Goodbye, Maryland tennis

[tennis_ocd]

Originally Posted by Dream_On

How on earth does anyone think title IX is fair?

Easy if one believes that women should be denied equal benefit of federally subsidized education.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

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.

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.

[Misterbill]

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/collegefoot...least-the-name

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1628960.html

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foot...ystem-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.

[floridatennisdude]

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.

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by floridatennisdude

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.

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.

[floridatennisdude]

^^^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).

[Dream_On]

Originally Posted by tennis_ocd

Easy if one believes that women should be denied equal benefit of federally subsidized education.

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.

[goran_ace]

Originally Posted by Clemson_tennis

I wonder what will become of all the players. They will all transfer I guess. And what about Spencer? He has turned the program around quickly, surely there will be a school looking at him, maybe Arizona who has gone down very fast.

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.

[tennis_ocd]

Originally Posted by Dream_On

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.

Or give 42.5 full scholarships to women for football to really make things fair.

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.

[Clemson_tennis]

I kinda miss the Terps. They were a feisty team that was better indoor. Kinda like Louisville.

[PhotoBlue]

Originally Posted by Clemson_tennis

I kinda miss the Terps. They were a feisty team that was better indoor. Kinda like Louisville.

I've seen Louisville play... They have a DEEP team, or did anyway.

[zapvor]

it is by far one of the worst decisions ever made in college sports. i get to watch the women team practice, and its a joke compared to the men