Goodbye, Maryland tennis

[andfor]

Originally Posted by gully

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.

http://www.itatennis.com/AboutITA/Advocacy.htm - Regarding dropped and added tennis programs you'll find more stats here.

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by gully

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.

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.

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by sundaypunch

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"

Unfortunately, you have not demonstrated that the latter statement is flawed logic.

[slice bh compliment]

Originally Posted by dennis10is

...

America would have been so much stronger if we hadn't let women and colored people vote (colored = blacks, hispanic, asians, arabs, polynesian, italians, greeks, anybody who tan easily).

BTW, you do .....

This is great stuff, Cartman! Did you forget to mention the Jewish people?

[gully]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

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.

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.

[Mitch Bridge]

Originally Posted by gully

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.

Gully, so are you saying that men's tennis is basically in the same situation scholarship-wise that it was in pre-Title IX?

[gully]

Originally Posted by Mitch Bridge

Gully, so are you saying that men's tennis is basically in the same situation scholarship-wise that it was in pre-Title IX?

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.

[TimothyO]

Originally Posted by gavna

Ahhhh once again Title IX rears it's ugly head.....

http://sportsologist.com/college-ath...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.

[NLBwell]

Unless you were the one who got a jaywalking ticket.

[sundaypunch]

Originally Posted by NLBwell

Unless you were the one who got a jaywalking ticket.

That's a bad analogy. Anyone would be happy to get out of Detroit with only a jaywalking ticket.

[Dream_On]

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.

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by gully

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.

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.

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by gully

(For which he called me "a propagandist.")

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.

[Kirijax]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

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.

This needs to be a bumper sticker!

[gully]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

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.

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.

[sundaypunch]

Originally Posted by gully

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.

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.

[TennisNinja]

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.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by TennisNinja

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.

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.

[sundaypunch]

Originally Posted by TennisNinja

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.

Just what women need - 85 scholarships for football.

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by floridatennisdude

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.

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.