Goodbye, Maryland tennis

Discussion in 'College Tennis Talk' started by wanatabe mixer, Nov 29, 2011.

  1. andfor

    andfor Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    4,885
    http://www.itatennis.com/AboutITA/Advocacy.htm - Regarding dropped and added tennis programs you'll find more stats here.
     
  2. ClarkC

    ClarkC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2008
    Messages:
    3,773
    Location:
    Charlottesville, VA
    One of the propaganda techniques of the pro-Title IX crowd (which includes the NCAA) is to talk about participants and teams rather than scholarships actually awarded. At the University of Virginia, we have about 14 men on the tennis roster, while we have 10 women on the tennis roster. But the 14 men get 4.5 scholarships total, while the women have eight full rides and two walk-ons. Likewise, there are "Division I" men's tennis teams with zero scholarships. So, you can say that the school did not get rid of the men's tennis team, because it still exists and has "participants."

    In the late 1970s and early 1980s, it was still the case that 5.0 was the men's scholarship limit, and 8.0 was the women's limit. Then the men's limit was lowered to 4.5 (hmm .... I wonder why?) and the sport got more physical and injury-prone, so roster sizes grew (and they grew even more so on the men's side). So, the male "participants" have actually increased at every school that has a team. In the late 1970s, the tail end of the wooden racket era of tennis, it was quite common for a top program to give out five full rides on the men's side, have a freshman who was waiting one year for his full ride, and have only six players on the roster. There was actually a (valid) assumption that injuries were very unlikely. A team might have 1-2 walkons just in case, but these were not guys who would ever earn a scholarship and they knew it. If an injury occurred, they might play a dual match or two in their entire career. Women's teams commonly had eight players back then and eight players now, while the situation changed drastically for men in the same era.

    However, as with all aspects of leftism, this is a one-way street. If a school tried to count female "participants" rather than scholarships to claim that they provided equal "opportunities" for female athletes, that would not fly.
     
  3. ClarkC

    ClarkC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2008
    Messages:
    3,773
    Location:
    Charlottesville, VA
    Unfortunately, you have not demonstrated that the latter statement is flawed logic.
     
  4. slice bh compliment

    slice bh compliment G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,050
    This is great stuff, Cartman! Did you forget to mention the Jewish people?
     
  5. gully

    gully Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    792
    Of course, that's not what you said. What you said was that "We had more men's tennis teams many decades ago when football was limited to 120 scholarships than we have today when football is limited to 85 scholarships." Which isn't true.

    So let's review:

    1. You claim there are fewer men's teams today than before.
    2. I prove your claim false by citing verifiable data.
    3. You claim that it's "propaganda" when the "title IX crowd" talks about teams. (Which you brought up youself!)

    Snort.
     
  6. Mitch Bridge

    Mitch Bridge Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2012
    Messages:
    145
    Location:
    Irvine, CA
    Gully, so are you saying that men's tennis is basically in the same situation scholarship-wise that it was in pre-Title IX?
     
  7. gully

    gully Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    792
    Nope. I've said no such thing, only that when ClarkC says there were "more men's tennis teams many decades ago"--which is exactly what he said in post #88--the easily-accessed, factually-verifiable evidence simply does not support his claim. In fact, it directly contradicts it: there are more NCAA men's tennis teams today than there were in 81-82. (For which he called me "a propagandist.")

    If he, or you, or anyone else, would like to make a different claim regarding the number of scholarships granted to men's tennis players today versus some point in the past, that's a different matter.
     
  8. TimothyO

    TimothyO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,603
    Location:
    Baseline
    http://sportsologist.com/college-athletics-by-the-number/

    For the record nearly half of men's football and basketball programs are money losers. Even then the accounting is sketchy and it's quite likely an even smaller percentage break even.

    I went to Notre Dame and contrary to its reputation of developing true "student athletes" it's as corrupt as any other program. Football players have access to "special study sessions" where answers to tests were handed out. They can also attend special summer classes where three semesters of credit are awarded for a few weeks of class.

    Picking on title IX is like complaining about jay walking tickets in Detroit...just plain idiotic.
     
  9. NLBwell

    NLBwell Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    7,189
    Unless you were the one who got a jaywalking ticket.
     
  10. sundaypunch

    sundaypunch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,692
    That's a bad analogy. Anyone would be happy to get out of Detroit with only a jaywalking ticket.
     
