1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

126 Athletes Put On Waivers, Classy Move Ohio U!

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Flying Headbutt, Mar 10, 2007.

  1. keef spoon

    keef spoon Member

    Title IX rears its ugly head once again. What a piece of garbage legislation. Thanks, feminists, for doing your best to ruin men's sports.
     
  2. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Title IX is not the problem. The way it is enforced is. As is the fact that ADs use it as an excuse to cut men's sports. No one has ever explained to me how cutting men's sports increases opportunities for female athletes.
     
  3. Cadet

    Cadet Guest

    Ignore keef. He's our resident Title IX troll.
     
  4. sportschick

    sportschick Active Member

    I think he hates his mother and therefore all other women. He should consider moving out of her basement.
     
  5. micropolitan guy

    micropolitan guy Well-Known Member

    Not going to argue the value of Title IX. It's a wonderful law, albeit clumsy at times because compliance is an ever-moving target because of the three-pronged aspect of it. Proportionality was the rage, now it's OK to use the other two prongs, which weren't in vogue in the 1980s and 1990s ...

    My point is, eliminating opportunities for women or men is never a good idea. Dropping football eliminates about 100 chances for athletes to compete. Moving down to I-AA should be a viable option for some of the lower-tier MAC and Sun Belt schools. But eliminating? No.

    Many schools that once eliminazted football later brought it back because they saw its value to the campus as a whole as far as alumni relations, getting former/prospective students back on campus, etc., and the value of increasing male enrollment in a period in higher education when male enrollment is plummeting.

    As far as not participating in a bowl game goes, yes, in many cases schools do lose some money. Stricter financial oversight should be demanded from such junkets. Administrators counter that you can't put a pricetag on three hours of national televison exposure, that losing 200 or 300K going to a bowl is offset by TV exposure. I've always had somewhat of a hard time completely accepting that logic.

    But if it was all about money, most Division I-A colleges would not sponsor anything more than regional competition in every sport except football and men's basketball because they are the only two that turn a profit. Luckily it's not all about money yet.
     
  6. Cadet

    Cadet Guest

    This is an excellent point about male enrollment; more needs to be done to encourage enrollment, retention and graduation.

    However, I don't believe there is a direct connection between football and male enrollment. If a young man is choosing his school based simply on the "beer and circus" aspect of college football, he's not going to choose a mid-major. He'll be looking at Ohio State, not Ohio.

    If a young man is undecided about whether to attend college, I'd bet those factors are more financial and career-oriented and less about the presence of football.

    If it's about retaining those 100 male football players as students to increase the male-female ratio on campus, then the school is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to retain a small fraction of its male students. In a simplification, those funds could be used to attract hundreds of male students, possibly through scholarships.

    I realize the "Flutie factor" has been documented, but I don't know if the effect is a long-term one. Programs have to be consistently good to attract booster and fan support; getting to one bowl game every five or six years is not going to sustain the attention.
     
  7. micropolitan guy

    micropolitan guy Well-Known Member

    I have no way of directly proving this, but I believe a majority of men who attend college would prefer to attend one that sponsors football as opposed to one that doesn't, if given the chance.

    That might not make a guy attend Ohio instead of Ohio State. But it might steer a guy away from St. Mary's, Pepperdine or Santa Clara and toward Cal or Cal Poly or Davis, for example.

    BTW, what's with Montana getting left out of the women's NCAA tournament? And the home games have to stop. With 15 scholarships and no one leavng early the game is already tilted toward the major powers. They don't need any more help with out-and-out home games like Stanford is getting, or virtual home games like Duke and UConn get.
     
  8. sportschick

    sportschick Active Member

    Don\'t get me started on Montana getting left out. No men\'s team ranked in the Top 30 would ever get left out, and they have to travel in the WNIT. . . fuck the selection committees.

    And yes, I think women\'s team should drop down to 13 scholarships, to even the playing field between the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Pac-10 and everybody else a bit.
     
  9. EStreetJoe

    EStreetJoe Well-Known Member

    I must've overlooked that in the two newspaper stories.
     
  10. Just_An_SID

    Just_An_SID Well-Known Member

    It's just that you are saying that you will do a thorough, professional job of researching story ideas when you are working, but when you aren't, you are going to spew uninformed comments. Is that what you pretty much said?

    I assume that when Jason Whitlock writes a column, he puts some time into it. I also believe that when he is posting on this forum, he does the same. Why should you be any different?

    Yes, my profession is changing. Some for the better, some for the worse. Administrators no longer see the media -- the local paper and TV -- as this massive force that they have to bend over for and do things just because they want them. My local paper -- because of the level of coverage that they give my team -- is almost irrelevant in the eyes of my AD so it is hard to get my administration to care about the paper when it doesn't seem like they care about my team (I know, I know, you're going to mention decreased budgets for staffing, coverage limitations caused by staff layoffs, etc.) but all of that doesn't mean anything to my boss. What matters is if there is a story in the paper every day. If you want good courtside seats to cover from, then you better be "covering" my team and not just doing only what you have to do because my boss can sell your courtside seat for some decent coin, believing that you can write from the endzone.
     
  11. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Oooh, somebody gets a little snippy when I fire back at him. I love how nothing is ever an SID's fault. Honestly, I find your excuses disappointing. Usually, I find your contributions to this board to be very insightful.

    I don't know how you do your job, but I have met quite a few sports information personnel that spend a lot more time getting in the way than actually doing their jobs. Seems a similar percentage to the journalists who aren't very good at their jobs, to be honest.

    Yes, I put some thought into what I post here but occasionally I am not as careful as I would like to be. I did that with a post earlier on this thread.

    I am more careful when I am doing my job than I am on a message board. To judge the professionalism of myself or other journalists on this board based on our posts here is ridiculous. If we were exercising the same level of professionalism, restraint and care with every post on here, the anonymity would be pointless. Part of the point of posting on here is to have a little more freedom.
     
  12. zizzer

    zizzer Active Member

    Allow me to give the hidden interpretation to SID's thoughts there. This whole thread got started because Ohio U is cutting sports, citing a lack of funding for them. What SID is saying is that colleges are having to look elsewhere to find funding, trying to be creative with new revenue streams, and courtside seats are another source of funding that has largely gone untapped.

    College administrators are starting to look at the current distribution of those premium seats and asking what return they are getting. Selling those seats to a donor, allowing them to feel more a part of the action than if they were five rows up, does that give the school a better return than a newspaper that does a piss-poor job covering the school?

    What he's saying is that he's trying to protect the better seats for someone who's there working so that you don't have to guess what it was that happened 100 feet down the court because you're sitting on the baseline. You may think he's getting in the way, but behind the scenes, he's probably working just as hard for you as your section editor does.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page