Ohio U. TF- The Real Story - Behind the Axe

MAC guy 2 wrote:

How come there are more scholarships for college women than for men in every other sport. There is more money for women in Every Sport at the college level. Those Are The Facts…your facts take in the total budget with a sport which has 85 scholarships. Check DI stats..there are more scholarships for women in track and field than for men, there are more scholarships in basketball for women than men…yet at the high school level there are more boys than girls doing the sport.

I have friends who coach at the DI level and they also have told me what Kieser and 60 minutes has said…

Do you get any facts from other sources beside you head

show these facts. I say show them, because they do not exist. I have at this point posted 2 articles which have verified facts and research behind them and they didn't come from my head. Have you posted any? no, I didn't think so.

and at what point in time did football no longer become a factor in the sports equality equation?

You started out being reasonable and making good points about men's sports, and then you decided to go south at some point,a nd you haven't been able to back up one thing with a resource of any kind, not one.

just a hunch, but I would bet I have more friends than you do that coach women's sports at the university level, as if that means anything.

16x...good debate - keep it going!

No disrespect back, and I believe you have coached a lot, but you will never convince me that in a utopian island where boys and girls are raised equally and unecumbered (sp?) by societal prejudice that the girls will maintain the same level of competitiveness/aggressiveness throughout their lives. In the end, biology causes boys to be more aggressive and therefore more competitive. I just cannot and will not ever believe that.

Also, 16x, I stated recently that the OU decision was strictly about $$ and not about Title IX - that was just OU's way of hiding.

In response to someone else, I think today's parents ARE diluted down enough to have an open mind. Have you been on the sidelines of these "soccer" games? Have you been to coach-pitch and t-ball??? Communism aside, these sports are all gender equal for today's kids and the parents buy into it.

I just cannot seem to find anything that supports the statement by MAC2 that women have more scholarships than men, nor that more money is spent on women's sports than men. I must be pulling this crap out of my head.

http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=8830

http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2002/06/20/News/Study.Athletic.Scholarships.Have.Gender.Gap-501558.shtml

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/fyi/news/09/28/title.ix/index.html

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:WefusHYCpusJ:www.womenssportsfoundation.org/binary-data/WSF_ARTICLE/pdf_file/1109.PDF+men+vs+women+athletic+scholarship+dollars&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5

Kieser wrote:

16x...good debate - keep it going!

No disrespect back, and I believe you have coached a lot, but you will never convince me that in a utopian island where boys and girls are raised equally and unecumbered (sp?) by societal prejudice that the girls will maintain the same level of competitiveness/aggressiveness throughout their lives. In the end, biology causes boys to be more aggressive and therefore more competitive. I just cannot and will not ever believe that.

Also, 16x, I stated recently that the OU decision was strictly about $$ and not about Title IX - that was just OU's way of hiding.

yes, you did state that you believed it was not a Title IX decision. Forgive me if I said different.

But you lost me on the "biology" end. Let's say for the sake of peace, that you are correct, that boy's simply like sports more than girls. Simple solution. Divide the amount of resources in half - let the boys use it to play sports, let the girls use it to do something else. It is about resource equality, not sports.

fyi: I have a boy and he couldn't give a damn about sports! I don't think that means he is low in testosterone.

oh and Keiser, I would love to get a hold of Bill Seymour if you happen to know of his whereabouts. thanks

I have Billy's phone number, but you'll have to reveal your true identity first. My email is found fairly easily on the internet. I teach at Saint Joseph Academy.

Now I'm very curious...

Hey - you spelled his name correctly, why not mine??? j/k

good point on spending the resources equally - I didn't get it before. I'll think about that one.

Kieser wrote:

In response to someone else, I think today's parents ARE diluted down enough to have an open mind. Have you been on the sidelines of these "soccer" games? Have you been to coach-pitch and t-ball??? Communism aside, these sports are all gender equal for today's kids and the parents buy into it.

you mean me? i agree that parents do have more open minds regarding the interests of their kids compared to their parents before them, or at least they are really psycho about seeing their kids succeed. but, i don't think that it has, at this point, reversed centuries of gender stereotypes.

regarding biology, you're making a case that the dominant factor causing girls to lose competitive spirit is internal, and this is why girls lose interest in sports. that may be an important factor, and it isn't in the government's spirit, power, or best interest to fight that influence. however, my hunch is that another important factor is that this change in internal biology is coincident with everybody noticing the girls boobs are starting to grow, and i support the effort to combat this type of influence with legislation such as title ix, and i bet you do too.

so then the problem that i think both of us see, is that it's hard to separate the effect of a girl's biology making her "feel like a woman" from the effect of everybody around her making her feel like it's high time she start acting like a woman (and whatever that's supposed to mean). so you write something like title ix to combat the latter, but the whole time everyone wonders if you're just combating the former.

This has actually been enjoyable for me from a serious point of view. Rarely do we get to entangle in a debate on this board without lower ourselves to troll-like standards. Kudos to Jizzmo, 16x, rixctf, and the rest...

Never did I think we'd get to a Darwinian level on this thread, but we're getting close. Nature vs. Nurture is what I believe rixctf might be suggestion. We'll never know, but maybe hormones do rule the world. Can we legislate those? Congress will probably try at some point.

I don't see why the discussion has veered towards whether women didnt have athletic scholarships in the 50's... to me that has no bearing.

People have accused the ADs of hiding behind Title IX. You cant say that. They must comply. The easiest way is to cut mens programs until they meet the numbers.

I fail to see why that is so hard to accept. This is from the GAO:

"However, while the GAO study shows that male participation in sports was up 5% over the 1981 to 1998 time frame, male college enrollment during those years was up almost 19%. The number of men's sports teams available per male student has declined 21% over that time. Teams such as tennis, track and field, and swimming have decreased for men, while women's teams have increased. Although there are now more teams available to women than to men, the total number of male participants still significantly outnumber women; in 1998-99 there were 232,000 males participating in college athletics and 163,000 females."

