University is New Mexico Track/XC still alive, but forced to reduce track/XC roster size

celery wrote:

Let's put the Title IX issue in the simplest terms possible; generally speaking, boys like sports more than girls, but they are only allowed to have as many opportunities to play sports as girls have. In that spirit, I think we should advocate for a new law that says beautician schools must enter equal numbers of male and female students. Doesn't that seem entirely reasonable and fair?

Exactly! Or have the same amount of elementary school teachers between men and women, etc... We've gone way past the original point of Title IX as far as getting women participating in sports to a place now where men are openly discriminated against. But men are a part of a class that can't be discriminated against in the eyes of the "societal change" types so our objections will just fall on deaf ears.

Why do these schools always need to cut things for budgetary reasons? Why don't they just have more money?

I guarantee my school spends way more money on sports than UNM (my schools athletic department total expenses were $138,724,055 for the 2016-2017 year), and they don't go around crying about how they need to cut sports and roster spots for financial reasons.

Title IX isn't the issue here. Cutting spending is the issue. They could spend more if they wanted to, but they don't.

The academics at UNM are pretty light, so he is pretty much all of his foreign athletes are able to qualify for the Amigo Scholarship that covers a half ride, so he is essentially able to double his scholarship allocation (the 10 becomes 20). He has a perverse incentive to recruit foreigners over athletes from the region.

So their crappy football team still brings in money?.. And how much money do all of the female sports bring in?

Perhaps this is why dudes are masquerading, I mean identifying, as chicks.

Wow. My small d2 college now has a bigger men's XC and track roster than UNM. Ridiculous.

This has nothing to do with Title IX. You don't cut women's sports for title 9 requirements. Its all budget, so they can pay more to useless administrators and assistant coaches.

stop being poor wrote:

Why do these schools always need to cut things for budgetary reasons? Why don't they just have more money?

I guarantee my school spends way more money on sports than UNM (my schools athletic department total expenses were $138,724,055 for the 2016-2017 year), and they don't go around crying about how they need to cut sports and roster spots for financial reasons.

Its absolutely necessary to fly the team to Paul Short, Washington, and meets in California! Meets within driving distance wouldn't work, do you expect student athletes to sit in a van like plebs? Why the nerve! Oh and we have to raise the senior assistant vice president of grounds pay again this year. Don't you know he needs a 2nd mercedes!

UNMischief wrote:

Wow. My small d2 college now has a bigger men's XC and track roster than UNM. Ridiculous.

Smaller schools are often more devoted to sports than larger ones. For d2s and d3s, non scholarship athletes often pick their school because of the sport and they bring money to the school.

You and your friends whining about Title IX must have no sisters and no daughters? Comparing female enrollment in biology versus engineering is irrelevant. It makes sense colleges/universities attempt to keep the percentage of women in overall student body close to equal to their athletic participation. Rojo, you ignored college football! How can you engage in a discussion of Title IX and ignore college football? 85 athletic scholarships for D1 football is ridiculous. That means college football teams maintain five quarterbacks and eight tailbacks. Athletes in stamina/endurance sports should stick together: swimming, Nordic skiing and T&F. When a former XC/T&F athlete such as your self sees cuts like this and you decide to blame Title IX and the females and hold no visible contempt for American football, XC and track & field will suffer. It's seems runners are afraid of American football players.

The big lie wrote:

Tell a lie over and over nearly everyone will eventually be fooled. The big lie: college football always is profitable for college/university. When football stadium is packed on Saturdays; when college football team plays in a large conference with nationally televised games, sure. Forensic accounts need to look at football at U of N.M.

agree-for most power 5 programs-ie. Michigan, Stanford football is a cash cow, but as you say if you have a bad program such as UMN, and you are playing to half-empty stadiums it is a big drain on other programs that actually are successful--squeaky wheel gets the grease I guess....

When I ran in college back in the dark ages of US distance running, our coach allowed ANYONE to walk on. No roster limits. This was truly an equal and open playing field for each sex. 1st day was usually 25 women and about 50 men. By the end of the XC season, it was approximately half of that for both men and women due to other priorities and attrition. About twice as many men wanted to participate as women. The ratio was pretty consistent over the years.

Now the same school has roster limits (16 I believe) for men and pretty much an unlimited women's roster. Want to guess how many women they have? Less than 20.

There is no Football equivalent for women (100 players). If that sport was removed from the equation, we would find an unreasonable number of opportunities for women vs. men. In addition, more men are likely to WANT to participate in college sports. Title IX has limited opportunities for men in order to artificially increase opportunity for women.

rojo wrote:

Doesn't the fact that UNM is 55.4% female show us that men and women like different things, are better at different things, etc?

Indeed, it shows that women now value higher education more than men and are better at achieving it than men are. If you look at national statistics across demographic groups, the real question is why only 55.4% female?

