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

909 wrote:

His job???? Get it, HIS???? Why is the AD always a MALE?

An athletic director is just an old football or basketball coach who got HIS job because of the former position that HE was coaching in. HE got his job because HE was some third string football player who was coddled through out HIS playing days at some "football" glory school and could not find a job in the "real world" because the only reason that HE got into college and graduated from that colege is because the football team offers 85 scholarships to knuckle heads who can barely read or write, but can sure play football.................

How many FEMALE AD's are ther out there? Maybe the world would be a better place!

Wow- maybe you missed the part where I said we need to operate in reality.

True, there are not many female ADs, but there are not a lot of female college Presidents, or US senators, or CEOs.

Also I find it funny that you appear to be a crazed feminist, yet you immediately jump to old stereotypes of ADs and football players. Yes, there are idiot footballers, but not all XC and track athletes are Rhodes scholars.

Put your emotions in check and work on making a case for keeping the track team. If you make this an Either/Or referendum on Track or Football you might as well start packing up the hurdles, and raffel off the high jump pit.

909 wrote:

How many FEMALE AD's are ther out there? Maybe the world would be a better place!

In Division II and III approximately 33-36%

In Division I, about 13%

16x...the last 3 paragraphs that you cited from the Women's Sports Foundation is well written - I like it.

What I meant by my comments earlier (women's groups don't like how it is now) is exactly what that statement say - don't reduce men's opportunities in the name of a revenue sports "arms race". Title IX was NEVER meant to cut men's opportunities. I'm not concerned with anything but the sports end of this law right now, but certainly overall Title IX has made breakthroughs.

I don't like the current 3 prong system for determining compliance. Perhaps that model has changed, but its just inherently wrong.

I have 2 arguments in all of this.

1. Football (and ice hockey at many schools) KILLS the other sports in the name of Title IX. Most colleges still don't have women's ice hockey, so these two sports have a high cost of operation with absolutely no counter on the women's side (save field hockey in some cases). Until football is kept out of Title IX calculations, this will always be a problem.

2. There is an unwritten fact that no one will ever say because it is largely unpopular and hard to give evidence. OVERALL, MEN ARE MORE COMPETITIVE THEN WOMEN. Before people bash me for that statement, I just want to explain what I mean as it pertains to this argument.

When I was at Miami in the early 90's, we actually had to make cuts from over 50 guys to the mid 40's. The women's team at the same time could not field a full team at the conference meet (30 people).

I can't explain why, but I believe guys just like competitive situations more often for longer into adulthood than women. We're more likely to play in baseball leagues, basketball leagues, flag football, run road races, etc...

So how is it fair to have "equal opportunities" for women if their isn't equal desire? I'd be all for it if they could fill up teams at the college level as easily as men's teams do.

The fact that women are not as competative, or as interested in sports as men is not something people like to talk about. Look at the depth of any typical XC race and you will see this to be the case. Whether on the collegiate or HS level.

On some collegiate teams the women that are getting money to run is a total joke.

Title IX is like any government effort to "make things fair." You end up with quotas. So maybe you have a law that says you should treat all races and sexes fairly and not discriminate. That sounds great, hard to argue against that. But then you get into enforcement of the law or regulation. What comes out of it is, "you need to have X percent of your work force as minorities, or you are no longer in compliance an therefore open to lawsuits etc.." Then those in charge look at the bottom line and focus their hiring practices on hitting the number. You can't really blame them.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So yeah, title ix wasn't passed with the idea that men's teams should or would be cut, but that is the cheapest and easiest way to comply.

"True, there are not many female ADs, but there are not a lot of female college Presidents, or US senators, or CEOs.

Also I find it funny that you appear to be a crazed feminist, yet you immediately jump to old stereotypes of ADs and football players. Yes, there are idiot footballers, but not all XC and track athletes are Rhodes scholars"

Jizzmo:

Old stereotypes?????? Just in case you missed this from ESPN today (Feb. 21): (sorry, I did not find any T&F athletes run afoul of the law today..........)

