We all know about Clemson’s outrageous decision last week to cut its Men’s Cross Country and Track & Field programs. In my opinion it’s the biggest threat to the sport of running in many years. If this decision doesn’t get overturned the dominos will start falling, first at the collegiate level and then at the high school level. The running community needs to mobilize to help overturn this decision. You can start by signing the petition - https://www.change.org/p/dan-radakovich-reinstate-clemson-university-s-men-s-track-and-xc-program?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_25685878_en-US%3A3&recruiter=1161793142&recruited_by_id=4bc71f40-1fb3-11eb-9bd5-a1c9c0a9def8&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&utm_term=psf_combo_share_initial. You can also make your voices heard on Twitter - #saveclemsonxctf Just the simple act of liking tweets and retweeting can apply enough pressure to get this overturned. Please help.
SAVE CLEMSON XCTF!! The future of college running is at stake
Report Thread
-
-
Let them save themselves; one of the only athletic departments that turns a profit.
-
It's hard to call it an "athletic" program at CU if there is no men's "athletics", which is what T&F is referred to in the Olympics. They should just rename the "athletics" program to the NFL bush league training camp.
-
Pull a W&M...seriously. If the women walk out, the admin will at least have to come to the table. The coaches may lose their jobs, but there is a good chance the sport could be saved. Those coaches would likely land on their feet elsewhere.
-
Ultimately I think this all comes back to Title IX. In reading the W&M articles I learned that each person on the XC, Indoor and Outdoor team counts as 3 people for Title IX purposes. So for the entire track team its 2x and for distance squad its 3x. Schools are struggling to balance out football numbers. If Title IX were modified to eliminate football from the calculations it would probably solve this problem. If a track team has 50 kids and 15 are distance eliminating the TFXC team is 35x2+15x3=115 people. Having a full women's team and no men's team has become the simplest way to counter balance football numbers.
So, I don't think this can be addressed on a per school basis, it needs to be done at an NCAA level / congressional level. -
If you can find Matt Brown's Extra Points newsletter, he breaks down the Clemson decision pretty well. In short, Clemson did not cut track for financial reasons (as he points out they never made that claim). Clemson just does not want to sponsor men's track any more.
He points out the revenue figures include donations from IPTAY (the booster club) to cover the cost of scholarships so it is not really "revenue" generated from ticket sales, etc. Also other revenue is equipment donations.
An argument often made is that the student-athletes in track are not on full rides (at least not many if any) so they are paying tuition. Well at a school Clemson's size, I am not sure the few track students in a student body of 20,000 undergrads really amounts to much. Clemson's budget was $1.35 BILLION for 2019-2020. At $38K for out of state and let's say 25 guys paying that rate that is just under $1M (and we know they are not all out of state).
Since the argument is not financial, then I think the appeal is less about getting scholarship or coaching positions endowed, it is about priorities. -
I agree it is likely a Title IX move. All the more reason for the women to walk out, as Clemson is insulated from that kind of nonsense. They are well supported and funded and have a lot of options beyond sport cutting to address Title IX.
It is a matter of the AD not wanting to do his job and serve the athletes he works for. If the Clemson women got organized they could put a real Title IX hurt on the AD and department. -
Luv2Run wrote:
If you can find Matt Brown's Extra Points newsletter, he breaks down the Clemson decision pretty well. In short, Clemson did not cut track for financial reasons (as he points out they never made that claim). Clemson just does not want to sponsor men's track any more.
He points out the revenue figures include donations from IPTAY (the booster club) to cover the cost of scholarships so it is not really "revenue" generated from ticket sales, etc. Also other revenue is equipment donations.
An argument often made is that the student-athletes in track are not on full rides (at least not many if any) so they are paying tuition. Well at a school Clemson's size, I am not sure the few track students in a student body of 20,000 undergrads really amounts to much. Clemson's budget was $1.35 BILLION for 2019-2020. At $38K for out of state and let's say 25 guys paying that rate that is just under $1M (and we know they are not all out of state).
Since the argument is not financial, then I think the appeal is less about getting scholarship or coaching positions endowed, it is about priorities.
It's this, the LRCBF incels can put down their Title IX lightsabers. -
The way to save the sport is simple. LAWSUIT.
Clemson is in the South. Why doesn't some conservative lawyer want to make a name for himself? Here is how the Title IX statute reads.
