PonyFans.com

From the article:

Nastia Liukin, our star gymnast who won five medals, was born in Russia and trained at her family's private gymnastics club. She attended Southern Methodist University in 2007, and SMU is bragging on its Website about her Olympic achievements.

But SMU dropped its small women's gymnastics team and instead has a large women's rowing team, and so had nothing to offer Liukin. SMU is 55 percent women and has publicly announced that it wants to be 55 percent in women's athletes.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2008/08/26/title_ix_tied_our_hands_at_the_olympics?page=full&comments=true

SMU had a gymnastics team? How long ago was that?

[quote="crazy horse"]From the article:

[i]Nastia Liukin, our star gymnast who won five medals, was born in Russia and trained at her family's private gymnastics club. She attended Southern Methodist University in 2007, and SMU is bragging on its Website about her Olympic achievements.

But SMU dropped its small women's gymnastics team and instead has a large women's rowing team, and so had nothing to offer Liukin. SMU is 55 percent women and has publicly announced that it wants to be 55 percent in women's athletes. [/i]

[url]http://townhall.com/Columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2008/08/26/title_ix_tied_our_hands_at_the_olympics?page=full&comments=true[/url]

SMU had a gymnastics team? How long ago was that?[/quote]

SMU never had Gymnastics, not in the 27 years I've been here. I left a comment on the article regarding the mistake, and it seems to have been edited out. There was a similar erroneous claim about Michael Phelps, and I'll be interested see if that dissapears, as well.

Makes for a better story, but SMU has never had gymnastics team for women or men.

Not to mention that Nastia probably wouldn't want to compete in sub-par college gymnastics anyway, and even if she did, wouldn't be able to compete on a gymnastics team even if SMU had one, what with that pesky amateurism requirement forbidding endorsement deals.

Many years ago, my youngest brother was a world class gymnast. He captained the NCAA champion Michigan Wolverines. His former high school coach became the first men's Olympic coach to get his team to the medals in decades.
Men's gymnastics is a successful college sport in many northern schools (including LSU and OU). But, women's NCAA gymnastics is another story. Men just begin to peak well after 18 and many as late at 22. Women seem to peak as early as 14 and many are never heard of after 18. For men college gymnastics is an important intermediate step in their development into world class competitors. For top women at 14-16, they are already competing in world events, whether junior or world championships and thus participation on a college team is really not an appropriate option--it is a step down.

Mexmustang wrote:Many years ago, my youngest brother was a world class gymnast. He captained the NCAA champion Michigan Wolverines. His former high school coach became the first men's Olympic coach to get his team to the medals in decades.
Men's gymnastics is a successful college sport in many northern schools (including LSU and OU). But, women's NCAA gymnastics is another story. Men just begin to peak well after 18 and many as late at 22. Women seem to peak as early as 14 and many are never heard of after 18. For men college gymnastics is an important intermediate step in their development into world class competitors. For top women at 14-16, they are already competing in world events, whether junior or world championships and thus participation on a college team is really not an appropriate option--it is a step down.

It's the boobies I tell ya!!

Also, I guess you are in Mexico if you think of LSU and OU as northern schools?

No, I certainaly know where they are, but I was simply including them to those of the Big Ten and other northern universities--perhaps you really object to their inclusion as universities? The former OU coach was once my brother's high school coach in Chicago.

I just do not know how they do those flippie things.

One way you could help the Title IX balance is petition the NCAA to make cheerleading a competitive sport. They already have those competitions that you see on ESPN, the infrastructure is already established at most schools, and it would be a "sport" that has a majority of women participating. Of course, that means you would have to start offering scholarships for cheerleading.

I believe we already do offer scholarships for cheerleading, but much like the band scholarships, they don't cover much.

abezontar wrote:I believe we already do offer scholarships for cheerleading, but much like the band scholarships, they don't cover much.

The right cheerleaders not covering much can be an asset to the school.

PonySoprano wrote:One way you could help the Title IX balance is petition the NCAA to make cheerleading a competitive sport. They already have those competitions that you see on ESPN, the infrastructure is already established at most schools, and it would be a "sport" that has a majority of women participating. Of course, that means you would have to start offering scholarships for cheerleading.

Is Title IX based on # of scholies or on sports? In other words, if we did cheerleading and gave 5 girl and 1 guy scholarships, could we then have men's track and give 15 scholarships or would we be limited to 5 or 6?

It's based on both, but more on total scholarships, than number of sports. Unfortunately, there is no case in which you're going to get men's track back. The athletic department cant afford to fund the sports it already has. If they add another to comply with Title 9, then they will be deeper in the hole. To compound that by adding another mens team which would only increase the deficit, and move us out of Title 9 compliance, isnt going to happen.

I'm sorry, but track is gone. I know every spring rumors swirl about it's imminent return, but they have no substance. It's just someones wishful thinking. There is no scenario that could bring it back, short of a massive and sudden influx of cash, and even then it wouldnt be a high priority.

The XtC wrote:It's based on both, but more on total scholarships, than number of sports. Unfortunately, there is no case in which you're going to get men's track back. The athletic department cant afford to fund the sports it already has. If they add another to comply with Title 9, then they will be deeper in the hole. To compound that by adding another mens team which would only increase the deficit, and move us out of Title 9 compliance, isnt going to happen.

I'm sorry, but track is gone. I know every spring rumors swirl about it's imminent return, but they have no substance. It's just someones wishful thinking. There is no scenario that could bring it back, short of a massive and sudden influx of cash, and even then it wouldnt be a high priority.

I have no reason to doubt you which makes it all the more upsetting that I have been told on several occasions by supposedly those in the loop that the return of men's track was to be sooner rather than later. Thanks for your candor on something of which I think you are aware.

There is a way to get a new men's sport. Donate $40 million to the school 1/3 earmarked for the men's sport you want and the rest to two un-named women's sports. That will get you what you want. Its just that easy. Now go win the lottery, strike oil, write a best selling novel, or marry well.