Montana St. loses scholarships for low graduation rate Associated Press

BOZEMAN, Mont. -- Montana State's football program will lose three scholarships next season after failing to attain NCAA academic standards.

University administrators on Tuesday vowed to make improvements in academic support for athletes and in recruiting efforts, two areas cited for improvement in a report requested by President Geoff Gamble.

While the report, written by officials from the NCAA, the Southeastern Conference and the Big Sky Conference, found many strengths in the university's current athletic procedures, it suggested several improvements, particularly in recruiting, academic and social mentoring programs and in the graduation rate of MSU football players.

The scholarship penalty, which means the football program will operate with the equivalent of 60 instead of the 63 grants, was assessed because the Bobcats lagged behind the required standard in the NCAA's Academic Progress Rate, which monitors graduation success.

This is the second time in several years that the MSU football program of head coach Mike Kramer has lost scholarships because of the APR deficiency.

"It was a concern and is a concern," said Peter Fields, MSU's athletic director. "It's been a topic of conversation with Coach Kramer and myself. ... The things that we're working to put in place now are geared toward the academic progress of our student-athletes."

or:

Cincinnati investigating possible recruiting violationsESPN.com news services

The University of Cincinnati is investigating allegations that current football players and recruits engaged in sex acts with a former soccer player during a recruiting visit, according to published reports.

UC spokesman Greg Hand said on Tuesday that the university is "conducting an investigation."

The allegations reportedly came from an anonymous letter dated Feb. 14 that was sent to UC president Nancy Zimpher, Daniel Cummins, the director of judicial affairs, and Barbara Rinto, the director of the UC Women's Center. The note was signed, "A Concerned Athletic Department Employee" according to the reports.

The Cincinnati Post reported that according to the letter, there were four University of Cincinnati football players and four football recruits allegedly involved in the incident. The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that the letter said the sex acts took place during a party at which alcohol was served, the sex acts were videotaped and the tapes have been circulated in UC dormitories.

"I've been in a college environment long enough to know that any kind of allegations need to be thoroughly looked at," football coach Brian Kelly said about the reports. "Everything that I heard should be taken seriously and should be handled by the appropriate people."

I would not agree that women are inherently less competitive on athletics, but I would agree that they have had opportunity for less number of years.

For instance, my grandmother played no sports, nor did my mom, because it was not offered. Therefore, my grandmother and my mother preferred that I learn to sew and cook rather than participate in sports. My sport teams were among the very first teams in the state of Ohio. I participated in track during one of the first years it was offered at BGSU. My grandfather and father both played sports. My grandfather lettered in varsity track at Ohio State 1926-1929 BEFORE Jesse Owens and my dad was a letter winner in cross country at Miami in the mid 50's. The first girl's state track meet in Ohio was 1975 (around there).

Until you have the same history, you cannot know if women will eventually participate in sports and stay in sports as the same rate as men.

So, with a seventy some year deficit, you will not know for some time whether girls are encouraged less to participate in sports, or whether there is something inherently different between the two sexes when it comes to sports.

It is fair to have gender equalization because women's sports do not have a one hundred year history.

are women less interested in laws and policy? what if we determine that they are less interested because we have so few women in the senate and house of representatives? That would not be a fair assessment, socially or scientifically.

You need to go back and see the 60 minute show from 3 years ago when they interviewed women coaches. Many said the same thing Kieser said. They have trouble getting women out for their teams compared to men teams. One coach who team won a National Championship in Lacrosse say she has a much harder time getting women out for the team.. She said the men's team usually has twice the interest. They even had colleges on the show advertising Scholarships for Crew - No Experience Necessary.

How can any college justify cutting men’s track and field when it is one of the most popular sport at the high school level.

a 60 minute episode is not going to be enough evidence to convince me of anything. I don't rely on that type of data to process my thinking. I rely on the statistical evidence that has shown since Title IX was enacted the annual increase of girl's partitipcation has increased 150% and will continue. It's only been since 1972.