The Title IX statute:
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
Clemson didn't cut its men's and women's programs. They only cut the men. Seems like a pretty straightforward sex discrimination suit. Because they are male, they are being denied the opportunity to run track and field at Clemson.
The way Title IX is interpreted needs to be re-done. Take football out of the equation. For all practical purposes, there is no such thing as women's football and I haven't seen a push by anyone to add it at the HS or college level. So just ignore football or call it co-ed football. There is one football team. Men and women can go out for it.
In other sports, we have sports for each sex. Are you discriminating based on sex in those sports? In this case, the answer is clearly yes. -
I always wondered why you never became a lawyer. I still wonder why you and your brother went to different colleges, though.
-
Sponsors have got to take ownership of this. I would say the NCAA but I think if they instituted some sort of "salary cap" or "revenue sharing" football powerhouses would secede.
The big sponsors- Nike, Adidas, etc need to change the game and form some sort of sponsorship coalition stating that they will only sponsor schools that support fully the Olympic sports. Think would be wise to think about getting television contracts building in the same stipulations (and they need to learn to create a viewable sport for their audiences. The truth is that with creativity watching Olympic sports on television could be riveting and cheap [comparative to football and basketball]). -
It’s not really about title ix. That is just the easy scape goat. It is all about money. If it is wasn’t for title ix the women’s program would be cut too. This is about massive football budgets that can’t be met in the current climate.
You won’t see any d3 programs going down this path. -
Based on the phenomenal viewership numbers of NCAA xc, indoor and outdoor track champs? I know you're being idealistic here, but you've got it twisted. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but our sports are marketing dogs. Did sales of adidas spikes see a big uptick after NAU's string of xc wins? I'm guessing not. These brands agree to outfit the entire athletic department just so their logos can be on uniforms and feet for football and basketball tv eyeballs. At lower-tier programs, they supply only the men's basketball and football teams (and maybe offer wholesale pricing for all other sports) as the bidding there is far lower stakes. They're not going to be unhappy to ship half as many running shoes and warmups to a given university if that's the change in direction.
-
rojo wrote:
The way to save the sport is simple. LAWSUIT.
Clemson is in the South. Why doesn't some conservative lawyer want to make a name for himself? Here is how the Title IX statute reads.
The Title IX statute:
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
Clemson didn't cut its men's and women's programs. They only cut the men. Seems like a pretty straightforward sex discrimination suit. Because they are male, they are being denied the opportunity to run track and field at Clemson.
The way Title IX is interpreted needs to be re-done. Take football out of the equation. For all practical purposes, there is no such thing as women's football and I haven't seen a push by anyone to add it at the HS or college level. So just ignore football or call it co-ed football. There is one football team. Men and women can go out for it.
In other sports, we have sports for each sex. Are you discriminating based on sex in those sports? In this case, the answer is clearly yes.
Well that sounds like a winning lawsuit...
"They cut men's track. They're discriminating against male athletes!"
"What about the football team, with 120 men on the roster, 85 full rides, and a bowling alley in the locker room?"
"Football doesn't count!" -
Luv2Run wrote:
If you can find Matt Brown's Extra Points newsletter, he breaks down the Clemson decision pretty well. In short, Clemson did not cut track for financial reasons (as he points out they never made that claim). Clemson just does not want to sponsor men's track any more.
He points out the revenue figures include donations from IPTAY (the booster club) to cover the cost of scholarships so it is not really "revenue" generated from ticket sales, etc. Also other revenue is equipment donations.
An argument often made is that the student-athletes in track are not on full rides (at least not many if any) so they are paying tuition. Well at a school Clemson's size, I am not sure the few track students in a student body of 20,000 undergrads really amounts to much. Clemson's budget was $1.35 BILLION for 2019-2020. At $38K for out of state and let's say 25 guys paying that rate that is just under $1M (and we know they are not all out of state).
Since the argument is not financial, then I think the appeal is less about getting scholarship or coaching positions endowed, it is about priorities.
I completely think the financials are a red herring. I mean, we all know it is, given how much they just invested in their football facilities.
This is 100% about title IX.
The Pandemic is just an excuse. -
Clemson literally pays a single player enough to cover their cross country team lol. It's a joke. What these coaches an athletes need to do is investigate the football program and expose all the wasted legal money i.e. a lazy river and golf course for the players, then the illegal monies from multiple bagmen.
-
Stupid Title IX
At it's start, ok. Now, no good -
The Ghost of Julius Ogaro........
