Goodbye, Maryland tennis

[NLBwell]

Originally Posted by Coach Carter

Of course, they could reinstate the team and just not have it be a scholarship program. You would have players come in and pay their own way or be able to qualify for scholarshiping thru academic means or grants. You know, the old fashioned way...it's not un-heard of...with hard work and the BIG10+ budget and some creativity they should be able to compete after a little while with MOST teams.

Yes, I think this would be a great idea. They wouldn't compete well with those that give scholarships for tennis, but since there are getting to be so few of them, they could essentially have two divisions - one with and one without scholarships. There are still significant costs in terms of travel, facilities, coaches, etc. that the school would have to pony up for. Still, lots of kids would still jump at the chance to play high-level college tennis, and if the coaching were good and other conditions were right, might choose to even go there over a place where they could get a partial scholarship - and tennis has the advantage over some sports in that the kids are often very good academically.

[sundaypunch]

Originally Posted by coaching32yrs

In my opinion Title 9 is responsible for the termination of 100 men's college tennis teams. Football with 85 scholarships is the problem. Funding the 85 matching scholarships for women have strained university budgets beyond the breaking point. As a result men's tennis, wrestling and gymnastics have been eliminated at many colleges.

This is exactly the problem. Anyone that views Title 9 as the problem is not looking at the big picture. It's all about football in the NCAA, and football is monopolizing the majority of men's scholarships.

In this day and age it would be totally unacceptable to give men dozens and dozens of scholarships and women just a handful. Since Title 9 won't be changing, the question becomes how to increase the demand for tennis. Not an easy thing as interest in the sport has declined over the past few decades.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by Coach Carter

Truthfully, this just comes down to your administrators and how they interpret the NCAA. We had great ones then had crazies. At a school that was 70% male (D3, non-scholarship), in the end we had to have everything totally equal...every opportunity...practice players...everything...ground us to a halt. Much of the NCAA rules come down to interpretation...they say very clearly..."we want you to have the leeway at your institution to make decisions. If you have questions or concerns, come to us. If there are problems or if things get reported to us...then we will come to you".

Right, and ultimately it comes down to the NCAA and institution not getting sued for discrimination. The NCAA establishes a framework of female entitlement that the institution can use in their defense. Then the school must justify which sports to sponsor and to what level to fund individual programs.

It all boils down to avoiding getting sued over a federal law. Many ways to skin the cats.

[mmk]

Originally Posted by Coach Carter

Of course, they could reinstate the team and just not have it be a scholarship program. You would have players come in and pay their own way or be able to qualify for scholarshiping thru academic means or grants. You know, the old fashioned way...it's not un-heard of...with hard work and the BIG10+ budget and some creativity they should be able to compete after a little while with MOST teams.

I know DIII athletes who were given what were ostensibly academic scholarships, but once they quit the team, the scholarships went away. Schools can and do cheat.

[mmk]

Originally Posted by Coach Carter

Truthfully, this just comes down to your administrators and how they interpret the NCAA. We had great ones then had crazies. At a school that was 70% male (D3, non-scholarship), in the end we had to have everything totally equal...every opportunity...practice players...everything...ground us to a halt. Much of the NCAA rules come down to interpretation...they say very clearly..."we want you to have the leeway at your institution to make decisions. If you have questions or concerns, come to us. If there are problems or if things get reported to us...then we will come to you".

Then the male athletes should have sued the school. It can be done, and they likely would have won. I went to a school that required all US males who had not served in the military to take ROTC for two years. Someone finally sued on the basis of sex discrimination, and won. I'm all for title IX, but it should work both ways.

[Mitch Bridge]

Originally Posted by sundaypunch

This is exactly the problem. Anyone that views Title 9 as the problem is not looking at the big picture. It's all about football in the NCAA, and football is monopolizing the majority of men's scholarships.

In this day and age it would be totally unacceptable to give men dozens and dozens of scholarships and women just a handful. Since Title 9 won't be changing, the question becomes how to increase the demand for tennis. Not an easy thing as interest in the sport has declined over the past few decades.

If football is generating revenue, then it should not be included in the scholarship equality count. That is what makes things unfair and gives title 9 a bad name.

We do need to figure out how to help tennis grow, and I think high school tennis is one vehicle that could change the game.

Tennis in its popularity, although, has never been bigger. The sport has not declined over the last few decades but actually has the fifth largest tv audience in the US and fourth in the world of all sports. It is growing strongly, but we do need to give it a stronger foothold in the US.

[sundaypunch]

Originally Posted by Mitch Bridge

If football is generating revenue, then it should not be included in the scholarship equality count. That is what makes things unfair and gives title 9 a bad name.

We do need to figure out how to help tennis grow, and I think high school tennis is one vehicle that could change the game.

Tennis in its popularity, although, has never been bigger. The sport has not declined over the last few decades but actually has the fifth largest tv audience in the US and fourth in the world of all sports. It is growing strongly, but we do need to give it a stronger foothold in the US.

I could not disagree more. That is the basis for many types of gender discrimination. It's a terrible, terrible idea that, luckily, would never be taken seriously.

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by sundaypunch

This is exactly the problem. Anyone that views Title 9 as the problem is not looking at the big picture. It's all about football in the NCAA, and football is monopolizing the majority of men's scholarships.

