The Daily Campus: Title IX resurfaces in SMU athletics

[Mexmustang]

The obvious solution would be to simply drop football--then we could drop all other sports, except for intramurals.
The truth is that at the college level women's rowing and equestrian are not even up to the standards of serious competition of girls 18 and under as organized by their respective national federations.

[EastStang]

Stacy and others shouldn't complain about the blessings that she is receiving this thanksgiving season. Think about the male track athletes, male wrestlers, male gymnasts, male soccer players (SMU is the only institution in Division 1 with men's soccer in Texas), and male swimmers (Rice dropped swimming) who do not get the opportunity to compete at the collegiate level at all because of budget cuts made in part to comply with Title IX. If these athletes would work to get their friends to their competitions others might follow and then they could claim a following. Until then, stop bellyaching.

[MustangSally]

Its easy to be like 'what about football, waa waa waa' but football is a completely different sport and on a different level in our entire nation. Rowing can't compare. If anything, its too late to complain about the different respect sports get at the college level, when it's not like rowing was the big sport in high school or in peewee leagues.

What Stacy should look at is the MENS rowing team at SMU, they run the same sport, everything. Yet, they get no athletic dept funding, why? Because they are a men's team and not a women's team. That's what's annoying to me, is hearing these girls complain about football and bball, yet their male counterparts get NOTHING. Football and bball and other sports are also composed of athletes who work their whole lives at their sport and were of a small percentage that got scholarships. Meanwhile, we had a girl in band who quit to join the rowing team because she found that she got more scholarship money being the coxswain (the one yelling 'stroke, stroke, stroke') than she did to stay in band. Basically, I'm sick of seeing these sports barely have enough people to fill a boat, and complain about equality, when there are men's sports nationwide that practically dont even EXIST anymore (gymnastics, soccer in texas...) at the Div 1 level.

Reminds me of the special I saw on TV about the male gymnast who was almost on the Olympic team, one of the top 20 in the US or something, worked his whole life at this sport, and he couldnt even get a college scholarship. Meanwhile, girls he knew from his high school were taking up new sports (rowing included) just so they could go to _____ University on a half-tuition ride.

[Water Pony]

Except EastStang that FB and Men's BB will never be affected by the funding pressures. The penalty is being paid by non-revenue sport for men. The funding model is broken.

FB and BB get a pass on being fiscally responsible (large coaches' salaries, huge coaching staffs, exceptional facilities, large athletic departments organized to support the demands of FB and BB, marketing, recruiting, etc.)

Title IX is the catylst but not the only reason college sports are struggling. That is why the BCS cartel, state schools and TV revenue are part of the problem. Reduce the expenses in the revenue sports and more funds would be available for Men and Women non-revenue sports.

[EastStang]

No Water Pony that model would have an inverse effect. The reason is that the revenue sports generate the fan base that donates to the Mustang Club. You downgrade football and basketball, and you downgrade overall giving to the athletic department. I like swimming, I used to go to lots of meets, many of my friends were swimmers. There are schools than do succeed at a Division 1-AA level in football. However, when 1-AA was created, they bit the bullet together and joined. The Ivy League, the A-10, the Yankee Conference, the MEAC, and the SWAC. UNT, Fla. Atlantic, Marshall, all had felt the need to leave 1-AA. If Rice, Tulane, Tulsa, SMU, TCU and Baylor were to all move to 1-AA together and form a conference that would be about the only way it would succeed. Natural rivals have to go there together. Otherwise, if we move alone, you will lose what little support remains for the athletic department. In 15 years my suspicion is that the BCS experiment will either succeed in pushing the SMU's, TCU's and Rice's out of 1-A, or will collapse from infighting and greed. If it collapses there will be a division 1 playoff which will give new life to the mid-majors and may cause new realignments back to traditional conferences. For example, if I'm UT I have to be thinking about how I'd have a better shot at a national championship if I was in a conference with the other four Texas traitors and SMU, TCU, Rice, UH and say Tulane or UTEP, than I will staying in a conference with OU and OSU and the northern division 6 sissies. A playoff would give impetus to have one king per conference and a bunch of serfs. The king wins 60% of the time and goes to the playoff. Every now and then one of the underlings pulls off an upset. OU could very well decide to keep the old Big 8 and add for example Colorado State.

[Water Pony]

Interesting scenario: Back to the Future