CSNbbs

Full Version: Men's XC SB Championship
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Men's x-country is a glaring weakness for us
(10-29-2016 11:36 AM)Tealblood Wrote: [ -> ]Men's x-country is a glaring weakness for us

Apps Men's T&F and XC are not what they used to be but our women are hanging in there. A few SB schools are better at the F part than the T part so ITF will be interesting. XC is a good portents for the distance parts of the T in ITF and OTF.
I'm just glad we get some attention in the fall, even if it is just one weekend. No question out T&F program, especially on the men's side is one of the best in the SBC.
(10-29-2016 11:36 AM)Tealblood Wrote: [ -> ]Men's x-country is a glaring weakness for us


As I said in a thread from 6 or 8 weeks ago, our men's XC situation is an embarrassment. I ran XC at Coastal. All I can figure is that this is either --- still a remnant of our threat a couple years back to dissolve the program, or a scholarship numbers problem. Both of these possibilities point to directly to title IX.
(10-29-2016 06:45 PM)coastalalum Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-29-2016 11:36 AM)Tealblood Wrote: [ -> ]Men's x-country is a glaring weakness for us


As I said in a thread from 6 or 8 weeks ago, our men's XC situation is an embarrassment. I ran XC at Coastal. All I can figure is that this is either --- still a remnant of our threat a couple years back to dissolve the program, or a scholarship numbers problem. Both of these possibilities point to directly to title IX.

I would assume that since you don't have men's T&F, it is a hard draw.
(10-29-2016 06:45 PM)coastalalum Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-29-2016 11:36 AM)Tealblood Wrote: [ -> ]Men's x-country is a glaring weakness for us


As I said in a thread from 6 or 8 weeks ago, our men's XC situation is an embarrassment. I ran XC at Coastal. All I can figure is that this is either --- still a remnant of our threat a couple years back to dissolve the program, or a scholarship numbers problem. Both of these possibilities point to directly to title IX.

Has to be Title IX. No way it is FBS football and the 65 scholarships more than the second-most-scholarshipped sport.
(10-29-2016 06:57 PM)CatMom Wrote: [ -> ]I would assume that since you don't have men's T&F, it is a hard draw.

Actually, Coastal has a pretty decent men's outdoor track and field team.
(10-29-2016 09:24 PM)coastalalum Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-29-2016 06:57 PM)CatMom Wrote: [ -> ]I would assume that since you don't have men's T&F, it is a hard draw.

Actually, Coastal has a pretty decent men's outdoor track and field team.
Good, because the SBC has 4/5 good ones that could win it in any given year.
We did lose 1/2 of our 4x100 that went to Nationals the past 2 years. Hope we got guys to plug in there.
(10-29-2016 11:36 AM)Tealblood Wrote: [ -> ]Men's x-country is a glaring weakness for us

Hey, at least you have a team. Cheryl Levick still haunts us.
(10-29-2016 06:57 PM)CatMom Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-29-2016 06:45 PM)coastalalum Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-29-2016 11:36 AM)Tealblood Wrote: [ -> ]Men's x-country is a glaring weakness for us


As I said in a thread from 6 or 8 weeks ago, our men's XC situation is an embarrassment. I ran XC at Coastal. All I can figure is that this is either --- still a remnant of our threat a couple years back to dissolve the program, or a scholarship numbers problem. Both of these possibilities point to directly to title IX.

I would assume that since you don't have men's T&F, it is a hard draw.



Yes we have a team for outdoor

just don't do indoor men's because of title IX
(10-30-2016 10:22 AM)Tealblood Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-29-2016 06:57 PM)CatMom Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-29-2016 06:45 PM)coastalalum Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-29-2016 11:36 AM)Tealblood Wrote: [ -> ]Men's x-country is a glaring weakness for us


As I said in a thread from 6 or 8 weeks ago, our men's XC situation is an embarrassment. I ran XC at Coastal. All I can figure is that this is either --- still a remnant of our threat a couple years back to dissolve the program, or a scholarship numbers problem. Both of these possibilities point to directly to title IX.

I would assume that since you don't have men's T&F, it is a hard draw.



