Discussion

Folkstyle

G-R and Freestyle

Teams

Rankings

2019 UWW Senior World Championships
2019 Final X
2019 Junior Greco-Roman National Duals
2019 Junior Boys' Freestyle National Duals
Division changes for 2019-2020 OHSAA Dual Championships
2019 AAU National Duals (Disney Duals)
2019 Yasar Dogu International Tournament
2019 Junior and 16U National Championships (Fargo)
Division changes for 2019-2020 OHSAA Individual Championships

Forum Home

Forum Search

Register

Log in

Log in to check your private messages

Profile

► Add to the Discussion

Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Discussion Topic: Arizona State Drops Wrestling
John Joyce added to this discussion on May 15, 2008

One way to answer your question Bob would be that in the NFL, a guy goes down and the team can activate any guy they want. In college, that guy has to be enrolled in your school, etc. to be eligible to play in the next game for that guy. You also have a limit that players can play in college, so you have to have a guy ready to go that next year when players graduate/leave early. In the NFL, that guy is with you until his contract is up whether he likes it or not. The teams in the NFL have much tighter control as to what happens with their 53 guys than the colleges do with their 85 which is why they need more guys at their disposal.

That being said, however, not all of those 85 need to have scholarships- especially full rides. The only reason that they have this large amount of scholarships is money. Plain and Simple. It sucks, but it wont change. The best solution I have seen would be to make football exempt from Title IX. Not gonna happen either, but it would certainly make things simpler for non revenue sports.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: Arizona State Drops Wrestling
Vince DiSabato added to this discussion on May 15, 2008

Perhaps I am the minority here and that is ok but I don't see how complaining about the football programs receiving 85 schollys helps wrestling.

Why on earth would any of us want to jeopardize any opportunity for any athlete?

My problem is this. ASU now has 12 women's sports and 8 men's programs. Yes there are 85 schollys for football but women's volleyball, gymnastics etc are actually "protected" by a gender bias. Men may not participate. Women may try to attain participation in football no?

Pertaining to say the business school being under Title IX and having proportionality weighed for federal funding...the business school is not gender biased for say men's business school and women's business school are they?

Proportionlity has its major flaws and they have not been exposed. And if they have been attempted, the lobbyists have scared the congress so much...the GOP way of doing things/ fearmongering works... that they back down from common sense. Show me a woman that can move the blocking sled 25 yards and you have a chance.

Sports have been targeted here. Our sport has been targeted here.

I was asked on this site to write to a congressman from our state with a wrestling background, about the Stupak Grant that this administration is attempting to axe. I am appalled that I would have to. Where are the guts and the nads?

Your particular neocon republican party has put us all were we are today. Greater government, less freedoms (Patriot Act etc.), huge federal deficits from a previous surplas, adhering to the corrupt Federal Reserve Board that Andrew Jackson had dissolved with international corruption beyond belief.

And we suffer people. Our sport suffers people.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: Arizona State Drops Wrestling
Ken Ramsey Sr. added to this discussion on May 15, 2008

Vince:
Don't you have this backwards here? Title IX was a liberal Democratic 1972 Bill promoted by Patsy T. Mink, a Democrat. Title IX was strengthed in 1979 during Jimmy Carter's Administration that had a Democratic majority in both Houses. Title IX has been renamed after Patsy Mink. Far from being a Republican fiasco!



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: Arizona State Drops Wrestling
Vince DiSabato added to this discussion on May 15, 2008

Thanks for reponding without reading.

Title IX was signed and enacted by Richard M. (impeachment because I am a neocon caught with my pants down) Nixon. Proportionality was enriched under "I am the ultra-conservative, tear the wall down, run up the national deficit republican, claimed that I have alzhiemers when it it is exposed that I traded arms for hostages and at the best of my productive years was a grade 'B' movie actor president".

Reagan and all of the others have been compromised officials... Clinton as well. Why else would they have compromised on common sense?

Truman was the last great president that this union has ever witnessed. He was the very last to sacrifice the purity of the office for his own favor and he remidied the problems that FDR, through his own self-righteousness had professed.

Sound like anyone holding the office until January 20th? The very same guy gutting Stupak?



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: Arizona State Drops Wrestling
Hank Kornblut added to this discussion on May 16, 2008

Kent State would be a good example of a school where football is probably a huge drain on the Athletic Dept budget.

Look... John Irving once wrote a great article for the New York Times about how Title 9 had been subverted from its original intent -- to increase opportunities for women to attend Grad School.