Great info., 16X nice to know your family history in sports...are your Stephanie A. who was a grad asst at OU 15 years ago. I'm not sure where you have coached since...but Kieser has been very actice in the running community and has many good points...Keep the discussion up.

But, the issue here is cutting Men's Track and Field...not what you did 15 years ago or what your grandmother was or was not able to do.

Again, the issue here is cutting Men's Track & Field!!

What can we do, beside sit here and tell us stories...I would be interested in if anyone posting here has written letter or contatcted individuals to work on getting Men's Track & Field Bback in the MAC at the schools which dropped it...I know Western Michigan is very active. I ahve not seen anything form BG, Toledo or Ball State.

It would be nice if everyone worked together to try to get OU to not drop the Men's Track & Field program next year and then work on helping Western Michigan get it back and then the rest of the universities in the MAC.

Ha - never thought of Stephanie...glad to see you on here.

Bobcat...I have contacted Myles Brand at the NCAA (he's the president) and Craig Masback (president of the USATF) as well as the Plain Dealer.

Brand's office responded with "its not our job to tell schools what to do".

Masback is concerned, but has very little leverage.

The Plain Dealer has written a few small articles, but has not attacked the athletic department for over-spending incredulously.

I believe that as soon as a major outlet (TV, radio, newspaper, magazine) openly criticizes the current spending on football and starts a major debate then the ball will get rolling.

The MAC needs to move to Div IAA

16x

You want some facts here are some facts for you...it looks like there are more scholarships for women than men in each and every sport...

http://www.campuschamps.com/rulebook/ncaa_scholarship_limits.shtml

NCAA Scholarship Limits

2006-2007 Total Annual Scholarship Limits

Here are the 2006-07 annual scholarship limits mandated by the NCAA for Division I

Men

Baseball 11.7

Basketball 13

Cross Country/Track and Field 12.6

Fencing 4.5

Football (Division I-A) 85

Football (Division I-AA) 63

Golf 4.5

Gymnastics 6.3

Lacrosse 12.6

Rifle 3.6

Skiing 6.3

Soccer 9.9

Swimming 9.9

Tennis 4.5

Volleyball 4.5

Water Polo 4.5

Wrestling 9.9

Women

Archery 5

Badminton 6

Basketball 15

Bowling 5

Cross Country/Track and Field 18

Equestrian 15

Fencing 5

Field Hockey 12

Golf 6

Lacrosse 12

Rowing 20

Rugby 12

Skiing 7

Soccer 14

Softball 12

Squash 12

Swimming & Diving 14

Synchronized Swimming 5

Team Handball 10

Volleyball 10

Water Polo 8

Dudes, you shouldn't out people... don't even make guesses. There's a reason they use handles. If someone wanted to use their name, there's a good chance that it hasn't already been registered.

As for the arguments, it's been nice to follow. I wholeheartedly agree and support with 16x's "equal resource" argument. However, Title IX isn't currently written adequately to accomplish this as it only pertains to athletics.

Regardless, I do feel (especially in this specific case) that the money spent on football is outrageous, stupid and much more of the problem. Sure, it may be worth it for the big name programs, but for a MAC schools to spend in this manner is ludicrous. I am sure some would argue that it would be impossible to compete without doing so. Wouldn't it be a good collegiate athletic experience / lesson to learn that you can't limit the human spirit and will.

Then again, I am free market kind of guy, so I can't complain with other people's bad decisions unless I / we collectively persuade them to think otherwise (and this typically means voting with wallets).

kieser wrote:

I believe that as soon as a major outlet (TV, radio, newspaper, magazine) openly criticizes the current spending on football and starts a major debate then the ball will get rolling.

Actually I don't think that would help at all. If you told "the man on the street" that football has 85 scholarships and they are cutting other programs just to fund that sport, I think most people would defer to the free market. They'd say, when you get 12000-15000 people to attend a track meet call me. Till then don't be surprised that minor sports get cut.

Heck, we even call XC & Track "non-revenue" sports! That's NOT a good thing to have on your resume. Not a great way to justify your existance.

ok, I will track you down. You will know me. Nobody seems to know how to get in touch with the "grey ghost". He's been very reclusive. Sorry if I spelled your name wrong!

Hey JEH!

good to hear from you!

16x

Likewise! I've seen you on the "women, what have you done this week" threads (BUT I DO NOT READ THEM), but decided to not post on those.

Jizzmo wrote:

kieser wrote:

I believe that as soon as a major outlet (TV, radio, newspaper, magazine) openly criticizes the current spending on football and starts a major debate then the ball will get rolling.

Actually I don\'t think that would help at all. If you told \"the man on the street\" that football has 85 scholarships and they are cutting other programs just to fund that sport, I think most people would defer to the free market.

right, you don\'t just go to the general public with this. we need to build support within the sport of running first. the place to go might be runner\'s world. they are a news outlet that sort of bridges the gap between runners and people who run. if we could educate all those folks about the problem, that would be a good start. maybe there are plenty of these people who wish they had run when they were younger, and want their kids to have the opportunity to compete for their school. they would be people who would join our cause if they only knew it existed.

anybody know a writer there? maybe we should start with a focused letter campaign not to our senators, but to writers with running magazines. yes/no?

bob cat: those are the limits. That does not mean that each school reaches the limit.The NCAA did an investigative report last year and actually made 100 phone calls to schools across the country. Not one of the schools had more females on scholarship than males.Sorry, I know you want to throw football "out of the equation" but you can't. Football IS a sport. If it eats up other sport scholarships then, that's what has been decided for you.