UofR Men's Track cut in favor of lacrosse

This is some straight up bs another D1 track team down

HAHAHAHAHAHA, THERE IS ONLY 1 TEAM ANYWAYS! THE MEN OF OREGON!

typical title ix crap. "The cuts were made as a result of Title IX, which requires an equal amount of money and scholarships allotted to men’s and women’s athletics on college campuses. With the athletics department electing to bring the men’s lacrosse team up to varsity level, the decision had to be made whether to add another women’s sport or cut one or more men’s sports."

So instead of bringing up women towards so-called equality, they hold the men back. this is why universities and title ix are living in a backwards world.

Lacrosse is a sport people actually watch. Maybe these track teams should bring in some revenue if they don't want to be cut.

Others have ranted on this:

As near as I could tell from a quick look at the Spiders' 2011-12 season, the track team had NO scoring meets outside of their indoor/outdoor conference meets.

Can people *really* not understand what goes through the heads of athletic directors/alumni/general fans of a college's teams? The indoor and outdoor teams never came back from a meet (except conference) with a score! WHAT KIND OF SPORT DOESN'T HAVE SCORES? Oh, yeah--the kind that's easy to cut, when crunch time comes.

If people (and I definitely include coaches) want The Sport to be *treated* like a sport, they need to make a commitment to ATTEND SCORING MEETS AND COMPILE A SEASON'S RECORD. Don't have a proper facility for a meet? Make a contact and invite yourself to someone's else's! Do some work! Try to get in a dual or triangular meet or two ("What are those?"), and give your third high jumper or shot putter a chance to contribute meaningfully to the team.

Yeah, yeah, I know: "It's too hard to develop an all-events program. Besides, I just wanna coach distance runners--why should I have to learn how to coach hurdlers and pole vaulters and javelin throwers?" Why? For the same reason you'd coach linemen in football and centers in basketball--because *that's part of developing a complete team*.

[NOTE: I am speaking generally, NOT about the Richmond track coaches. I know zero about the specific coaching situation at Richmond--but a lot about the situation at some other schools, where men's t&f has been cut.]

Can people *really* be surprised that men's track and field teams keep getting cut? They usually have a pretty large number of participants; cut the team (why not? they never have TEAM competitions, outside of conference) and you free a lot of participation slots to solve your Title IX problem.

I'm sad as hell to see yet another men's team fold. I can't say I'm surprised, though.

Trollist wrote:

Lacrosse is a sport people actually watch. Maybe these track teams should bring in some revenue if they don't want to be cut.

Another sport only/mainly played in USA.

Lacrosse gets leverage because of well-heeled alumni - lacrosse has a reputation as a "fraternity sport".

You know what I mean.

So if T&F is so bad, then why didn't they cut the women's team also? Why just the men's team?

Who watches lacrosse? Are there any money-making lacrosse teams in the NCAA?

Bummer wrote:

So if T&F is so bad, then why didn't they cut the women's team also? Why just the men's team?

Title IX. As trivial as it may be, there is a reason to keep throwing away money for a women's team.

Bummer wrote:

So if T&F is so bad, then why didn't they cut the women's team also? Why just the men's team?

Because they didn't want to increase the number of student athletes at the school. It is a small school and they liked to maintain a certain ratio of student/athletes:"Normal" student.

If people had really been interested in T/F, the alums should have put their money where their mouth is. It sounds like that is what someone did for lacrosse.

codger wrote: Another sport only/mainly played in USA.

False. It's the national sport of Canada (not hockey). Played also in UK, Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany, Czech Republic, Ireland, Japan, Austria, Korea, Spain, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Slovakia, and Netherlands.

Let me phrase this differently. If no one is interested in T&F and no one is backing T&F with money, then why not cut the entire T&F program which would include both men and women? I guess this question is aimed at those who do not believe that Title 9 has anything to do with what is happening to some of the men's sports programs throughout the nation. You can say I don't understand Title 9 in its entirety, and you would be correct. However, whether it is Title 9 or not Title 9, it is hard to argue that men's sports are the ones being discriminated against. So once again, why not cut T&F for both men and women?

