX compliance. The problem is that no school would ever do this, because it seems less safe than proportionality.

      This is why the problem is a combination of Title IX and “revenue” sports (which, as earlier mentioned, do not always make money, or as much money as people assume). Why do college teams need a 100 man roster when NFL teams have less than 60? There is no good reason. Why do mediocre football teams need facilities that are vastly superior than any other sport? Because Football and Men’s Basketball are the sports that offer the brass ring, those big postseason checks. So sports like swimming will be in grave danger until something happens, either to change the interpretation of Title IX, or to check the wasteful spending on Football and Men’s Basketball.

    • #30774
      Anonymous
      Member

      Hadn’t heard that one about a survey before. I have a hard time believing that since Title IX is a federal law. Last time I checked the decision to enfore a laws isn’t determined by a “satisfaction” battery. Interesting idea.

      Your point about roster size is interesting. Years ago I sat with a Big Ten football coach who told me that his program “couldn’t exist on anything less than 90 scholarshps.” I pointed out to him that his football program was nearly twice the size of most pro teams and that if college football could give up only 12 scholarships it might help save some other sports on his campus. To that point he answered, “saving other sports is not my concern.”

      Enjoy your day …

    • #30775
      miller
      Member

      I look at it this way: If Michigan State and UofM can find a way to keep their D1 swimming programs, then Title IX isn’t even part of the problem.

      The problem rests entirely with the administration of those schools that want an excuse to cut a drain from their budget. You can blame Title IX all you want….but the fact remains over 140 D-1 universities from the well-funded to the hardly funded find a way to make it happen and put a team in the pool. Shame on those that don’t, for hiding behind Title IX when the real reason for the cuts is obviously their lack of desire to field a team.

    • #30776
      DonCheadle
      Member

      The pople blaming Title 9 are usually media (websites) and swim coaches. ADs and college presidents blame media.

      I was talking to a guy from some random D1 college who said that bad D1 schools would destroy Kalamazoo in tennis (Kzoo was the Kenyon of D3 tennis). I wonder if the same is true about Football?

    • #30777
      silentp
      Member

      @DonCheadle wrote:

      The pople blaming Title 9 are usually media (websites) and swim coaches. ADs and college presidents blame media.

      I was talking to a guy from some random D1 college who said that bad D1 schools would destroy Kalamazoo in tennis (Kzoo was the Kenyon of D3 tennis). I wonder if the same is true about Football?

      It’d be worse in football due to strength and all that goes with football. Funny because the Kenyon beats average mid majors.

    • #30778
      JHU84
      Member

      @DonCheadle wrote:

      The pople blaming Title 9 are usually media (websites) and swim coaches. ADs and college presidents blame media.

      I was talking to a guy from some random D1 college who said that bad D1 schools would destroy Kalamazoo in tennis (Kzoo was the Kenyon of D3 tennis). I wonder if the same is true about Football?

      Well at least that is not true for swimming

    • #30779
      The Treat
      Member

      @DonCheadle wrote:

      The pople blaming Title 9 are usually media (websites) and swim coaches. ADs and college presidents blame media.

      I was talking to a guy from some random D1 college who said that bad D1 schools would destroy Kalamazoo in tennis (Kzoo was the Kenyon of D3 tennis). I wonder if the same is true about Football?

      its not as easy for tennis. that guy could just be saying that b/c he wants to think he is better than he is. i dont know much about tennis, but its certainly not as easy to compare as swimming is.

    • #30780

      collegeswimming.com has an article which talks about the survey which can be given to students to avoid cuts in atheltic programs. JMU has been asked to give such a survey.

      http://www.collegeswimming.com/?show=news&id=2575%5B/url%5D

    • #30781
      neswim
      Member

      @DonCheadle wrote:

      I agree, it is too simplistic to blame Title IX. Title IX simply makes the equal the opportunities for men and women. In the past, swimming was only possible because more money and scholarships were being spent on men. It has not been possible to add women’s teams, thus leveling opportunity, without adding to the budget, and athletic budgets simply cannot continue to expand.

      Its also too simplistic to ignore the obvious impact of Title IX in a budget cutting environment where football cannot be touched. The men’s swimming program is often eliminated and the women’s program is left intact. I’d say that the choice, which of the swimming programs should be cut, is a directly result of Title IX. On the other hand, in those situations where BOTH swimming programs are eliminated its truly a “simple” resource allocation (or mis-allocation in my opinion) choice.

      I’m not suggesting that we rollback Title IX. Because it doesn’t help our sport to eliminate either gender’s team. Its also practically hopeless to get colleges to eliminate big time football programs (though some do, eg. Boston University).

      One possible answer is to systematically organize the very large swimming alumni community. We’ve seen a number of examples of leading master swimmers provide very large donations to fund new pools and subsequently save swimming programs (Hillenbrand insisted that U of Az keep its swim teams AND masters team as part of his contribution; it will be interesting to see if Tod Spieker”s donation to UCLA carries any requirement that they reinstitute the men’s team down the road). I suspect that Phil Whitten, new president of ASCA is probably thinking along this lines in addition to his publicity campaign to save swimming. He’s is just the kind of person who can pull this together.

    • #30782
      Djinntsai
      Member

      Did some research and had some discussion in one of my politics courses about Title IX. First point is, how is it even legal in its current form? What’s the difference between Title IX and the early form of affirmative action, which was a quota system, and has subsequently been outlawed. The courts said that a quota system isn’t legal, and Title IX is a quota system, based on the ratio of female to male undergrads to female to male athletes. The helpful elements of Title IX come in the other ways for schools to prove that they are complying, i.e.-creation of women’s programs/proving that there isn’t sufficient female interest. Both of these are time consuming, cost consuming, and a risk to schools. If the school tries one of these things, and doesn’t succeed in a timely enough fashion, they can be sanctioned. Title IX needs to be relaxed to be effective. And schools shouldn’t come under fire for choosing to cut our beloved sport as opposed to football or basketball. It’s the most logical choice, in the vast majority of situations. Why SHOULDNT a school keep a more universally popular and profitable sport? And what’s so descpicable about wanting cash? The REAL problem here can’t be legislated away, and that problem is our society’s attitude toward female sports. You can offer as many sports you want, market them all you want, they ain’t gonna fly like men’s sports do. Argue and reflect on that all you want, but it’s the state of things for now

Viewing 15 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.