Clearly, UNM massively screwed up by not regularly reviewing title 9 compliance, and as other posters have indicated, their cash flow from football won’t support multiple sports. Basically, they are achieving compliance and stopping cash hemmoriaging by cutting multiple sports (male and female) and massively expanding women’s cross country & track and field roster spots because they are cheap to administrate. Pretty cynical, but so it goes.

ironside wrote:

Rojo, you ignored college football! How can you engage in a discussion of Title IX and ignore college football? 85 athletic scholarships for D1 football is ridiculous. That means college football teams maintain five quarterbacks and eight tailbacks. Athletes in stamina/endurance sports should stick together: swimming, Nordic skiing and T&F. When a former XC/T&F athlete such as your self sees cuts like this and you decide to blame Title IX and the females and hold no visible contempt for American football, XC and track & field will suffer. It's seems runners are afraid of American football players.

I didn't ignore college football at all. When people say they want college football/basketball athlets paid, I am adamently opposed to it. People say, "They are being exploited." I say they aren't and then add, "Do you want there to be a cross country team, a women's basketball team, etc." Guess what - men's college football and basketball pay for it at many schools.

Plus college football is the reason why so many mediocre women get college track scholarships. There are 18 women's scholarships per school and only 12 for men. So I"m not ignoring it at all. Women's track gets funding to compensate for football. It's really the exact opposite of what you are saying.

Title IX sucks and creates unhealthy dynamics. At my university we literally recruited women off the street to off set numbers. We promised them a free pair of shoes and made minimal requirements to be on the team and have access to all facilities and benefits of a regular student athlete. As a result we had over “50” on the women’s XC team but rarely more than 15-20 ever showed up and many were “running” 30 + min 5ks.

For the men’s XC team we only had 8 roster spots and 2 distance spots on the track roster. As a result because of lack of depth there was great pressure to train and race while injured. We also had to turn down a lot of guys that could have immediately impacted the team if not within 1-2 yrs including some guys that placed top ten at the hs state meet and where faster than some of our recruited athletes.

I pushed hard for the coaches to create an environment where these types could come train with us on their own initiative with hopes of walking in when a roster spot opens up or someone quits but unfortunately due to the nature of the environment, scandals and athletes/coaches quitting left and right this never happened.

Personally i agree that rules/laws are needed but the reality is they are meant to be put into place to create healthy boundaries/environments, empower, create freedom and opportunities. When they don’t they no longer serve their purpose and need to be destroyed. Title IX unfortunately is not the solution.

I’m totally onboard for empowering women and women’s freedom and get that as a culture we have screwed over the other gender for centuries but the spirit of this law looks a lot like the same spirit that oppressed women in the past. This time it has just switched which gender to oppress and which one to empower in the process.

It would be like MLKs I have a dream speech being twisted to the tone of let’s put whites into slavery for what they did to us. It’s the same spirit. Or in least this case it’s the same spirit Title IX is being interpreted and enforced in.

I think you're onto something there,from a 'logical/philosophical' point of view, but logic and government action don't belong in the same sentence. They're like a Hegelian dialectic trying to find conclusion but it's never going to happen. Government never 'rules' by logic but by force...do what we say or else.

I wonder if Title IX is responsible for some smaller schools going D3. I know of two in my local area/state that have done that in the past few years. They don't say it's Title IX, but I wonder if that has to be a partial reason. Wouldn't look good to just up and axe all men's programs or bleed them slowly over a decade or something, so voila` we'll just go D3 and be done with it.

I partially agree with the legal challenge: maybe if more men started bringing lawsuits to challenge things like this...I mean, if I were a male athlete in a program that got gut and I was only getting a partial scholarship (say 15-20%), aren't some of my tuition/room&board costs out of pocket probably a source of funds for the female program(s)? So why should I pay for a program that just penalized me financially. (Not sure if that's how it works, just proposing a hypothetical to illustrate the reverse discrimination.) Title IX had good intentions, but like most government 'good intention' decrees it was LOGICALLY going to overstep it's bounds and end up hurting more people than helping, kind of like affirmative action, EPA regulations, health care. Government can't seem to help one group of "oppressed" or "discriminated against" group of people without taking/stealing/penalizing from another group of "not as oppressed"...which then makes the taken from group the oppressed. So in that sense Title IX was to pave the way for women but it could only do so by trampling over more men then women that would ever be helped.

Yes to your second point. In my local state I see guys that can run 2:00 (800m) 4:25-30 (mile), 9:45-10:00 (2mile), 16:00 5K ( I know those aren't super fast, but you have to run near those in my state to be in the top 75-100 guys in all high schools within the state per respect to event) give or take a few seconds who can't even get like a 10% scholarship at a small D1 state university (about 750-1000$) but a girl who can run 2:40, 5:45-6:00, 12:00 and 20:30 (give or take) get like 35-50% athletic scholarships (so 2500$ +)...and I've followed several of them the last few years and they go to college, run about close to their PR's from high school, then never really run faster or improve. As far as paying college athletes...whatever. They are getting paid...any scholarship of any kind is in a sense a type of payment to an individual by lowering costs to attend the school. Plus they get training rooms/physical therapy, tutoring if they need it, better meal plans, etc..

The UNM “coach” doesn’t have a clue what’s going on. The last time he developed an American guy distance runner was the Reagan administration.

I don’t think the could coach a successful high school team in the state of New Mexico, let alone college without buying people.

Take away his full rides, and one will see just how barren he is as a coach.