I don't have an answer to why a college can justify cutting anything, I only know, it isn't a Title IX thing, regardless of what they tell you.

Since 1972, every girl or women has had basically the same opportunity .. we aren't talking about your grandmother here. Kiese’s comments and the 60 minutes show is saying there is not the same about of interest in the women sports as men..those are facts and I would think after 30 plus years of Title IX there would be..But it is Not the Case. So hopefully - “your thinking” would be on “facts”.

I agree with your second comment..

runohio and keiser:

Don't talk about my Miami like you know what you are talking about. The minority issue had nothing to do with the saving of men's track at Miami so get off your high horse. Nothing. You love to talk like you the man. You ain't.

Men's sports teams are always larger than women's since men let every warm body out for the team. Lots of them are worse athletes than the women. The women don't let everyone out. Don't hold that against in your argument.

MAC guy 2 wrote:

Since 1972, every girl or women has had basically the same opportunity .. we aren't talking about your grandmother here. Kiese’s comments and the 60 minutes show is saying there is not the same about of interest in the women sports as men..those are facts and I would think after 30 plus years of Title IX there would be..But it is Not the Case. So hopefully - “your thinking” would be on “facts”.

I agree with your second comment..

you are very misinformed if you think that the opportunities have been anywhere close to equal at the time of enactment, and today. Men's budgets at the university level are still 70% greater than female budgets. I'm not making that up. The number of total opportunities at the college level are no where close to equal. It would be a very tough case (in fact it was when Brown University tried to use the same argument) to say that men have less opportunity to play sports and get less funding than women.

It is important in the argument against something you see as injustice, to not be fighting windmills, but to have your facts in order. That goes beyond 60 minute shows where someone has hand picked who they are going to interview. I am not trying to put you down. I am just very tired of the 'we aren't as interested in physical activity' argument. History is important to know.

We need an end to the recent rhetoric that implies that equality for women results in the destruction of men’s sports and that female athletes aren’t as interested in playing sports as their male counterparts. That is what some would have you believe.

“Men's budgets at the university level are still 70% greater than female budgets. I'm not making that up.”

DA…. AHH that is because of Football.

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.

Most men would be part of a college team (besides basketball and football) with or without a scholarship at the division I level. Yet most women would not…again not me saying it a number of women Division I coaches have said that.

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

Let’s talk coaching salaries now. Show a women’s basketball coach get the same pay as the men’s. OSU sells out for the men’s games and makes a lot more on endorsements advertising and TV revenue than the women’s team.

OSU women average less than half of the fans at a game than men.

Have you gone to any women’s basketball games? The NCAA for men is usually a sell out the women games are not

Those are some Hard Facts..

If you think they should get paid the same you need to get into the Real World!!

But lets get back to Track and Field....and OU which is what this tread is about....

Great idea to get people out for the meet…Maybe contact the TV stations. Let then know what is going on…

Lets all wear Green in support of the OU Men’s Track and Field program. Or if you are from another MAC school which dropped their men’s track and field program wear your Ball State, BGSU, Toledo or Western Michigan t-shirts

We need to do something…get INVOLVED..Contact as many people as you can…Get the word out.

Maybe all schools affected can work together to get Men’s Track & Field – Back at ALL Schools

legally blond and 16X are you the same and based on your info your posted are you S.A.

MAC guy 2 wrote:

Most men would be part of a college team (besides basketball and football) with or without a scholarship at the division I level. Yet most women would not…again not me saying it a number of women Division I coaches have said that.

