LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

http://www.goducks.com/ViewArticle.dbml ... R_CONTENT=

I was really hoping Oregon would lead the way for the PAC-10 adding lacrosse since they were the only school without baseball and the tremendous growth of HS lax in the state....ah
The article also mentions that Oregon will drop wrestling and add competitive cheer.

At least we know it can be done....adding a large men's sport in this day and age. Unfortunately you have to cannibalize another men's sport and add a women's sport.

Iowa State doesn't have baseball which I always thought is odd. Glad to see schools adding baseball.

KnoxVegas wrote:Iowa State doesn't have baseball which I always thought is odd. Glad to see schools adding baseball.

They dropped it in like 2001 or 2002.

I apologize ahead of time as I believe the PNCLL forum may not be the best place to continue this discussion, nevertheless it is fresh and Oregon-centric,

OK obvious noob question here: Did UO need to drop wrestling AND add women's cheer if adding baseball? I was under the impression that Title IX required an equal amount of teams, does it have a stipulation requiring an addition to both men's and women's sports teams? Was the addition of cheer meant to satisfy Title IX and the dropping of wrestling was purely financial?

Also, how can this be applied to the possibility of men's and women's lacrosse teams in the future in the Pac-10 or other conferences i.e. GNAC in DII and NWC in DIII? If schools would like to add BOTH men's and women's lacrosse at the same time (assuming financial responsibilities are met and understood) could this be accomplished without dropping other sports?

A lot of Pac-10 schools (including Oregon) already have D1 Woman's Lacrosse. My sister got a full ride at UC Davis and received all kinds of free gear and services. When it came to my lax expenses, I told my parents to use the $$ they saved on my sister for my lax expenses...! (didn't always work)

Scrape Mode wrote:A lot of Pac-10 schools (including Oregon) already have D1 Woman's Lacrosse. My sister got a full ride at UC Davis

UCDavis is not a Pac10 school. 3 Pac10 schools have lacrosse: Oregon, Stanford and Cal.

TheBearcatHimself wrote:Did UO need to drop wrestling AND add women's cheer if adding baseball?

Oregon is out of compliance with T9, which is why to add a men's sport, they had to drop a men's sport. I question their decision to add competitive cheer, as it's not a major Pac10 sport. I would rather have seem them add another sport that more Pac10 schools practice.

TheBearcatHimself wrote:I was under the impression that Title IX required an equal amount of teams, does it have a stipulation requiring an addition to both men's and women's sports teams?

Your impression is not entirely correct. T9 has 3 forms of measurements that satisfy the courts:
(a) proportion of opportunities / scholarships is in proportion to the gender make up of the school.
(b) show that the school is expanding women's opportunities (this is the prong that Oregon is following)
(c) show that the school is meeting the interests of the women.

Regarding (a) this is the easiest to measure - compare # of scholarships and spots on teams compared to the number of women / men's percentages on campus. Note that this does not measure teams. This is because Men's Football has 85 scholarships, and women's lacrosse has 12 scholarships. That is not an equal proportion. You need 3-4 women's teams to balance out men's football. There is no rule requiring the same sport for both men and women. If there were - women's football would be offered at all DI colleges. This is why you see women's gymnastics at many Pac10 schools, but not men's gymnastics.

Regarding (b) This is why Oregon is adding another women's sport - to show expanding opportunities for women. They are adding a new sport every 3-4 years to slowly expand. It helps manage money, but it leaves room for interpretation. How fast should expansion be carried out?

Regarding (c) this is the most difficult to measure. If you send out interest forms to women on campus and ask them to fill in their favorite sport, or sport they wish was available, do the forms not returned "count" as lack of interest? What if they are not mailed to the right address (college kids move a lot). What if they are emailed and land in the junk folder? Lots of room for interpretation, worries about landing in the courts with legal challenges. Boise State used this method to choose women's lacrosse as the next sport to add at BSU.

TheBearcatHimself wrote:how can this be applied to the possibility of men's and women's lacrosse teams in the future in the Pac-10

I am skeptical that men's lacrosse will come to the Pac 10 any time soon. Most schools are still cutting men's sports. OSU may cut a men's sport, UCLA recently cut some men's sports, and the Arizona schools have put off adding new sports. There is only so much money to go around.

