Refuse to run until mens teams have been restored, or transfer out. By running for a school that has cut mens programs, you are directly supporting inequality.
Refuse to run until mens teams have been restored, or transfer out. By running for a school that has cut mens programs, you are directly supporting inequality.
Its not that easy in every case, but in a lot of cases, yes you can't have a woman's team with only 4-5 runners on scholarship.
Oh really? Because I'm sure if the situation was flipped, all of the guys who considered themselves supporters of equality would definitely quit collegiate athletics. Chill out
chill out? you obviously have never had your program cut. it sucks. bad.
ima female wrote:
Oh really? Because I'm sure if the situation was flipped, all of the guys who considered themselves supporters of equality would definitely quit collegiate athletics. Chill out
Women would certainly ask them to, just like the OP asked women to.
It wasn't that long ago that many schools had only men's teams. I don't remember too many men refusing to run or transferring in protest.
And women refusing to participate would be ineffective anyway. The school would just start women's crew or field hockey or whatever.
dukerdog wrote:
It wasn't that long ago that many schools had only men's teams. I don't remember too many men refusing to run or transferring in protest.
Not that I think women should quit in protest, but:
that's a bad comparison. There is a huge difference between cutting men's sports and never having had women's sports.
Why not ask the members of the other men's sports teams on campus to boycott as a show of solidarity? Imagine the stir if the University of Delaware Men's BBall team refused to take the court...
ima female wrote:
Oh really? Because I'm sure if the situation was flipped, all of the guys who considered themselves supporters of equality would definitely quit collegiate athletics. Chill out
I'm a guy, but I'd advocate the same thing if women's teams were getting cut right and left like men's are.
Eventually we are going to see absurd walk on standards, where women can run D1 track and xc with times that are a joke, but men have to have all state credentials or close to it to even walk on at D3 colleges. This to me is not right. Everyone who is relatively talented and has put in mileage and work should have the opportunity to compete in college athletics.
How about the football team. Why don't you just get the football team to give up their scholorships in protest. That is where all the money goes anyway.
Why would the football team need 85 scholorships. I would be curious to see how many of them actually play in a year.
radical wrote:
[quote]ima female wrote:
Eventually we are going to see absurd walk on standards, where women can run D1 track and xc with times that are a joke, but men have to have all state credentials or close to it to even walk on at D3 colleges. This to me is not right. Everyone who is relatively talented and has put in mileage and work should have the opportunity to compete in college athletics.
One D1 nearby won't let women walk-on unless they have a PR of at least 19:30.
If I had five girls running 19:30s my women's team would place 7th at JUCO Nationals.
So, I am all for women having stricter scholarship and walk-on standards.
What drives me crazy, is schools such as Minnesota with 75+ women on the XC roster who may never race. I'd like to have 10 of their third-string and beyond women.
And that being said, maybe some guys need to be running at the JUCO level insead of trying to hang on at schools where they don't belong.
I ran D1 at a Big Ten school -- tried to anyway -- and it was a mistake as I maybe had D2 talent.
eeaaww wrote:
Not that I think women should quit in protest, but:
that's a bad comparison. There is a huge difference between cutting men's sports and never having had women's sports.
That's true - never having had women's sports is a much greater injustice.
In the case of cutting men's programs at least some men had a chance for awhile. In the case of never having had women's sports no woman was ever given a chance.
paulski66 wrote:
Imagine the stir if the University of Delaware Men's BBall team refused to take the court...
Hahahahaha. Those guys don't even know that Delaware ever had an XC team.
The solution is to remove football from the equation. There are many ways to do that. Easiest is to just not count football scholarships. Football may be the biggest revenue sport at most schools but it also has the largest expenses. I believe it is a myth that football funds everything else.
Football ruins it for all other sports. I am not against football but there is no analogous women's sport that sucks 80 scholarships so we have to cut track, XC, volleyball, swimming, gymnastics, etc to make up for it.
The spirit of Title IX is right, but the execution is wrong. I am sure the spirit was to give women equal opportunity not destory men's athletics. Title IX should say equal number of scholarships sport by sport, not overall number of athletes or overall number of scholarships. Just think, if there's a women's synchronous swimming team we would have to have an equal number of scholarships for men in that sport!
ptboos wrote:
How about the football team. Why don't you just get the football team to give up their scholorships in protest. That is where all the money goes anyway.
Why would the football team need 85 scholorships. I would be curious to see how many of them actually play in a year.
I do not watch football or support it in any way and am for the downsizing of football teams. IMO, football teams should be no bigger than 50 players, with 10-15 scholarships. I would actually like it if football was abolished as a sport altogether, but I understand that some people like to watch it for some reason...
People shouldn't have to compromise their education too much in order to run. I can understand going to a state university instead of say Stanford to run and I think thats alright. But not for someone who had the grades to get into Stanford to have to go to a JUCO so they can run.JucoJohnny wrote:
radical wrote:[quote]ima female wrote:
Eventually we are going to see absurd walk on standards, where women can run D1 track and xc with times that are a joke, but men have to have all state credentials or close to it to even walk on at D3 colleges. This to me is not right. Everyone who is relatively talented and has put in mileage and work should have the opportunity to compete in college athletics.
And that being said, maybe some guys need to be running at the JUCO level insead of trying to hang on at schools where they don't belong.
I ran D1 at a Big Ten school -- tried to anyway -- and it was a mistake as I maybe had D2 talent.
radical wrote:
Eventually we are going to see absurd walk on standards, where women can run D1 track and xc with times that are a joke, but men have to have all state credentials or close to it to even walk on at D3 colleges. This to me is not right. Everyone who is relatively talented and has put in mileage and work should have the opportunity to compete in college athletics.
Don't you know? When there's inequalities, the goal is to regress the top tier towards the mean, not accelerate the bottom towards the top. The girls with joke times that walk on might do slightly better (though still poor) by being on the team!
It's the same way that some schools will drop the honors programs because the below average kids tend to do better when they're put in a classroom with the top kids. Forget that this limits and retards the top kids developments, the bottom kids are doing slightly better!
radical wrote:
Eventually we are going to see absurd walk on standards, where women can run D1 track and xc with times that are a joke, but men have to have all state credentials ..
Eventually? dude we're there.. I ran at a small school and the girls that got money were truely bad, some weren't even the top runner at their HS, certainly not Region or State Champions. The few guys that got cash had some good wins and high places under their belts. The level of competition that women face is a joke, esp. in HS.
So I have this friend who is a good runner; 1:51 guy so not great but good. He was running for a college who had Title IX issues and the coach actually came to the men's team and asked if anyone knew any females who wanted a scholarship. Anyone. The stipulations were that the girl had to come to practice and HAD to travel with the team and HAD to race. That was it. Full ride. Well, this guy's sister (who does not run competitively but was an average athlete) took the money. So, he ran for the school competitively and she was on the team and got the cash.
See, Title IX works for everyone.
TItle IX is great wrote:
So I have this friend who is a good runner; 1:51 guy so not great but good. He was running for a college who had Title IX issues and the coach actually came to the men's team and asked if anyone knew any females who wanted a scholarship. Anyone. The stipulations were that the girl had to come to practice and HAD to travel with the team and HAD to race. That was it. Full ride. Well, this guy's sister (who does not run competitively but was an average athlete) took the money. So, he ran for the school competitively and she was on the team and got the cash.
See, Title IX works for everyone.
Nothing wrong with that. God bless America, the land of opportunity.