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

she has a good point. look at it this way, if tomorrow, legislation passed that said football teams had to have size equality on their team, representing the physical attributes of the enrolled student body, it would take a while before 5'8", 150 lbs guys were standard players, although they're all over campus. my guess is that it probably would not be because the average sized guy likes football less than big guys, but because averaged sized guys are brought up to believe that they're not built for football, that only big guys belong on the field, and that they should persue other interests.

rixctf wrote:

[quote]MAC guy 2 wrote:

Most men would be part of a college team (besides basketball and football) with or without a scholarship at the division I level. Yet most women would not…again not

she has a good point. look at it this way, if tomorrow, legislation passed that said football teams had to have size equality on their team, representing the physical attributes of the enrolled student body, it would take a while before 5'8", 150 lbs guys were standard players, although they're all over campus. my guess is that it probably would not be because the average sized guy likes football less than big guys, but because averaged sized guys are brought up to believe that they're not built for football, that only big guys belong on the field, and that they should persue other interests.

So following your example, if that legislation passed how would you comply? Would you try to beef up the small guys to get bigger our would you simply cut all those that did not meet the size requirement?

That is how ADs are complying with Title IX.

Jizzmo wrote:

So following your example, if that legislation passed how would you comply? Would you try to beef up the small guys to get bigger our would you simply cut all those that did not meet the size requirement?

That is how ADs are complying with Title IX.

let's not get that into my example. i'm just saying the apparent interest women have in sports is not independent of social influences, and these social influences are not designed to be in the best interest of an individual woman.

i really feel when a little girl is born, she has just as much potential to become interested in sports as a boy. parents don't encourage this with girls as much, i'm guessing, because it's seen as a dead end endeavor. without that encouragement, the little girl doesn't develop an interest in sports. but, if you convince parents that their little girl's participation in sports isn't a dead end, and that it might lead to free higher educations, then the parents might be more likely to encourage that participation and x years later you get a girl who's really into sports. now she's into sports and raises other little girls who play sports.

and then they tell two friends, and then they tell two friends, and then they tell two friends...

Sovacool...if that's you busting my tomatoes I'll get you later. Otherwise, whoever wrote to me and "runohio" telling us to "get off high horses" and such you made NO sense. That was an incomprehensible post. What were you trying to say??? Maybe you go to the Hamilton branch if you are in fact a Miamian. I never said black athletes were the reason track at Miami was saved, but looking at it now I guess that couldn't hurt.

In response to 16x...

I am a high school girls coach for track and cc (no boys, just girls). I have first hand knowledge of this topic and I think you will lose the argument that dates back into the 50's and 60's.

Today's high school girls are between 14-18 years old which means for the most part they were born in 1990 or later. In their lifetimes, they have been exposed to every form of sport available - gender not being an issue. By the time they get to high school, they choose not to be as competitive in sports. Boys and their testosterone keep going while girls slowly move away from sports and towards talking about boys.

You may not like that paragraph, but as a high school teacher I witness it first hand every day. If you want statistics, look up how many boys and girls participated in Ohio high school cross country last year. Its not close.

And yes, you CAN categorize girls and boys academically as well, as its been proven for decades. Guys like math and science better and girls perform better in English. These are trends, not absolutes, so I realize that there are plenty of exceptions. I'm trying to paint the overall picture.

Someone else posted it saying that our society is bending over backwards trying to give girls these opportunities. At what point do we realize enough is enough?

Also, again to the guy who says I'm on the high horse (whatever that means)...There are so many girls in Div I colleges that have ZERO business being on the team, but not only are they on teams, they are getting scholarship money, while talented guys - sub 4:20 types can't even walk on because of quotas. As a matter of fact 5 years ago our 8th girl even got a small scholarship from a local Div I school because they were so desperate for numbers. She never once ran varsity for us.

Kieser wrote:

In response to 16x...

Today's high school girls are between 14-18 years old which means for the most part they were born in 1990 or later. In their lifetimes, they have been exposed to every form of sport available - gender not being an issue. By the time they get to high school, they choose not to be as competitive in sports. Boys and their testosterone keep going while girls slowly move away from sports and towards talking about boys.

but they are in direct contact with, and being raised by men and women (parents, grandparents, etc.) who were born before 1990, right? that's why i don't think this has reached a steady state, we need a few generations to flush out the prejudices.