  11. Dream_On

    Dream_On Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    Messages:
    345
    How on earth does anyone think title IX is fair?

    Its changing sex discrimination in every sport into sex discrimination the other way in certain sports.
     
  12. ClarkC

    ClarkC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2008
    Messages:
    3,773
    Location:
    Charlottesville, VA
    I was referring to Division I teams, which is the main focus of Title IX discussions. Adding up Divisions I, II, and III (which has never even had scholarships) is not relevant to a Title IX discussion.
     
  13. ClarkC

    ClarkC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2008
    Messages:
    3,773
    Location:
    Charlottesville, VA
    Actually, I did not call you a propagandist. I implied that the NCAA stats that you linked to were propaganda, and called the NCAA propagandists on this issue. That implies that you are being misled by propaganda, which is not the same as intentionally being a propagandist.
     
  14. Kirijax

    Kirijax Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,854
    This needs to be a bumper sticker! :)
     
  15. gully

    gully Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    792
    Oh, you were referring to D1 teams. Well, then, I think after this series of posts you have finally said what you meant: that there are a handful fewer men's D1 tennis teams today than there were three decades ago. Eight fewer, to be exact.

    But then again, to use data from the NCAA (instead of makingitup, nothavingany) is to, as you say, to be misled by propagandists. (Where is the data going to come from, anyway? Are you going to count teams? Am I? You can't seriously mean that to use any data from the NCAA in discussion of intercollegiate athletics is to be "misled.")

    Like I had said on p. 1 of this thread, the causes for Maryland losing its men team are many--a perfect storm, almost, of overextending scant resources, diminishing funding sources, and lack of success.
     
  16. sundaypunch

    sundaypunch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,692
    This is exactly why the statement is faulty reasoning. The number of teams fluctuates yearly. To have a few % less now than in 1981 is insignificant. It's easy to spout off about how Title 9 has decimated men's tennis, but the facts don't agree.
     
  17. TennisNinja

    TennisNinja Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,522
    Location:
    Someplace, Somewhere
    The idea behind Title 9 is a good one. The actual implementation, however.... not so much. Title 9 should allocate equal scholarships across the same sport, not as a total men get _# and so do the women.
     
  18. floridatennisdude

    floridatennisdude Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,976
    I like this in theory, but it would be an "all or nothing" choice for every school.

    I have a far fetched theory of my own that gets into requiring a certain number of total teams to be classified as D1 and a higher number for your school to be BCS eligible. I'm sure it would get shredded in an online forum.
     
  19. sundaypunch

    sundaypunch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,692
    Just what women need - 85 scholarships for football.
     
  20. Misterbill

    Misterbill Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    671
    NCAA currently requires D1 schools to have 7 sports for men and women each, or 6 for men and 8 for women, with at least two sports that have both men's and women's teams. (Too lazy to look up the cite right now).

    And the BCS will be gone after 2013.
     
  21. tennis_ocd

    tennis_ocd Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,001
    Easy if one believes that women should be denied equal benefit of federally subsidized education.
     
  22. floridatennisdude

    floridatennisdude Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,976
    Interesting theory on the BCS...seeing as it starts the 4 team playoff in 2014 and has a 12 year TV deal.

    My theory is that if a school wants to be BCS eligible in football, they need to sponsor and fund 19 sports (football plus 9 men, 9 women)

    If a non football school wants to be NCAA eligible in men's basketball, they need to sponsor and fund 18 sports (9 men 9 women)

    Caveat being that I you offer the female sport, you must sponsor the male equivalent before adding another female sport.

    A sports scholarship funding needs to be the amount of starters required plus 10%.

    I know, lots of loopholes. The theory is to let football be the cash cow without reverse discriminating against males.
     
  23. Misterbill

    Misterbill Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    671
    I really think the BCS is dead after the 2013 season. Here are just a few of many links out there.

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/19383956/say-goodbye-to-the-bcs-at-least-the-name

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/college-football-playoffs_n_1628960.html

    http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2012/11/12/3634896/college-football-playoffs-bowls-system-big-east

    Under the soon to be defunct BCS, teams were (are) chosen to play for the national championship through a formula involving two human polls and a bunch of computers. Under the new system, a committee will decide on four teams to participate in a playoff.

