Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2015 6:53:16 GMT -8
How come there is not a Mens swim team at SDSU?
|
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Mar 3, 2015 7:28:22 GMT -8
Title IX.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2015 7:39:46 GMT -8
How come there is not a Mens swim team at SDSU? You gotta be kidding me. Where you been the past 45 years? Mars? Welcome back. |
|
|
|
Post by azteceric on Mar 3, 2015 7:45:11 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2015 7:46:22 GMT -8
You're welcome. Considering it (and hoops) funds everything else. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2015 8:16:47 GMT -8
Yes, the same reason there is no men's Volleyball team (past national championship), no men's track team (that could assist in recruiting football players with track speed), no men's wrestling team, etc. It's a shame and an example of reverse discrimination but a part of the world we all live in today. |
|
|
|
Post by Frantic on Mar 3, 2015 8:36:30 GMT -8
And don't forget the 1993 Cal-NOW settlement. It requires equal levels in participation, grants-in-aid and expenditures based on the male/female ratio of the student body.
This is important since 57% of SDSU's student body is female.
|
|
|
|
Post by azteceric on Mar 3, 2015 10:36:25 GMT -8
You're welcome. Considering it (and hoops) funds everything else. I know was being sarcastic. Football should be exempt from Title IX requirements |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2015 10:36:53 GMT -8
The laws exist to give women, primarily middle and upper middle class white women, the same access to educational opportunities as African American men. Because...the Patriarchy.
|
|
|
|
Post by tolstoy on Mar 3, 2015 11:18:48 GMT -8
Because you think something makes it less likely that football will be successful hardly makes something discriminatory.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecdan8 on Mar 3, 2015 11:25:40 GMT -8
You're welcome. Considering it (and hoops) funds everything else. I know was being sarcastic. Football should be exempt from Title IX requirements Since there is no womens football, it should be exempt. It's ridiculous, but hey common sense, law politics rarely seem to be aligned anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by Luchador El Guerrero Azteca on Mar 3, 2015 14:21:09 GMT -8
I know was being sarcastic. Football should be exempt from Title IX requirements Since there is no womens football, it should be exempt. It's ridiculous, but hey common sense, law politics rarely seem to be aligned anymore. Football is open to women. It isn't a men's sport per se. |
|
|
|
Post by missiontrails on Mar 3, 2015 15:49:11 GMT -8
I think OP just likes speedos.  |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 3, 2015 16:16:46 GMT -8
The Cal Now agreement may yet be fatal in the long run to even more CA college FB programs than have already died. (Nearly 20 of those have been cancelled in the past two or three decades, including some schools = = = St. Mary's and Santa Clara = = = that used to play in major bowl games.) What would be smart is for colleges to query all incoming freshmen to see if they are seriously interested in participating in sports. Under my plan, it would be made clear that those who indicate an interest would be contacted personally, if only by phone, by an authorized rep of the athletic department to determine each individual's level of interest. (Totals would be corrected in the cases of students who change their minds about going out for sports.)
The data collected by means of this survey could then to used to allocate resources. If it turns out, as I suspect, that men have a much higher interest in playing college sports than do women, the curse of the Cal-NOW decree might be lifted. The problem is that the schools just capitulated without a fight. As others have said, football should have been treated at least somewhat differently as opposed to all other sports. Perhaps one day some fearless young man will sue to have this decree abolished or at least modified. As things stand, minor men's sports have been decimated, even at some of the major universities. Meanwhile, one football game's attendance can easily draw more fans than all the women's sports events held in an entire season. Who pays for women to play field hockey before "crowds" of maybe 50 or 60 people?
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by missiontrails on Mar 3, 2015 16:30:23 GMT -8
The Cal Now agreement may yet be fatal in the long run to even more CA college FB programs than have already died. (Nearly 20 of those have been cancelled in the past two or three decades, including some schools = = = St. Mary's and Santa Clara = = = that used to play in major bowl games.) What would be smart is for colleges to query all incoming freshmen to see if they are seriously interested in participating in sports. Under my plan, it would be made clear that those who indicate an interest would be contacted personally, if only by phone, by an authorized rep of the athletic department to determine each individual's level of interest. (Totals would be corrected in the cases of students who change their minds about going out for sports.) The data collected by means of this survey could then to used to allocate resources. If it turns out, as I suspect, that men have a much higher interest in playing college sports than do women, the curse of the Cal-NOW decree might be lifted. The problem is that the schools just capitulated without a fight. As others have said, football should have been treated at least somewhat differently as opposed to all other sports. Perhaps one day some fearless young man will sue to have this decree abolished or at least modified. As things stand, minor men's sports have been decimated, even at some of the major universities. Meanwhile, one football game's attendance can easily draw more fans than all the women's sports events held in an entire season. Who pays for women to play field hockey before "crowds" of maybe 50 or 60 people? AzWm I am a big proponent of advancement in women's sports at the college level, but agree completely that there should have been an exception for football scholarships from the get-go. At the very least, 30 or so FB schollies should be exempt to allow for a couple more men's teams to be created. That would be enough for Volleyball and Track & Field at SDSU. |
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Mar 3, 2015 18:15:14 GMT -8
And don't forget the 1993 Cal-NOW settlement. It requires equal levels in participation, grants-in-aid and expenditures based on the male/female ratio of the student body. This is important since 57% of SDSU's student body is female. Yes, and from looking at the stands a good percentage of that 57% don't even attend female sports. They attend mens sports though. Yeah, yeah, I know it's about the opportunity to compete. When it came to Cal-NOW, the CSU system must have dropped their pants and bent over, then heard the UC system snickers watching that spectacle. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 23:54:00 GMT -8
How come there is not a Mens swim team at SDSU? You gotta be kidding me. Where you been the past 45 years? Mars? Welcome back. I know full well why there is no Men's Swim Team, I just wanted to spark a healthy conversation on the Topic, but thanks for the snarky poke in the eye anyway. I agree that the Football and Basketball Teams should be exempt as they bring in enough revenue to support their teams. I can't believe that there have not been lawsuits over this, as it hardly seems equitable. |
|