Let me phrase this differently. If no one is interested in T&F and no one is backing T&F with money, then why not cut the entire T&F program which would include both men and women? I guess this question is aimed at those who do not believe that Title 9 has anything to do with what is happening to some of the men's sports programs throughout the nation. You can say I don't understand Title 9 in its entirety, and you would be correct. However, whether it is Title 9 or not Title 9, it is hard to argue that men's sports are the ones being discriminated against. So once again, why not cut T&F for both men and women?

sorry about the double post

Dropped men's soccer also. You don't think they're pissed?

If they cut women's sports to add lacrosse, they would definitely be violating provisions of Title IX. However, if they added lacrosse without cutting men's track and soccer, they wouldn't necessarily be violating anything. There's no indication that the NCAA was investigating them for Title IX infractions.

Even if Title IX was an issue, they could easily enough correct it by moving women's volleyball up to varsity status (they're club right now).

This is all about money and greed and appearances on the part of a few people in leadership positions. To put it simply: Those in these positions are looking to save face and say they "generated revenue" and built facilities for their institutions during their tenure. They don't care about the school. They care about their vita.

College leadership no longer sees their role as creating opportunities and participation for the sake of education in and outside of the classroom. Presidents are fundraisers and ADs are spin doctors with the job of helping the institution create a marketing brand. Except at Ohio State, Texas, Notre Dame, etc...the entire business model DOES NOT WORK IN COLLEGE ATHLETICS! 685 schools should STOP tryting to be like 15 places that are essentially diploma mills.

Would a school cut the philosophy department because it isn't "making money"? Would a school cut women's soccer because it isn't "making money"? Would the school cut counseling services because it isn't "making money"? Of course not. Why cut men's wrestling, men's swimming, our sports? Because Title IX says they can without repercussions. Besides, we're an easy target because we don't even keep score, no one understands the score anyway, our competitions last as long as 3 days, and we're terribly fractured when it comes to presenting a unified product.

Go ahead and change Title IX. It will only get worse for cross country and track & field because then ADs would cut women's teams to save even MORE money. Plus, there is no one complaining about practice facility usage or too many injured athletes in the training room that no one knows how to treat anyway. No one seems interested in touching Title IX politically. The schools simply use prong 3 as an excuse to not be compliant with Title IX.

It's an easy way to get what athletic administrations want which is an athletic department that consists of solely of a football and a men's basketball team. Honestly, how many ADs would opt for just two sports if given complete freedom to make that choice? I'd say the vast majority nowadays (unless they are a woman or have daughters in sports).

It just goes to say that the entire way of THINKING is screwed up with ADs. The athletic department is supposed to represent equality and fairness and opportunities to learn from winning and losing and how you play the game. It's not about that anymore. It's about "branding". It's about appeasing a few well-heeled donors. It's about getting a sliver of the TV pie and dreaming of GENERATING REVENUE (and hiding the fact that you're losing money hand over fist on the general ledger).

NCAA Division I administrators, by in large, have simply lost their way. What is really silly are those administrators in D2 and D3 who 'think like D1 administrators' and show favortism, have a tiered system in place, spend a lot more money on certain sports, and generally and pitifully tug on the sleeves of their Division I brethren and follow their poor example.

To "It is what it is": Very well put!

Here is the deal with lacrosse. The people who love lacrosse throw money at the sport. The youth have tournaments where they play multiple games per day all day. They have passion for the sport and it shows.

Second reason, lacrosse manufacters spend money on advertisements and ad space. Lots of money.

You dont have to be tall or have elite speed (though it would help) or overy strong. Check out the height and weight of last years NCAA final MVP. Very average size but has great stick skills and can shoot. Now lax fans can get on my nerves because they think they are the greatest athletes in history but colleges would be crazy to ignore the sport.

How many former runners here give money to their school and time to coaching youth running ? Not enough.