There would not be a defined category under our laws called "men's scholarships" if not for Title IX. 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. The difference between then and now? Title IX.

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by mmk

I went to a school that required all US males who had not served in the military to take ROTC for two years. Someone finally sued on the basis of sex discrimination, and won. I'm all for title IX, but it should work both ways.

Was this a public school or a private school?

[mmk]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

Was this a public school or a private school?

Public, Colorado School of Mines. Actually, you could get out of the second year, and the first year was kind of fun. It was taught by Majors from the Army Corps of Engineers, one semester was bridge building (basic engineering), and the other semester was bridge demolition (where to put the C4).

[sundaypunch]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

There would not be a defined category under our laws called "men's scholarships" if not for Title IX. 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. The difference between then and now? Title IX.

Yes, but the point is that they currently choose to use the vast majority of men's scholarships for football.

Needless to say, I am a big fan of Title 9. I realize that many people aren't but that's not a concern of mine as there is no danger of it changing.

[Mitch Bridge]

Originally Posted by sundaypunch

Yes, but the point is that they currently choose to use the vast majority of men's scholarships for football.

Needless to say, I am a big fan of Title 9. I realize that many people aren't but that's not a concern of mine as there is no danger of it changing.

Title 9 has been fantastic for women's sports. As in most cases, things have swung too far to the extent that it is now biased against men's athletics. So, the guidelines should be tweaked a bit. Not being able to fill spots on women's college teams and then cutting men's programs sounds good to you?

[goran_ace]

The problem with Title IX is in how it's applied. Instead of schools adding sports for women, it's more likely you see schools reducing sports for men. I went to a school that was 52% female, so we had to keep funding some really bad women's teams (e.g. usually less then 5 wins in a season) just to keep our numbers up.

One thing I am in support of to even things out a bit for the men is to recognize cheerleading and dance teams as varsity sports. They are part of the athletic budget and look at their roster sizes. Unfortunately the courts have not agreed. In 2009 Quinnipiac College cut a few sport teams incl. women' volleyball in a budget balancing move. The women's volleyball team sued the school claiming it no longer complied with Title IX. The school claimed they were still in compliance with Title IX by including cheerleading in the headcount.

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by sundaypunch

Yes, but the point is that they currently choose to use the vast majority of men's scholarships for football.

Needless to say, I am a big fan of Title 9. I realize that many people aren't but that's not a concern of mine as there is no danger of it changing.

The point is that you are putting the cart before the horse. Only because of Title IX is there a problem with the number of "men's scholarships" or football scholarships, so it is misleading to say that the cause of programs such as tennis being cut is football. The root cause is Title IX.

[Kirijax]

It's a good idea but it has its flaws. Any time you put in a new system, after a while flaws and problems float to the top. It's pretty clear that some changes need to be made to it. Have there been any since it first came out? Or are the NCAA and other head honchos too bull-headed to admit it and work them out?

[Mitch Bridge]

Originally Posted by sundaypunch

I could not disagree more. That is the basis for many types of gender discrimination. It's a terrible, terrible idea that, luckily, would never be taken seriously.

If a sport can fully pay for itself, how is that gender discrimination? If a women's sport can sell tickets and create a profit, that sport wouldn't be considered in the scholarship equality count either. This would have absolutely nothing to do with equal rights, just balanced budgets.

[andfor]

Originally Posted by Mitch Bridge

If a sport can fully pay for itself, how is that gender discrimination? If a women's sport can sell tickets and create a profit, that sport wouldn't be considered in the scholarship equality count either. This would have absolutely nothing to do with equal rights, just balanced budgets.

True. It's clearly a "distribute the wealth" (from football) model at the DI level. However, many of the minor sports are sustained by student fees and boosters. The financial models across athetic departments and how the non-revenue sports is different from institution to institution.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by Mitch Bridge

If a sport can fully pay for itself, how is that gender discrimination? If a women's sport can sell tickets and create a profit, that sport wouldn't be considered in the scholarship equality count either. This would have absolutely nothing to do with equal rights, just balanced budgets.

Wow, have you ever even read cases where Title 9 was applied?

[gully]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

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. The difference between then and now? Title IX.

I'd be very interested to see any actual data that supports this claim. According to the NCAA,

1981-82: Total Men's Tennis Teams (d1, d2, d3): 690. Number of participants: 7,340.
2011-12: Total Men's Tennis Teams(d1, d2, d3): 765. Number of participants: 8,177.

(The numbers of teams and participants for d1 ONLY is very slightly lower in 11-12 than it was in 81-82.)

http://www.ncaapublications.com/prod...ads/PR2013.pdf, pp. 168-69.

[sundaypunch]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

The point is that you are putting the cart before the horse. Only because of Title IX is there a problem with the number of "men's scholarships" or football scholarships, so it is misleading to say that the cause of programs such as tennis being cut is football. The root cause is Title IX.

That's like saying the root cause of unemployment is women filling jobs that men could have. There are plenty of companies that wouldn't hire women if they thought it wouldn't result in a lawsuit.

Title 9 is absolutely necessary because plenty of people still use flawed logic to justify discrimination-

- "football shouldn't count because it makes money"

- "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. The difference between then and now? Title IX"