Title IX is killing men

I'm pretty sure I am on the same team as OP. Not exactly sure how roster limits work, but my understanding is the overall roster proportion had to mirror the 12.6/18.2 scholarship proportions. It might be a conference rule. For cross country, all of the women from the 800m group have to come to the preseason camp and run the first meet so that they count on the roster, just so that all of the guys can remain on the roster.

Assuming OP is from my school and is who I believe they are, we now have 4 distance men on the roster. I don't believe the final roster is set, so other guys might still have a chance to make the team. Regardless, they will be able to continue showing up to practice and receiving limited gear while not existing in the NCAA's eyes. It's a really crappy situation. 3 sub 30 10k guys and a sub 3:50 1500m guy aren't even on the roster because we don't have enough spots and our coach doesn't have as much pull as the other event group coaches.

I'm late to the show, but this happened at my P5 school. We had some girls quit the team, so we had to cut some guys to make the numbers even. Luckily we did have some straggler guys that it was reasonable that they got cut.

I just visited our school's website to count how many people are actually listed. I counted and there are 54 women listed on the roster. A few of them I know for a fact have quit or been cut. 53 men listed on the roster. Everyone who is not on the official NCAA roster is still listed on the website, probably because they never update anything.

So assuming there are maybe ~50 women and the 12.6/18.2 ratio, there can only be ~35 men. Which would mean almost 20 guys are going to have to be under the books.

Title 9 is the product of democrat stupidity.

Anyone voting for democrats is a title 9 loving piece of trash.

Declare yourself a female. This will increase the number of females. Stay in that gender until the female Title IX requirements are met. Then switch back to the men's team.

You are so pathetic wrote:

When males complain about the number of athletic grants men college T&F have available, your concern should not be anger toward your female cousins or sister obtaining an athletic grant.

If the woman has run faster than the man to get the scholarship then there would be no problem. However, if they are not awarding the scholarships to the best runners based on times or xc finishes regardless of gender then the best thing to do would be to get rid of athletic scholarships entirely.

Democrats lose again and again and again wrote:

Title 9 is the product of democrat stupidity.

Anyone voting for democrats is a title 9 loving piece of trash.

Yes, title IX was signed into law by famous Democrat president Richard Nixon. It passed the Senate 88-6.

Go away you incel.

Everyone wrongly blames title IX for the absence of scholarships for men’s non revenue sports. Title IX didn’t cut anybody’s scholarships. What actually happened was the schools started refusing to fund make non revenue sport scholarships because of “budget concerns”. Those concerns were the result of revenue shortfalls which were the result of a drop in state funding, which was the result of tax cuts (championed by Republicans)

Not even close. Most P5 universities have more money than they know what to do with. They fully fund every sport to the maximum allowed by the NCAA. They are limited to 12.6 for men's track. If not, they would fund all 50 guys on the team. They also would drop many women's sports.

D1 Soccer wrote:

This is why some women's sports team are not that competitive. They have only been added to balance the numbers caused by football. A lot of schools will have a women's soccer team but no men's team because the numbers add up quicker. In addition the women get more scholarships than a men's team would. Again, this is to make up for the difference caused by football. A male athlete has to be a much better player to make a college soccer team than a female soccer player due to more opportunities to play soccer for women as opposed to men.

Why aren't women's games sold out if women make up 60% of the student body?

harry "snapper" organs wrote:

D1 Soccer wrote:

This is why some women's sports team are not that competitive. They have only been added to balance the numbers caused by football. A lot of schools will have a women's soccer team but no men's team because the numbers add up quicker. In addition the women get more scholarships than a men's team would. Again, this is to make up for the difference caused by football. A male athlete has to be a much better player to make a college soccer team than a female soccer player due to more opportunities to play soccer for women as opposed to men.

Why aren't women's games sold out if women make up 60% of the student body?

Its because they don't have women's football. Any school that added women's tackle football would double their sports revenue. Why does no one see this?

Why should a university want a bunch of 14:15 5000m guys? Think from the prospective of the Athletic Director.

7'1" high jumper, 6'5" 210 lbs. basketball shooting guard, 6'4" 235 Am. football TE, good to great tennis players, good to great golfers, 6'6" 260 lbs. Am. football DE, T&F 10.2 100m men, T&F 46.9 400m men, sub-20 second 50 yard free style swimmer ... . A.D. has to take care of all these elite guys I stated. 14:15 5000m runners who cannot race on 4 x800m relay team at Penn Relays because they cannot race sub-1:50 800m are not a priority.

Getting mad at 18 or 19 year old females will not make 14:15 5000m men a priority to A.D.

Or pick a distance oriented team at a school with no football team.

Those guys are already on the team but the university wants to give them athletic scholarships but they are limited to 12.6 by the NCAA. So instead, those guys have to take jobs in the cafeteria or at the local running store. Add that to their practice time and class time and study time. They are left with no sleep time and they are stuck as a 14:15 guy where they could become a 13:55 guy if they had a scholarship.

Sprint sub-4.7 40 yard dash, bench press 275 lbs., free weight full squat 350 lbs. do agility drills, then go out for Am. football kick off team. They always need fresh guys for suicide squad/kick off team.

Predictor wrote:

Not even close. Most P5 universities have more money than they know what to do with. They fully fund every sport to the maximum allowed by the NCAA. They are limited to 12.6 for men's track. If not, they would fund all 50 guys on the team. They also would drop many women's sports.

You’re correct that P5 schools that have more money than they know what do with don’t refuse to fund male non- revenue sports. Schools who did defund their men’s track programs, however, like for example Ball State, Ohio University, Cleveland State, etc. did so well after a title IX took effect, and did so because of “budgetary concerns”, occasioned by cuts in state funding, not because of the passage of Title IX.

Try to keep up.

Title IX caused the cancellation. They have equal roster spots and scholarships across all sports. They would cancel women's fencing, gymnastics, field hockey, volleyball or......track or cross country before men's track if Title IX did not exist.

A Dogs Dawg wrote:

Why should our tax dollars go towards supporting a 14:10 guy getting a kinesiology degree from directional state college?

That’s fine. But then why do women get the scholarship? The same women that could not even make a high school boys varsity team.

Faster is better wrote:

Just found out that my team is only allowing about 3 distance guys on roster for track season due to a large increase of good sprinters and a loss of some female distance runners. The other 10 of us will essentially be redshirted which means that we can't travel with team. I am probably the best guy to get bumped being that I am on our record board but several other guys are 14:10-14:20 and 8:10-8:20 type guys. We are an average distance team which makes it really surprising.

Somebody call the whambulance for this little broseph.

Get faster or stop complaining, brah. Whining and complaining isn't a good look for anybody.