    Under the soon to be defunct BCS, six conferences had Automatic Qualifying spots to so-called BCS bowl games. Lots of people referred to these conferences as "BCS conferences". Now there will be five "AQs" and non-AQs will have a more direct path to the big bowls.

    I'm standing by my point that the BCS is dead after next year, despite your snark.

    Maybe you meant to refer to AQ instead of BCS? But then again, after the BCS is dead post-2013 season, all D-1 football programs in at least 10 conferences will have a shot at the championship playoff.

    Even if that is what you meant, "D-1" is an NCAA term and classification and "AQ" is not. Maybe NCAA would incorporate "BCS" or "AQ" into its rules, or the college football playoff executives would dictate how many sports teams a school would need to have to qualify for a football bowl game, but I really don't think that would be realistic.

    Bottom line, at least I agree with the second part of your original point below:

    I have a far fetched theory of my own that gets into requiring a certain number of total teams to be classified as D1 and a higher number for your school to be BCS eligible. I'm sure it would get shredded in an online forum.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2012
  24. floridatennisdude

    floridatennisdude Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,976
    Glad to be your fodder. Interesting analysis on what you see as BCS. I guess the term is so loosely used it gets interpreted differently based on circumstance.
     
  25. Misterbill

    Misterbill Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    671
    Fodder?

    OK, the heck with my analysis. Just post up your analysis or anything that would indicate the BCS will continue after the 2013 season.

    I don't think the term "BCS" is used loosely, and I haven't come across anyone before today who thinks it hasn't been consigned to the trash bin of history, post-2013 season.

    Back to the point, the old BCS was created by the D1 college presidents and their Conference Athletic Commissioners. The new system that will replace the BCS, similarly, was created by the college presidents/conference commissioners. NCAA has nothing to do with either. NCAA does not/will not crown a college football champion.

    I think it is a long shot that the Conference Commissioners would agree that each D-1 school has to have 18 sports in addition to football......more than the NCAA requires for D1 status...... in order for a school to qualify for a major bowl game. U Florida doesn't have 18 sports. Alabama?

    But sometimes long shots come in. Interesting debate.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2012
  26. floridatennisdude

    floridatennisdude Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,976
    ^^^Florida is precisely my point. 100 million budget and 17 sports. We should have men's soccer here. Or men's gymnastics. Something.

    I'll decline further explaining. Seems you have your mind set. Not like my random idea is ever going to fly. Ultimately, I think it's crap that more boys play sports and have less chance of playing in college (unless they play football).
     
  27. Dream_On

    Dream_On Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    Messages:
    345
    But then male tennis players are not the equal of women tennis players..

    The only fair way about it would be give equal scholarships for tennis in both mens and womens because as I said that if you cant see that its just turning sex discrimination in all sports to sex discrimination is some sports then you are blind. All it would take would be to take away 2 scholarships for womens tennis (Why on earth do they need to give full rides to players who dont even start) and add 1.5 to mens tennis while taking a whopping 3.5 scholarships from football or basketball to make it even.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2012
  28. goran_ace

    goran_ace Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,886
    Location:
    At Large
    Usually the athletic department will honor their scholarships for their remaining years if they wish to stay at the school and graduate. Not everyone can/will transfer. I'm sure their coach will have no problem finding a new gig.
     
  29. tennis_ocd

    tennis_ocd Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,001
    Or give 42.5 full scholarships to women for football to really make things fair. :twisted:

    Point is, it'd be a stretch to argue that the law should provide gender neutral guarantees for specific sport participation. Not so much gender neutral participation in federal funding for education opportunities.
     
  30. Clemson_tennis

    Clemson_tennis Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,440
    Location:
    San Antonio/Austin
    I kinda miss the Terps. They were a feisty team that was better indoor. Kinda like Louisville.
     
  31. PhotoBlue

    PhotoBlue Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    1,391
    Location:
    The tennis court
    I've seen Louisville play... They have a DEEP team, or did anyway.
     
  32. Clemson_tennis

    Clemson_tennis Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,440
    Location:
    San Antonio/Austin
    They would be joining the Big ten next year
     
  33. Clemson_tennis

    Clemson_tennis Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,440
    Location:
    San Antonio/Austin
    just noticed that Kyle Spencer, the former head coach at Maryland is now the assistant coach at SMU. That's a pretty big step down. I feel like he deserves a better job than that based on his success in the last two years at Maryland.
     

Share This Page