And Stu Herman... there are 3 prongs to determine compliance, but up until recently the federal government insisted the only safe one was proportionality. The Bush administration actually encouraged schools to use the other two methods but university presidents said, "no." They're used to the current method and it's the only one that they know won't result in lawsuits. Proportionality assumes men and women have an equal interest in participating in college athletics.

Wrestling gets cut more than other men's sports because there is no female equivalent. That's why Title 9 is still relevant today. And universities are afraid to cut football even though some have considered it. One school actually did it (Boston University?) and they were excoriated in the news. Cutting football would make a lot of sense for smaller D1 schools or even certain Big Ten programs like Indiana University or Northwestern. Those schools have a difficult time supporting all their sports because they don't draw enough fans. Although Big Ten money probably helps float them.

Again, the biggest problem has always been how compliance with Title 9 is determined. As long as a university feels obliged to provide the same percentage of scholarship money to women as attend the university (if 55% of the campus population is female, they're supposed to receive 55% of the athletic scholarships), wrestling programs will get cut.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: Arizona State Drops Wrestling
Ken Ramsey Sr. added to this discussion on May 16, 2008

Quote from Vince DiSabato's post:

"Thanks for reponding without reading.

Title IX was signed and enacted by Richard M. (impeachment because I am a neocon caught with my pants down) Nixon. Proportionality was enriched under "I am the ultra-conservative, tear the wall down, run up the national deficit republican, claimed that I have alzhiemers when it it is exposed that I traded arms for hostages and at the best of my productive years was a grade 'B' movie actor president".

Reagan and all of the others have been compromised officials... Clinton as well. Why else would they have compromised on common sense?

Truman was the last great president that this union has ever witnessed. He was the very last to sacrifice the purity of the office for his own favor and he remidied the problems that FDR, through his own self-righteousness had professed.

Sound like anyone holding the office until January 20th? The very same guy gutting Stupak?"



Vince:

The point is still "a Democrat wrote the Bill, it was sponsored by Democrats, and the Democratic Congress passed the Bill". Yes, a Republican signed the Bill, but the full Bill contains many needed reforms. Females were treated like second class citizens and were given little if any athletic opportunities before the Bill passed in 1972. The intent seemed positive when submitted, but the interpretation and implementation have been flawed. I think the intent originally was meant to help females and not affect the males negatively, so I am not faulting the Democrats. I just get so tired of hearing "the Republicans did this and the Republicans did that, and the Democrats did this and the Democrats did that." We need to get back to the time when " the Republicans and Democrats did this, because it was good for the United States."



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: Arizona State Drops Wrestling
Don Stocum added to this discussion on May 16, 2008

Quote from Ken Ramsey Sr.'s post:

"Vince:
Don't you have this backwards here? Title IX was a liberal Democratic 1972 Bill promoted by Patsy T. Mink, a Democrat. Title IX was strengthed in 1979 during Jimmy Carter's Administration that had a Democratic majority in both Houses. Title IX has been renamed after Patsy Mink. Far from being a Republican fiasco!"



this is getting off topic



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: Arizona State Drops Wrestling
Bob Preusse added to this discussion on May 16, 2008

John Joyce,
yes i see your point about the NFL 53 vs College 85, that the NFL has ability to bring a new guy onto the team. ----- Still doesnt change fact 85 FULLS is way more than needed---- and if Ohio st for example as well as all other Div I colleges were reduced to say 60 Fulls max for football then that would be more than enough, esp since we agree not every football player deserves a Full, imo.

approximately Half of the 85 fulls Ohio st has wont see any meaningful action on the field during a game in a season. Some will redshirt and many will only see some mop up time if buckeyes are blowing someone out---- but no meaningful action for approx Half the 85 full schols.
-------------------------------------------


"Perhaps I am the minority here and that is ok but I don't see how complaining about the football programs receiving 85 schollys helps wrestling. Why on earth would any of us want to jeopardize any opportunity for any athlete? "

My Answer: since the pie is only so large, any sport taking much more than needed reduces what others can take, so i think it has to be part of the discussion. Those 85 football Fulls take scholarships from other mens sports. Especially at colleges with not near as big an athletic budget as Ohio St, like Arizona St whose athletic budget of $ 42 million is less than half of Ohio State's.

Ohio St is Not a good example for alot of situations, because Ohio st U is not typical in the number of sports supported, in budget, and in size of the school.. Ohio St is an exception.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: Arizona State Drops Wrestling
Mark Viviani added to this discussion on May 16, 2008

Here's a nice article on the ASU situation by former wrestler and current ultimate fighter C.B. Dollaway.

