Another Men's Track Program Bites The Dust

Football is killing the rest of men's college sports.

Guys who who want to play sports but don't like concussions will soon be out of luck.

Brain-damaged athletics wrote:

Football is killing the rest of men's college sports.

Guys who who want to play sports but don't like concussions will soon be out of luck.

And later, the guys who do like concussions will be out of luck too.

Caitlyn Jender wrote:

It's time for Real Men to Tranny-up. Be brave! Be Revered! Be confused, but oh so Transgender Strong!

You joke, but when these colleges cut men's track in order to save football, some guy who wants to keep running should start identifying as a woman and join the women's track team. Anyone who identifies as a woman should count as a woman for Title IX purposes.

Football scholarships need to come down to 17.5 per year. Then after a few years see if another cut needs to be made. One of my alma maters has equestrian for women but no running sports for men!

I don't like the system.

In this instance their D1 hockey team sunk the ship.

Can we finally figure out how to change the Title 9 to not include football? How many men's sports need to get cut before men are allowed to complain without women's activists jumping down their throat?

Fact is, men's sports are not equal to women's. More people watch men's. DOESNT MEAN WOMEN DONT DESERVE CHANCES BECAUSE THEY DO. But it's not equal because of football. Wrestling, swimming and running all suffer because we need to inflate the women's scholarships and participation numbers to cancel it out.

I saw a chart the other day showing the number of participants in college athletics and BY FAR the biggest was football with over 70,000 people participating. That's 70,000 women that need to get a spot on any team (water polo, crew, croquet, etc) before any men can get on any other team throughout the country.

The problem is football. Why don't schools cut the sport that a) most skews the distribution of participants and b) costs the most money? The answer is "we can't give up football." The problem isn't activists, and it isn't title ix, it's football.

alksskla wrote:

Football scholarships need to come down to 17.5 per year. Then after a few years see if another cut needs to be made. One of my alma maters has equestrian for women but no running sports for men!

I don't like the system.

+1

You could cut football scholarships and still fill out a team without any trouble. There would still be plenty of guys who would go out for football regardless of scholarship and cutting scholarships would get rid of the Title IX issue. It wouldn't deal with the excessively disproportionate cost of having a football team, which is a big money loser for most schools, but it would help the situation.

NCAA needs to add another tier on top of the existing Title IX regulations - spending between the school's self-identified "revenue sports" (must include football and MBB) must be proportional to the spending for Olympic Sports.

It's too simple a proposition to say football is a money losing proposition at most schools simply because the cost of running the program exceeds the directly resulting revenue. I think most development directors would tell you alumni donations would plummet if football were eliminated. To another gentleman's point, what would the rationale be for simply excluding football from Title IX calculations ? You can't simply not count a sport or its participants because it makes the numbers come out in a way that doesn't comply with the law.

I'm curious: does anyone think the numbers will eventually be balanced by the introduction of women's football programs? I see no momentum in that direction, but a generation ago, no one foresaw the emergence of women's pro fighting in its various forms either.

Slightly concussed wrote:

alksskla wrote:

Football scholarships need to come down to 17.5 per year. Then after a few years see if another cut needs to be made. One of my alma maters has equestrian for women but no running sports for men!

I don't like the system.

+1

You could cut football scholarships and still fill out a team without any trouble. There would still be plenty of guys who would go out for football regardless of scholarship and cutting scholarships would get rid of the Title IX issue. It wouldn't deal with the excessively disproportionate cost of having a football team, which is a big money loser for most schools, but it would help the situation.

Exactly, why does a football team need so many scholarships. Even if you cut them down to 40 you would still field a great team. It would also help spread talent around a bit more. Also you would get more school revenue because more walk ons would want to play football than they want to walk on for the track team. Less scholarships would mean more equal competition and more school revenue win win.

Cutting back football scholarships would be a good start, but it wouldn't end the Title IX issues. You'd still have to ensure equitable allocation of facilities, coaching staff, student academic support, etc.

TITLE IX, BABY!!!!!!

That's what we intended!!!!

Take down all male programs!! Especially football!! Because, why should they make the money????

If we get rid of all male sports, people will come out to watch us, right???

Why can't colleges just make home economics a sport? Practically every show on the food network is some sort of contest.

#### wrote:

TITLE IX, BABY!!!!!!

That's what we intended!!!!

Take down all male programs!! Especially football!! Because, why should they make the money????

If we get rid of all male sports, people will come out to watch us, right???

Then that plan isn't working, because every men's sport but football would be cut before ending football at most schools.

I support the goal of Title IX to make the same athletic opportunities available to men and women. I'm all in favor of having men's and women's track, basketball, swimming, or whatever. But the problem with including football in the calculation is that there is no women's equivalent to it and there won't be for the foreseeable future. Since football takes up such a huge number of scholarships and costs so much it throws everything completely out of whack.

Football could be played on a much more sane scale with fewer scholarships, fewer coaches, less posh facilities, etc. but if there's no backbone to do that, it needs to be taken out of the Title IX equation.

St.Cloud sucks . They haven't had a good distance runner in almost 50 years. Drop it, keep it , doesn't matter. Same relevancy.

Was the team good? ?

I have thought for 30 years or more (even before title IX) that all state high school and college track championships should be awarded on a combination of boys and girls/men's and women's combines scores. Not a problem in high school but could do something to stem the loss at the college level. Not going to happen of course. No support from women's only schools and probably very little at co-ed schools.

Brain-damaged athletics wrote:

Football is killing the rest of men's college sports.

Guys who who want to play sports but don't like concussions will soon be out of luck.

No, TITLE IX and its assault on the facts of life is killing men's college sports. Football is just a byproduct of that, which was probably intended by the football-hating feminists who pushed Title IX. They want you to hate football, but that's not the real enemy.