PonyFans.com

Bring back track...Here's how we do it...believe me it is not rocket science...and doesn't have to involve "gender equity"...at least to start.

1. Budget for FIVE scholarships...that's not too much to ask...and could be financed through additional funding achieved through greater attendence in football and basketball.

2. The scholarships go to eight distance runners, which would also allow for bringing back the Cross Country team, as well...three full scholarships go to elite runners, one scholarship is split for two excellent runners (diamonds in the rough) , one scholarship is split for four good regional runners (maybe two might blossom into good college runners)...also, will probably attract a couple of walk-ons.

3. Now you have a Cross Country team that has a reasonable chance to be successful...remember only need five top runners to compete with the best.

4. These distance runners form the corp of the Track team...competing in 800, 1600, 5000, 10000, steeple chase, relays.

5. Now you are able to take advantage of top high school track guys that are on the football team...bring in some sprinters, maybe even some throw guys...competing in 100, 200, 400, hurdles, jumps, sprint relays...and again, maybe even some throwing events...these folks may not be elite track guys, but at least we have a track team to build on...PB would have to be willing to let the guys compete, but this could also enhance his recruiting, so could be a win-win solution.

6. Down the road, we would hopefully be able to add a few additional scholarships for elite track guys.

7. Remember, this is not a formula for NCAA championship caliber teams that we had in the past...but the question was, how do we do it...pretty easily, I think...Five scholarships isn't too much to ask...it doesn't have to be a large scale operation (travel and other admin costs)...the coaching staff is already in place.

8. This plan will not get too far off our gender equity goals...believe me most of the NCAA schools are not completely balanced like SMU...and the NCAA isn't banging down their doors.

9. A couple more thousand football fans in the stadium and some extra TV money from a bowl game or basketball team and the five scholarships are paid for...I hate under achieving.

CalallenStang wrote:Forgive my ignorance, but could someone explain to me why we would have to add two women's sports for every men's sport added?

We should be in compliance if we meet any ONE of these three prongs:

Prong one - Providing athletic opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR
Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented gender, OR
Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented gender.

I interpret that to mean that we should have at least a 1:1 ratio of mens':womens' sports.

Perhaps there is a further ruling that I am not aware of.

It is a matter of the number of athletic scholarships being in direct proportion to the gender break down of the general student body. The percentage of SMU students that are female is much higher than the percentage of male students. Adding one men's sport may (or may not) require adding more than one women's sport to keep the ratio of female vs male athletes the same as the general student population ratio depending on the number of athletes required to meet the team requirements for the particular sports.

just the whole damn idea of title 9 is absurd

liberalism & diversity - totally absurd

PK wrote:

CalallenStang wrote:Forgive my ignorance, but could someone explain to me why we would have to add two women's sports for every men's sport added?

We should be in compliance if we meet any ONE of these three prongs:

Prong one - Providing athletic opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR
Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented gender, OR
Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented gender.

I interpret that to mean that we should have at least a 1:1 ratio of mens':womens' sports.

Perhaps there is a further ruling that I am not aware of.

It is a matter of the number of athletic scholarships being in direct proportion to the gender break down of the general student body. The percentage of SMU students that are female is much higher than the percentage of male students. Adding one men's sport may (or may not) require adding more than one women's sport to keep the ratio of female vs male athletes the same as the general student population ratio depending on the number of athletes required to meet the team requirements for the particular sports.

That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.

[quote="NavyCrimson"]just the whole damn idea of title 9 is absurd

liberalism & diversity - totally absurd [/quote]

Amen, my brovah.

Unfortunately, the Government interprets that issue not by sport but by participation. Football soaks up enough bodies for 3 sports. So, because the student population has approximately 50-50 make-up (although it has had years when there were more women than men), you have to figure that you have to make up for those 90 football scholarships by adding significant numbers of women's sports to meet these tests. Ask any school which has had to dump men's wrestling because of this. American will get weaker and weaker in the Olympic men's sports because of Title IX.

mr. pony wrote:Football, baseball, basketball, track, softball, tennis, swimming, golf, and volleyball - that's where our focus should be.

Juggle it, twist it, cypher it, whatever. That's where successful schools - similar in size and scope to SMU - are participating.

Equestrian and rowing are cheaper? So what? So is going without all the new-hires in marketing and sales. But that had to be done.

I wholeheartedly agree!

You are right about participation... most liberal arts schools are now in the 60% (women) 40% men level...I'm not sure about SMU's percentages. Your point about Olympic sports is correct...for men however for women the quality of athlete is now unbounded... look at soccer or gymnastics or track comparison to the rest of the world.

First of all, the equestrian riders aren't bringing their own horses, I don't think. I was told that the stable(s) SMU uses provides the horses. Can you imagine how fast court papers would be filed against an individual if a rider from another school got hurt when she got thrown off a student's personal horse?

Also, the fact that those sports are cheaper DOES matter. In addition to making the athletic department a winning program overall, Steve-O also has been charged with balancing the budget of the athletic department, which is why he spends money where it's needed, but there are zero unnecessary dollars being spent anywhere.

I admit I am completely ignorant of the sport, but why would student from another school be riding a horse either a) owned and/or maintained by SMU, or b) owned by one of our students.

PK wrote:

Stlhockeyguy02 wrote:A cheap shot? How?

By insinuating that those two women's sports were the only ones not "really drawing well". The fact is, when we had men's track and field, they didn't draw all that well either...and before anyone gets his undies in a wad...I personally wish we still had men's track and field teams and hope some day we will again. Title IX is a challenge, but it appears to be here to stay, and to try and make fun of the women athletes is stupid. I don't know about you, but riding a horse is a challenge for me muchless riding them as they jump over fences, etc. I suspect most of the guys posting on these boards could not do what our women athletes do...so cut the crap.

It is impossible to draw at all if you can't even host a meet!

My daughter competed in Equestrian. First, each rider from novice to advanced selects a horse from a hat before each event. No practice rides allowed.

The hosting school supplies enough horses to run all the events from novice to advanced, from over fences to flats, etc. The scoring system is intended to judge only the rider (this is called equitation Vs judging the horse, which non collegiate shows do).

The horses typically belong to the stable on or near where the event is conducted. Often, visiting schools may bring some horses, if requested, if there are insufficent mounts available.

Therefore, a school like SMU does not necessarily need to own the horses or stable (which are leased normally). Students do not need to bring a horse to school, unless they wish. Ags schools like A&M may have sufficent stables and horses to supply everything.

Again, the selection is blind so bad riders can get good horses and vice versa.

The challenge is for novice riders to score well against similar skilled riders and so forth by class.

From a scholarship perspective, few are given, since a squad of twenty women (occasionally men, since gender is not specific.) will make up most of the team. Costs are not extraordinary with a head coach and a part-time assistant combined with most students paying their own way. Roster size helps the Title IX participation goals.