Some data to ponder
Womens Teams
1981 417 4612 runners
2001 928 12008
Mens Teams
1981 650 8966
2001 858 10840
Scholarships
In Division 1AAA 55% of all Scholarship dollars go to Women. In all other Divisions 40% of all Scholarship dollars go to women. (From NCAA web page)
In terms of scholarship dollars
In Division 1AAA 55% of all Scholarship dollars go to Women. In all other Divisions 40% of all Scholarship dollars go to women. (From NCAA web page)
I am not sure about the high school teams but I know that UMD dose not recieve any of the money that Grandma's Marathon makes. It is basically for the other events and community things that Grandma's put on through out the year. These activities are fre of charge too so Grandma's dose give back to the community.
Many of UMD's athletes are victims to the roster limitations that are given to the coach. UMD athletic department sees cross country like this. You are allowed seven runners on the varstiy team so therefor why would you need more then seven guys on the roster. Cross Country is not a revenue sport and really the only team that actually makes money is the D-1 Hockey team. All of the other UMD sports lose money, at least when I was going to UMD. The athletic department is in much better adminstration now so there have been some very slight changes but the cross country team is still only allowed 12-15 runners and the track team is also limited to how many guy can be on the roster. One way now to get more guys is to attract more women. But you can only recruit so many athletes and if you need women your going to recruite more women then men so therefore you are still leaving out some guy you would want to recruite but have to gear that time, energy, and money towards women.
RunrGrl wrote:
Title IX was created with good intentions. The problem now is how it is being interpreted. Many universities suffer because of the rule. Even schools that have plenty of money to fund teams have to cut men's programs because of lack of interest on the women's side. I wish there was a way it could be adjusted to reflect interest, not just raw roster numbers.
As far as the lack of interest in WATCHING women's sports, it is true that most men aren't avid fans of most women's sports. But many women are, and they make up half of the population. As for track, no one wants to watch unless they are runners themselves. People think it's boring. But runners enjoy watching other runners compete, men and women alike. This is true for various other sports, expecially at the collegiate level. Male athletes actively support their female counterparts. The fans at the women's basketball games at my school generally outnumber the fans at the men's games.
Furthermore, the lack of interest in watching women play sports is unrelated to their right to play them. You don't play for the audience, you play for your team, at least at the college level. As stated above, no one watches cross country meets. Running is not a revenue sport. This does not mean the programs should be cut. If we cut programs based on the size of their fan base, we probably wouln't have any programs aside from football and men's basketball. Obviously, this is not where we are trying to go. Whether or not people watch your sport, you should be able to play it, whether you are a male or a female, a football player or a runner.
Finally, some common sense on here! Are you planning on taking over as NCAA president? If so you have my support!
He actually spelled it ridiculos. Get your facts straight before correcting someone's spelling with more incorrectness!
Title IX is here to stay. Get over it and get used to it. If you're a guy and you lose a roster spot, guess what?... You are not fast enough. And when a woman of equal or lesser relative talent gets a spot, too bad. She deserves it. The white-male sense of entitlement bullshit is, well, bullshit. If you're not fast enough at one school to make the team, transfer. If your team gets cut, transfer. If you can't handled the injustice of it all, protest the damn football team. But leave title IX alone.
Never mind NCAAA president - RunrGrl for the White House.
Just a comment about how someone was going to "puke" if they heard women talk more about how oppressed they are. Here are the numbered points:
1) It isn't 1919 anymore. Women have made it - equality abounds for them in the workplace as far as I can see. Studies will still show that on average a woman makes less than a man, but there are reasons for that - many women still do take time off (years in fact) to raise little kids. It is only fair that the men, who ON AVERAGE have more experience than the women make more money. If both have the same amount of experience, they should get the same salary, and MOST of the time they do - some companies still feel that women are a pushover when it comes to salary negotiation, but that is going by the wayside pretty quickly.
2) This same "puke" poster made mention that women are now more educated than men. I would say GOOD. That's the way it should be. The women are smarter than most men anyway, and in GENERAL, women are smarter than men. Men are the brawn, women are the brains - ok, I'm fine with that - all you men should be too. Of course, I fall in a special category in which I am just smarter than just about everyone - however, I did choose the one woman for my wife who is smarter than I am, so while in the public at large I am smarter than everyone, in my own house I am No. 2, and if my daughter's development continues at its torrid pace, I will soon be No. 3. My 3-year-old son still believes in the Hyperian Theory of macrogenetics, and he is unwillling to admit that Adam Scottlander so convincingly disproved that theroy in his 1993 submission to the journal Macrogenetics. Until he gets off his nostalgic high horse there, he will remain behind me in my house at No. 4.
homey the clown wrote:
He actually spelled it ridiculos. Get your facts straight before correcting someone's spelling with more incorrectness!
Incorrectness!?
Incorrectness, yes it is a word correctness is the Antonym.
I am still looking for those articles about male and female participation interest levels. It's not my area of research so I didn't keep the articles (or copy down references). I think they were based on a national college student dataset that included questions asking whether the student had participated in HS varsity athletics and whether he/she planned to participate in (or had participated in) intercollegiate varsity athletics. As I recall, fewer female than male students who had participated in HS varsity athletics reported planning to participate in (or participating in) intercollegiate athletics.
Unfortunately I don't have time to do an exhaustive lit search on this but I did find one article that some of you may find interesting. I didn't read it but I looked at the abstract and the research methodology looks sound. That doesn't mean it's the gospel truth, of course, and every study has its caveats. I found this through the Educational Resources Information Clearinghouse (ERIC) and am honestly not sure how people without ERIC access could get it - perhaps through a Google or Lexis-Nexis search?
"Intercollegiate Athletics. Four-Year Colleges' Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams. Report to Congressional Requesters." Author: Shaul, Marnie S. Publication: U.S. District of Columbia. No. of Pages: 38. ERIC Accession No: ED452747
RunrGrl fan wrote:
Never mind NCAAA president - RunrGrl for the White House.
Indeed! You got my vote!
Maybe a reason why some programs have to get cut in colleges??
Referring back to the Rutgers post... I heard the woman's coach was told that her team couldn't get their regular practice time in the indoor track facility because her runners would be "a distraction" to the football players lifting there. I also heard that she almost got fired for speaking up against that for her team with the AD. Why do we need Title Nine? Oh wait, let me think...
I agree. It does suck!!