PonyFans.com

Hey, now there is a sport I could could compete in....hotdog vendor! Got to love a good Hot Dog! On a more serious note, I do think that Title IX could use some tweaking. It will take some people smarter than I to figure it out. Maybe taking football out of the equation would be a start.

Silk wrote:I disagree. While I'm not a fan of either, at least there is a winner and a loser in those. Cheerleaders never win or lose a game. They're part of the whole experience, and a fantastic part of it, but they're not the game and they're not the competitors. The media doesn't report on how the cheerleaders performed and Vegas doesn't set lines on how the cheerleaders perform, any more than they do about how the hot dog vendors did each Saturday.

Up above you referenced cheerleader competitions, so why are you only addressing what cheerleaders do at games and pretending they never win or lose?

I'd watch a women's cheerleading competition before I watched women's volleyball or softball or cross country, that's for sure.

East Coast Mustang wrote:I'd watch a women's cheerleading competition before I watched women's volleyball or softball or cross country, that's for sure.

Seems like the quality of our cheerleaders and Pom squad should be better........

PonySnob wrote:

East Coast Mustang wrote:I'd watch a women's cheerleading competition before I watched women's volleyball or softball or cross country, that's for sure.

Seems like the quality of our cheerleaders and Pom squad should be better........

The pom squad is actually really good. They win national titles and stuff. The cheerleaders are very ok. They're getting better from what I hear after having literally "trimmed the fat".

But, for arguments sake, it's hard to try and get higher quality people to be on pom and cheer when there are no scholarships or anything. You basically get a grab bag of whoever decides to come to SMU and tryout. They pretty much have a practice schedule and time commitment of an NCAA sport without actually being and NCAA sport. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be one, I don't really care, but they crazy flips and throwing things they do require 100x more athletic ability than riding a horse... which is a NCAA sport.

I'm pretty sure a judge has ruled that cheerleading is not a sport.

I tend to believe that women should be forced to compete alongside men in their sport - right now it's separate but equal, which is unconstitutional.

ponyboy wrote:I like women's sports and find them enjoyable to watch by and large. Women tend to play basketball the way it was intended to be played. And the team coordination involved in softball is amazing. I just find the whole Title IX thing offensive.

Just to continue the conversation Ponyboy....would you do away with it altogether? I am not sure what the answer is. While I don 't buy the argument that relatively few females choose to compete in a sport, specially one that would allow them access to a college education, I do not like the idea of a thriving men's team being thrown out, I.e. men's swimming at UCLA and closer to home, men's track at SMU. By thriving, I mean competively successful, not fan supported.

Grant Carter wrote:Up above you referenced cheerleader competitions, so why are you only addressing what cheerleaders do at games and pretending they never win or lose?

I was pointing out that the competitions have no business being on ESPN, and the quote marks were meant to imply that they're not competitions at all, IMO. They're good at what they do, but that doesn't make it a sport. Don't get me wrong: I'm not belittling what they do at games at all. Games are better with cheerleaders, bands, mascots, etc. But they're not sports.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.

Why is equestrian or gymnastics a competition but cheerleading competitions aren't?

smusportspage wrote:

ponyboy wrote:I like women's sports and find them enjoyable to watch by and large. Women tend to play basketball the way it was intended to be played. And the team coordination involved in softball is amazing. I just find the whole Title IX thing offensive.

Just to continue the conversation Ponyboy....would you do away with it altogether? I am not sure what the answer is. While I don 't buy the argument that relatively few females choose to compete in a sport, specially one that would allow them access to a college education, I do not like the idea of a thriving men's team being thrown out, I.e. men's swimming at UCLA and closer to home, men's track at SMU. By thriving, I mean competively successful, not fan supported.

I'd never do away with women's sports. I'd allow individual institutions decide how best to allocate their resources rather than fiat from on high.

Sounds like a plan as long as some access is their for the women. I agree, no fiats from on high.

Grant Carter wrote:Why is equestrian or gymnastics a competition but cheerleading competitions aren't?

Cheerleading competitions were man-made (or TV-made) events. Nobody goes to a football game because of the cheerleaders, but most of us are glad they're there. If you're a fan of gymnastics or equestrian, you go to see that. Cheerleading, in its basic inception, is to support others participating in a sport. Equestrian and gymnastics, while far from my favorites, stand on their own.

I can't offer rock-solid evidence of why one is a sport and one isn't. I just think two are and one isn't. I realize some people will disagree, and that's fine - just my opinion.

Silk wrote:I disagree. While I'm not a fan of either, at least there is a winner and a loser in those. Cheerleaders never win or lose a game. They're part of the whole experience, and a fantastic part of it, but they're not the game and they're not the competitors. The media doesn't report on how the cheerleaders performed and Vegas doesn't set lines on how the cheerleaders perform, any more than they do about how the hot dog vendors did each Saturday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/2 ... 28910.html

boom!

Silk wrote:I disagree. While I'm not a fan of either, at least there is a winner and a loser in those. Cheerleaders never win or lose a game. They're part of the whole experience, and a fantastic part of it, but they're not the game and they're not the competitors. The media doesn't report on how the cheerleaders performed and Vegas doesn't set lines on how the cheerleaders perform, any more than they do about how the hot dog vendors did each Saturday.

There are cheerleaders at games but there is also separate cheerleading competition and there are winners. When they take a 6th grade football team out on the field at half time of an SMU game and introduce them to the crowd I do not say they are not playing a sport because they are not competing. They just are not competing at that moment. You have to separate the cheering at the game from the true competition.

That said, I do not know if it should be classified a sport but I do agree that it is as much of one as gymnastics. Very similar other than it is more team than individual. And if it would help allay some of the title ix crap I am all for it.

Also, I am close friends with the Executive Director of the National Cheerleader Association and I can warn you not to tell her it is not a sport.

I have no interest in upsetting the Executive Director, but I also don't intend to run into her and don't care if she disagrees. I was asked to explain my stance, and I did. Nowhere does it say anyone has to agree with it.

As for the Louisville cheerleader picking up a technical foul and almost costing the Cards a game, what would Rick Pitino's reaction have been to that???