Please

[Dutch]

bump

[Get_Some_Ponies]

The funny thing is that a majority of the banners hanging in the athletic offices are for track wins. I don't get why there isn't at LEAST a women's team. Successful Title IX sport? How much can it really cost to field a track team?

[smu diamond m]

Shoes, jerseys, and travel.

[mrydel]

Shoes, jerseys, and travel.

No shorts?

[smu diamond m]

None.

All 5 forums.

[mustangbill67]

The funny thing is that a majority of the banners hanging in the athletic offices are for track wins. I don't get why there isn't at LEAST a women's team. Successful Title IX sport? How much can it really cost to field a track team?

Duh, we have a women's track team.

In response to the other posters on this topic, although I could be wrong, I do not recall dropping men's track had anything to do with Title 9. I think is was solely a money issue, the cost of scholarships, recruiting and travel. We currently have 6 men's sports including football and 11 women's sports. Football with its 85 scholarships causes the disparity between the number of men and women's sports. The additional women's sports are cross country, track, volleyball, equestrian and rowing. If we started men's track up again and needed another women's program, there are plenty to choose from including softball, lacrosse and field hockey. It is all about money and understanding the benefits the athletic program brings to the University. To truly be a great university, well funded and broad based athletic programs for both men and women are essential.

[smu diamond m]

But adding it now would be a title IX issue.

[mustangbill67]

But adding it now would be a title IX issue.

Do you know that for sure? I do not recall title 9 being a reason for dropping track so why would it be an issue bringing it back? If it is an issue, then the cost of bringing it back would have to include the cost of an additional women's program.

[smu diamond m]

But adding it now would be a title IX issue.

Do you know that for sure? I do not recall title 9 being a reason for dropping track so why would it be an issue bringing it back? If it is an issue, then the cost of bringing it back would have to include the cost of an additional women's program.

Do you not?

[Get_Some_Ponies]

If we have more women's sports you would think it wouldn't be that big a deal to add a men's team. I was mistaken thinking the women's team was gone. What's the cheapest competitve sport? We could add that. We need a Circle of Champion to pay for some track scholarships.

[mustangbill67]

Actually I have a recollection reading several years ago that SMU might add women's softball sometime in the next 4 or 5 years. Conf. USA has a women's softball program with 9 schools participating including Houston and Tulsa. Seems like a natural for this area. Do not know what the scholarship limit is for softball.

[mustangbill67]

Speaking of softball, it is interesting to look at what is being done at Tulsa, which has softball. Tulsa has 7 men's sports including track and cross country. SMU has six but no track and no cross country. However, we have men and women's swimming, which Tulsa doesn't. In the women's area, SMU has 10 programs and Tulsa 9. Tulsa does not have equestrian or swimming but it has softball. So Tulsa by not having an equestrian and swimming program does have mens track and cross country and women's softball. This is just for comparison, I am not advocating the elimination of swimming at SMU. It is critical part of the fabric of the University.

It should also be noted that only 7 of the schools in Conf USA have men's track. These 7 include our neighbors, Tulsa, Rice, UTEP and Houston.

[mustangxc]

bump