Phil Ritzenthaler wrote:
 
> <ON SOAPBOX>
> First off, Mr. "Eeyore" Neal, you **obviously** don't know.  Miami (Ohio) just
> eliminated 3 sports and a 4th was scheduled to be eliminated but was saved by
> private donations.  From http://www.muohio.edu/sportsreport/Wrestling.html :
 
Okay, so there is an example.  I stand by the basic claim that Title IX has added
far more women's sports than anyone has tried to claim that it has killed in men's
athletics.  It isn't killing opportunity; it is at most shifting it around, and
probably creating significantly more than it is eliminating, even by the worst case
scenario.
 
If you really must do your best to be angry and sarcastic, at least try to respond
to the general point raher than focusing on trivia.
 
> Read it and weep.
>
> My son is a wrestler.  My son is a **GOOD** wrestler.  He has won his share of
> State Championships, but he is not a great wrestler yet (he's only 15).  He
> also carries a 4.0GPA overall for his HS career.
>
> My son would like to wrestle in college.  He may not be Iowa or Oklahoma
> material, but he would be Miami (Ohio) or Bowling Green material . . .
>
> Oh . . .
>
> One problem . . .
>
> They no longer have wrestling because of Title IX.  So, now who's getting
> screwed?  Should we file a reverse discrimination suit against all schools
> that have dropped wrestling because of Title IX?  After all, isn't the
> **ONLY** reason he cannot wrestle at these schools is because he's MALE???
 
Huh?  How many universities do you know of with women's wrestling?  Again, maybe
you can name me a counter-example, but I don't know of any.  Certainly fewer than
continue to offer men's wrestling.  Sounds to me like being male is *not* the major
problem here.
 
What's the alpine skier who isn't good enough to get into one of the small number
of schools that offer it as a varsity sport supposed to do?  Or men's field
hockey?  Or women's hockey?  This anecdotal story doesn't really have a lot of
relevence.  No matter where you put the line, there are going to be some people
that just don't *quite* make it.  But in allocating the scarce number of spaces
available, I have yet to hear a good reason why a fair number of them shouldn't be
allocated to women.
 
> Gee, maybe if they started dropping hockey from UM or UMD you'd care?
 
Well, yes.  In fact, I even care that Miami has dropped its wrestling program.  But
asking whether I would care is different from asking  whether I think Title IX is
to blame.  MU has a certain number of athletics dollars to spend.  I don't see any
reason that men's programs should continue to receive a quite disproportionate
slice of these funds just because that's the way that it has always been up 'til
now.  Faced with this situation, MU had several choices; they could expand the
athletic budget until they could fund the women equitably; for what are almost
certainly very good reasons, they chose not to go this route.  They could have
chosen to ignore Title IX and keep things the way that they were; I'll ignore the
practical legal problems this would pose, as that's what this discussion is about,
but simply repeat that this would be an inexcusable moral mistake, given the nature
of the university's mission.  Or they could choose to reduce the number of men's
sports to free up enough money to create the situation that ought to have existed
in the first place.  They could have done this by reducing the resources devoted to
the football team until they resembled those devoted to other sports, but they
didn't.  That really only left one choice.  I'd say the reaction ought to be one of
disappointment, tempered by the knowledge that your son's plight isn't really
different from the situation faced by the vast majority of high school athletes,
male and female, face when they realize that they won't be able to compete at the
varsity college level.  And if you want to throw in some anger at the football
barons for having to much political clot within the athletic community, I won't
object to that, either.
 
> CARE BECAUSE IT'S WRONG.
>
> Check out The NATIONAL COALITION FOR ATHLETICS EQUITY.  From their mission
> statement:
>         NCAE is working with the Independent Women's Forum,
>         a Washington, D.C.-based national women's organization, to advance
>         a simple message: fairness dictates that all kids who are willing to
>         work hard should have a chance to compete.
>
> There's 1000's of other sites/articles saying this is *NOT* the way to do it,
> but it's being done.
 
Somewhere along the line, I've lost track of whether you agree or disagree with
this statement.  I heartily endorse it, within the obvious constraint that athletic
budgets are finite, and lots of kids won't make the cut.
 
J. Michael Neal
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.