Their salaries will not be effected by the change because Coach O'Connor was only officially the Men's XC coach anyway, so he'll continue to be paid his normal salary for that and Coach Green will still be coaching the Women year round, so as I understand it they won't be changing his pay either.
Isn't McDonald the New England Track Coaches Association PRESIDENT!!?? If he is...he should resign immediately as he's a PUNK.
Maybe QU should have considered dropping a more expensive men's sport that had a larger roster than track or less NCAA representation? Maybe lacrosse or ice hockey (both of which only have <60 total Div. I teams)!!??
KnowItAll wrote:
Wow, the entitlement and incredible lack of perspective runs deep here.
Very well said. Reading these posts one would think that LRC is made up entirely of juvenile males. Oh well. Perhaps it is.
volleyball suckssssss wrote:
these girls are either selfish or idiots
one or the other.
These girls did nothing more than fight for their program and their chance to compete. They succeeded. Don't hate the players, hate the game.
knowitall youre a f***ing jackass
Aww, did my words of truth hurt your feelings, little girl?
women's volleyball has a losing record. they are one of the worst teams in the NCAA. there is no reason for them to be reinstated over track.
This is a shame. Title IX has outlived is usefullness. When Politically correct orthodoxy is at odds with common sense, athletes are ones that lose - in this case runners.
Time to flush Title IX down the toilet.
Until distance runners unite and speak out and get donors to hold back money to universities, write letter to universities presidents and trustees, get the public involved and make race an issue (as track and field is one of the most diverse programs) this will happen again and again…
Title IX, as has been interpreted to me, was intended to promote more opportunities for women, not cut them for men. Originally, many sports were added for women. The act of cutting men's sports came later, as college sports became more of a business. People shouldn't hate Title IX, as much as they should dislike the administrators who blame it when they eliminate non-revenue producing male sports.
People in Cross Country, and Track and Field have to realize that not everyone loves our sport as much as we do. To many administrators, it's more of a bottom-line decision, without any emotional attachment.
Well said on Title IX being horrible. I do feel very sorry for the QU guys. They are stopped from competing due to something they cannot control (sounds like discrimination, but of course men never win those arguments...). Hard to believe there are people making a joke out of Title IX on this site. I guess they figure if someone is not good enough to go to Oregon or the 10 other schools that will still have track 20 years from now, he should not complain. That is not growing our sport. The brojos aren't running this site with that kind of thinking...
Guys that dedicate themselves to run in college for the most part are pretty good runners and damn dedicated. It would be nice to show some respect, and try and keep opportunities for them to compete around the country. There are plenty of mediocre runners at one level, who end up breaking through at another. We need as many opportunities for guys to keep competing as possible.
As for the crack about a school that matters, try Marquette Wrestling. They could not defend their National Championship because they got cut.
Meb Khannouchi wrote:
That is illiterate logic.
So it's logic that can't read and write?
It's logic from a turdblossom who lacks the mental horsepower to read and write coherently.
if title ix is the major problem here... then why are division iii schools ADDING men's and women's cross country/track & field?
everyone always points the finger at title ix - but the issue of cutting only men's sports has been a major problem at division i - it's of a problem in division ii, and if it's a problem at all in division iii, that's news to me.
the major problem is the ridiculous amount of scholarships given to division i football, coupled with the ridiculous amount of money division i schools spend on football, men's basketball, women's basketball, and baseball.
NE Coach wrote:
Title IX, as has been interpreted to me, was intended to promote more opportunities for women, not cut them for men. Originally, many sports were added for women. The act of cutting men's sports came later, as college sports became more of a business. People shouldn't hate Title IX, as much as they should dislike the administrators who blame it when they eliminate non-revenue producing male sports.
People in Cross Country, and Track and Field have to realize that not everyone loves our sport as much as we do. To many administrators, it's more of a bottom-line decision, without any emotional attachment.
I agree it's not Title IX that is the problem it is the school admins who use it as an excuse to cut programs. Its good to see that there is someone on this board who actually knows what they are talking about.
Division I schools give more scholarships to football, basketball, etc. because those sports are major revenue producers in terms of television, ticket sales, and boosters/alumni. Track & Field gets the shaft because the dollars just aren't there.
Title IX is steadily killing programs across the country.
just ridic. whole thing, just sad. i feel bad for all the men competing. now they have to transfer and make big decisions that they shouldn't have to make. this is sooo unfortunate.
UMass had their men's indoor track team cut in 2002 due to budget concerns (one of seven sports cut that year). However, the sport got reinstated two years later due to alumni and student support. If QU's alumni and students care enough about the track to protest, the men's teams can be reinstated within a few years.
while this is true for some schools, it is not true for many non-BCS conference schools.
i ran at a school that was in a non-BCS conference. the athletic department hired an outside firm to study the department because it was losing so much money. the outside firm found that football was a net LOSS of roughly $3M a year for the athletic department (after ticket sales, tv revenue, etc.). football coaches who had been telling the rest of the department about how they were the ones keeping everyone else afloat shut their mouths pretty quickly after that.
i have a feeling quinnipiac is in the same boat as my alma mater and not in the same boat as an lsu, texas, etc.
Now you know what it feels like to be discriminated against.
Especially you white males.
Maybe now you'll realize what non white males have had to put up with.