Yes we have a team for outdoor

just don't do indoor men's because of title IX
But it's the same team of athletes, isn't it? It's not like you're adding or subtracting any already awarded scholarships.
For title IX you count them twice

You count the participation not the scholarship
For instance a girl that runs XC+ runs indoor and also is an outdoor runner counts for you 3 times
In title IX for instance last year we had 63 scholarships in football but our football team for had over 100 when the title IX accounting is done
(10-30-2016 11:23 AM)Tealblood Wrote: [ -> ]For instance a girl that runs XC+ runs indoor and also is an outdoor runner counts for you 3 times
Thanks, wasn't sure how that worked. I'm ok with some Title IX but that's messed up.
Once again, there is so much confusion about Title IX, but scholarships play very little, if anything in Title IX.

There are three prongs to Title IX.

1) proportionality, indicating that the percentage of female student-athletes involved with intercollegiate athletics is similar to the ratio of the female/male composition of the student body,

2) demonstrating an institution’s commitment to Title IX by expanding the number of sports for women,

or

3) satisfying the interests and abilities of the female students by providing sufficient opportunities.

Football is generally 1/3 to 1/4 of the entire student-athlete population, so no FBS school meets Title IX on prong one.

Generally, prong 2 is easier to prove. No where does cutting a men's sport satisfy prong 2. More often, cutting a men's sport is a cost-savings move to either cut the overall budget or add more money for football. Georgia Southern adding women's golf while moving to FBS is a way that meets that requirement. Adding 20 scholarships and 25-30 players will never be met with an equal number of women's scholies, yet App St, Charlotte, FAU, FIU, Georgia Southern & St, ODU, South Alabama, Texas St and UTSA have all made the jump. Most didn't even add a sport.

Prong 3 is the generic prong that is what most schools get to pass the test.

And I don't know where you get the idea that cross country athletes count three times. XCC/T&F are allowed 12.6 for men and 18 for women by the NCAA.

The only valid reason for having an outdoor team but not an indoor is cost. The participation still counts the same, as the indoor and outdoor athletes are the same.
(10-30-2016 12:47 PM)CatMom Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-30-2016 11:23 AM)Tealblood Wrote: [ -> ]For instance a girl that runs XC+ runs indoor and also is an outdoor runner counts for you 3 times
Thanks, wasn't sure how that worked. I'm ok with some Title IX but that's messed up.

That's false. That isn't in any of the Title IX prongs. Coastal not having an indoor team is purely a cost move.

Like wrestling, no one blames football for the need to save costs. But "needless government overreach" in Title IX gets the blame.

EDIT: Somehow the NFL needs only 53 players on their roster, but Division I has to have 85 scholarships and 100 total players.
(10-30-2016 12:53 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote: [ -> ]Once again, there is so much confusion about Title IX, but scholarships play very little, if anything in Title IX.

There are three prongs to Title IX.

1) proportionality, indicating that the percentage of female student-athletes involved with intercollegiate athletics is similar to the ratio of the female/male composition of the student body,

2) demonstrating an institution’s commitment to Title IX by expanding the number of sports for women,

or

3) satisfying the interests and abilities of the female students by providing sufficient opportunities.

Football is generally 1/3 to 1/4 of the entire student-athlete population, so no FBS school meets Title IX on prong one.

Generally, prong 2 is easier to prove. No where does cutting a men's sport satisfy prong 2. More often, cutting a men's sport is a cost-savings move to either cut the overall budget or add more money for football. Georgia Southern adding women's golf while moving to FBS is a way that meets that requirement. Adding 20 scholarships and 25-30 players will never be met with an equal number of women's scholies, yet App St, Charlotte, FAU, FIU, Georgia Southern & St, ODU, South Alabama, Texas St and UTSA have all made the jump. Most didn't even add a sport.

Prong 3 is the generic prong that is what most schools get to pass the test.

And I don't know where you get the idea that cross country athletes count three times. XCC/T&F are allowed 12.6 for men and 18 for women by the NCAA.

The only valid reason for having an outdoor team but not an indoor is cost. The participation still counts the same, as the indoor and outdoor athletes are the same.



Actually we are hanging our hat on prong 2

And I stand by what I said about how the kids count
Reference URL's