women's standard's waaay softer than men's

perhaps the male distance running in high school is more competitive than the female competition.

maybe if you spent more time encouraging girls to run, telling them not to be nervous about tampons, telling them females can handle mileage, that everyone can run...

...maybe if you got girls' running to become as competitive as boys' the standards could be raised.

track and field for girls wasn't even an option in most high schools a generation ago, it takes time for people to realize what they can do.

i understand that women's competition in college and high school is less competitive than men's but, I don't believe that subpar performances in women should women's athletics should be rewarded while men's performances in a close comparison should be ignored. 9:00 men's 3k does not equal 11 min women's 3k.

That's funny, I ran a 5:13 1600 and 10:17 3k in high school and I didn't get money thrown at me. It kind of sounds as if you're making a sweeping generalization.

More scholarships available for women's running thanks to title IX thats the reason right there.

AxC wrote:

More scholarships available for women's running thanks to title IX thats the reason right there.

A large number of things coming together. Title IX giving more scholarships to girls (blame football), fewer girls wanting to compete at the college level, the low cost of cross country. I work at a community college, and we have a ton of trouble getting girls. We have three problems. One, high school coaches that think CCs are a step down and should be avoided (I have had high school coaches refuse to pass on student information because "they are better than CC material" despite the fact we have half a dozen girls better than they are). Two, there are a whole lot of really bad Liberal Arts colleges that throw money at bad girls, just to keep the girls Title IX numbers up. Girls who couldnt get a scholarship at the top schools in our division are getting full rides from awful little Liberal Arts schools that have rosters full of 20 minute girls on full rides. And Three. There are a lot of decent girls that just do not want to run after high school...

So smaller talent pool than guys, more money, more inept programs, and more scholarships.

I agree with what you are saying. Why the hell does football need 85 scholarships ? you need that many guys to be getting full rides to sit on their ass and ride the bench ? Also are their any liberal arts schools that do that for men otherwise that sucks ?About the community college thing, I have had friends who have ran for community college teams in oregon and their girls and guy's team were awful for distance, their girl's team especially was way worse than my highschool team.

There should be 170 football scholarships. 85 men 85 women. If women were forced to play football to get the scholarships, in a couple of generations they would start to like it.

Great idea dumb troll. We should have 20 or so football scholarships and then divide the rest up between the other sports, Obviously more to track because more are needed there.

Great idea, football is the one that makes money they should be able to keep it and do with it what they want. Who cares if women's standards are way softer than men's i think women look hot running.

Why do American's always reward mediocrity and celebrate the fact that people are getting up out of their lazy boy chairs ? So what if college girls are runnnig 11 in the two mile or 3k or running 18:30's in the 5k they don't deserve more scholarship money than a guy runnnig 16:20s in the 5k. Anything more than a 11-13 percent difference in gender is ridiculous.

football football wrote:

Great idea, football is the one that makes money they should be able to keep it and do with it what they want. Who cares if women's standards are way softer than men's i think women look hot running.

The vast majority of collegiate football programs lose far more money than they bring in.

football football wrote:

Great idea, football is the one that makes money they should be able to keep it and do with it what they want. Who cares if women's standards are way softer than men's i think women look hot running.

The poster above me is right. Of the 400+ NCAA football programs, on average about 60-70 make money from one year to the next. Fewer than 25 make money on a consistent basis. The average NCAA football program costs nearly ONE MILLION dollars a year more to run than the program brings in. This is obviously skewed by the NCAA DI schools that lose 3-4 million in a year, while some of the DII and DIII programs budgets stay under 250K.

For example our local FBS school here made about 1.5 million this last year (They were very successful) The same program was over 2 million in the red the year before. Overall, they have a fairly substantial net loss over the last twenty years. ESPN and people who want a piece of pie (agents, ect..) sell this idea that College football is worth billions, but the only people that consistently make money on College Football are television and bowl execs. The schools don't.

team pre wrote:

About the community college thing, I have had friends who have ran for community college teams in oregon and their girls and guy's team were awful for distance, their girl's team especially was way worse than my highschool team.

You have to be careful picking CCs, just like you have to be careful picking other colleges. In that particular conference there are probably only two or three good programs. And those programs, and their coaches are VERY good. But the rest of the programs in that conference are bad. Very bad. You can look through the last five years of their championship meet results for both the guys and girls and figure out which two programs I am talking about.

How do you find the info about how much a football program makes ? I mean i bet a school like U of O makes money with their success and their connection to nike but what about a school like portland state or u of w ?

So what then do you deide we do ? If we were to actually make the standards equal then almost no girls would get scholarship money, the majority of competition just isn't deep enough ! WHere are you even getting the formula to compare men's and women's distance times ???

All state schools have to have that sort of thing on file. I dont know specifically how to look up the information, but you can find reports on that sort of thing. The report I read had the 2008 numbers (the most recent he had...the report was written in 2010) and it claimed that there were 67 NCAA schools that made money that year. And 17 NCAA Athletic Programs that were self sufficient. I do know that U of W claims to be 99% self sufficient, mostly due to donors, not money made by football and basketball. That was in the newspaper earlier this year when they were talking about tax money for athletics at WSU.

Paula Radcliffe record is not soft. No one came close to breaking it.

Uhh you have no idea how to compare times between males and females. The difference is not linear, it is exponential. One reason for this is because the top women have bodies that are less curved/more straight, i.e. bodies shaped more like men which give them a bigger advantage over the other women. The men have no such advantage.

The IAAF tables are a decent comparison, they also do account for depth.