Column: Title IX not always perfect; Mocs drop men's track

[BillVol]

You can thank Title IX for UTC dropping men's track.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/s...perfec/285046/

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/s...-teams/285048/

[Merner521]

A quick glance at the track website and it appears that the team is close to 90% distance runners and zero field events. If they still have XC, at least they can compete for the school maybe the dedicated runners can still compete unattached in the spring.

I do feel bad for the few sprinters on the team, but let's not pretend that this is a track team getting cut. If a bad high school team would beat you in a dual meet (in this case due to lack of points in sprints/field), then you are not a college track team!

If the coach was actively recruiting field eventers and sprinters for next year, then I take back the above post.

[BillVol]

UTC fans lament end of men's track. Sounds like XC will survive, however, if the Mocs are to retain Division I status.

http://moctalk.yuku.com/topic/25313/...track-programs

[gm]

Or, instead of blaming Title IX as a convenient scapegoat, they could drop a money-losing football program and solve the problem.

[gh]

easier to blame women than face up to the truth

[BillVol]

This debate could go in a million directions, but I think Title IX has been taken too far.

[gm]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, Bill, but I personally believe equality/equity is a good thing.

[BillVol]

gm: Title IX does not represent equity. Not when men participate in sports in far greater numbers than women. And they always will. You could have Title A Million, and men would still compete in sports more than women. Title IX is politically correct bullshit.

Article about UTC track: "Tripped Up: Runners stunned by loss of UTC men's track."

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/s...-track/285264/

[gm]

Yes, Bill, it does. When a segment of society has been underserved for so long it takes a while for things to balance out. But if it makes you sleep better at night, keep overlooking the bear in the room...

[26mi235]

The interpretation of Title IX was something that was essentially forced on the court by the extremely poor treatment women's athletics was getting at most schools and terrible treatment at some. One thing that was probably not anticipated at the time was that women would make up a majority of the student body in colleges across the country, and another is the level of revenue from basketball, and especially, football for the top programs.

How would you set up the rules?

[MJR]

Only 20 NCAA athletic departments make a profit. All of the others, across all divisions, lose money. Those with football lose more money than the others. Anyone who calls football a revenue sport is delusional. It is a money pit.

[Cooter Brown]

Only 20 NCAA athletic departments make a profit. All of the others, across all divisions, lose money. Those with football lose more money than the others. Anyone who calls football a revenue sport is delusional. It is a money pit.

Honestly, all sports are a money pit. Football and basketball are the one two with the hope of making money. I'd also guess that more football programs would make money if they didn't have to support all the other sports.

[gm]

Honestly, all sports are a money pit. Football and basketball are the one two with the hope of making money. I'd also guess that more football programs would make money if they didn't have to support all the other sports.

Uh, no. Football programs lose money all on their own. They aren't "supporting the other sports" at too many places. Much of the money used to run athletic programs outside the Richie Rich crew comes from student fees and institutional support.

I doubt a lot of non-majors even bring in enough revenue to pay their coaching staff.