ยป Click here to read the article



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: Arizona State Drops Wrestling
Ken Ramsey Sr. added to this discussion on May 16, 2008

Here is some food for thought. In today's USA Today, Steve Berkowitz wrote an article about the expense's and revenue's of NCAA college sports. In 2006, 68 of the 119 D1-A colleges sports programs made money, but upon further examination only 19 colleges made money if you deducted subsidies from the general funds of the schools. In reports for 2004 & 2005 there were even less colleges who made money.

This means that of 119 D1-A colleges 100 of them lost money. Berkowitz also states that only the teams in the six conferences whose League Champions qualify for the Bowl Championship Series are making money (ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-10, & SEC.).

Looks like a lot more sports are going to be in trouble soon. 99 colleges showed an average deficit of $8.9 million, while the 19 making money averaged a surplus of $4.3 million. College sports future does not look real bright.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: Arizona State Drops Wrestling
Rex Holman added to this discussion on May 17, 2008

Mr. Ramsey-

I agree. It looks bleak. Federal Law combined with school administrators who don't care about men's olympic sports and a recessive economy.

Administrators are the entitled. They are entitled to their public job and will do what they have to in order to preserve their position. It is politicking at its essence.

Male university sports are farm teams for the pros. If there is no money involved, then those sports are going the way of the dinosaur.

Fiscal responsibility. Again, it always boils down to money.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: Arizona State Drops Wrestling
Mark Niemann added to this discussion on May 17, 2008

Mr. Holman, based on your post, would you say a sports program (wrestling or otherwise) that brings in money is 'safer' than a program that doesn't?
I like the line of self-preservation best.

---

I think I just hate it when the reason on finances is given when the supposed facts don't add up. Ex: Let's say a mat costs $15,000...that is a one time fee for AT LEAST 12 to 15 years. I am unsure of the costs concerning water polo, but I can't see a large-scale pool - fit for water polo - and the maintanence thereof, costing less than wrestling...and that cost is continued throughout the existence of the sport!!! Divide the cost in two or three if you want to add swimming and diving...I still don't think it adds up.

All in all, this is a bad situation for wrestling on all levels. <protest>



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: Arizona State Drops Wrestling
Ken Ramsey Sr. added to this discussion on May 17, 2008

Quote from Mark Niemann's post:

"Mr. Holman, based on your post, would you say a sports program (wrestling or otherwise) that brings in money is 'safer' than a program that doesn't?
I like the line of self-preservation best.

---

I think I just hate it when the reason on finances is given when the supposed facts don't add up. Ex: Let's say a mat costs $15,000...that is a one time fee for AT LEAST 12 to 15 years. I am unsure of the costs concerning water polo, but I can't see a large-scale pool - fit for water polo - and the maintanence thereof, costing less than wrestling...and that cost is continued throughout the existence of the sport!!! Divide the cost in two or three if you want to add swimming and diving...I still don't think it adds up.

All in all, this is a bad situation for wrestling on all levels. <protest>"



Mark:

Not only is it a bad situation for wrestling it will be a bad situation for any men's sport that consistently loses money, including the big money losers in football especially if they aren't in line with Title IX.

Most of the football schools are losing a lot of money when you take out the school's subsidies.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: Arizona State Drops Wrestling
Rex Holman added to this discussion on May 19, 2008

Mark-

I do think a program that brings in money is safer as it can claim self suffiency to the powers that be. It is reasonable to assume that only successful programs will break even or operate in the black as people follow winners in droves. A program needs big numbers to generate revenue. This does not necessarily protect the program as the Head AD and President of the university charter the course of its programs. If there is an AD who is unappreciative of wrestling or worse yet, dislikes it, then it does not bode well. Couple that with an incident or two of unruly behavior from its participants and then you are on the bubble. You can see the wave of cuts in mens sports. It has been happening for over thirty years. Some sports are more expendable than others per someone who is making decisions at that level. Twenty years down the road, Universities will decide to specialize in some sports and not others. They will focus one some sports and hold coaches accountable for winning. You are seeing that model in football and basketball. The non revenue sports need to develop a loyal following with large community support and a history of producing Olympians and highly visible athletes that are associated with the sport and the university. In essence, the athletes need to be marketable and income producing. I think that is the path we are on right now in terms of collegiate sports.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: Arizona State Drops Wrestling
Hank Kornblut added to this discussion on May 19, 2008

Rex: I think you've nailed it. But here's the unfairness. Female sports will never be held to the same level of accountability. They'll be allowed to lose money while men's sports won't. Secondly, schools will hold on to their football programs to the bitter end with few exceptions. So, Title 9 and Football, the combo that are already lethal to men's minor sports, will be the only survivors.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

► Add to the Discussion

Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next