And some schools are already compliant with the (a) prong of T9, and since they have limited budgets, they are not lookin to add another sport. Some schools have only partially funded sports (men's and women's - particularly at UCLA). I think they would fully fund those sports, before they would start to add more sports.

The athletic directors want to be fiscally sound, and also competitive, so if they have extra funds, they will round out the scholarships for the sports they already have.

More success will happen at the DIII level, because those athletes are paying tuition themselves, and the college presidents and athletic directors all want kids whose parents will pay their way w/o financial aid, and will give back to the schools later on.

UCLA is fully funded under the NCAA limits on scholarships until Women's rowing was added which I am not sure about. Regardless they have been doing quite well.
Over the years (but not recently) UCLA has cut the following men's sports:
1979: Wrestling
1991: Rowing
1994: Swimming and Diving, Gymnastics

These 4 sports are probably the ones that are getting cut at the highest rate. Wrestling was dropped a long time ago when MANY California colleges were doing the same.

Again, women's lacrosse is likely the next sport to be added at UCLA, but probably not anytime soon.

What men's sport do you speculate OSU will eliminate? My guess is Rowing...non-NCAA sport with very expensive equipment and a large roster. But then again they do share the house and some equipment with the women's team (which IS an NCAA sport). Furthermore, with Oregon dropping wrestling that leaves only OSU, Stanford and ASU with teams...will the PAC-10 continue to sponsor the sport (odd to have schools like Portland State and Bakersfield competing for a PAC-10 title) or will the MPSF take over administration.

Alright...i'm getting way off lacrosse topic. time for bed.

As far as I am concerned, Title IX sucks as is. It was a great idea when instated, but needs to be changed. That first prong needs to be changed and taken into three categories of Men's Sports Scholarships, Women's Sports Scholarships and Football. Football is a separate beast and makes more money than any of the other sports combined. It clearly is what college sports is run on and needs to be its on thing. This will allow for the other two prongs to be easier fixed and will allow for more opportunities for all athletes, both men and women.

I'll try to find the link, but I did read that UCLA is not fully funding scholarships for some of their men's sports. Obviously they are fully funding football and basketball.

Regarding OSU, there have been rumors for several years now that they will cut a men's sport - rather than add a women's sport in order to stay compliant with T9. Men's rowing does not have any scholarships, but like Rutger's rowing, it has lots of "athletic opportunities" that need to be offset by women's sports.

Regarding Timbalaned, the problem with listing football separately is that not all schools are in the black with football revenue. So for those schools, does football get to be in a separate category? And how is profitability determined? Do you get to include parking fees? The argument can be made and disparaged that alumni donate because they get to participate in the communal football experience -whether or not the ticket gate pays for the team's expenses.

Speaking of Oregon, interesting to me that they cut men's wrestling, and yet built that $4million lockerroom for the football team a few years back - with thumbprint identification for each locker, flat screen TV's, videogames, etc.

I have serious questions about the "arms race" in facilities, and whether that is a better way to spend money, rather than hang onto wrestling, and add another women's team to stay in line with T9.

Oh it gets better, along with adding baseball, they are working on building a new baseball diamond for the team. There already is a single A team in Eugene that I think they will use the field for this first year or so, but they want a new stadium. That stadium will of course be state of the art and will cost a pretty penny. Along with the new basketball arena they are trying to build. They could have kept the wrestling team if they wanted, but they just chose to use the money in other areas.

KnoxVegas wrote:Iowa State doesn't have baseball which I always thought is odd. Glad to see schools adding baseball.

Neither does the University of Wisconsin or Marquette (varsity). I believe UW is the only Big 10 school without it.

Sonny,

Can we get this moved to the Cooler?

Timbalaned wrote:As far as I am concerned, Title IX sucks as is.

Many people share your opinion, Brauck, but it is also settled law so we just have to deal with it.
A university chancellor once explained that compliance with T9 is a relatively simple mechanism, and I alwasys remember his lesson:

If your school is in T9 non-compliance (which virtually all schools with DI football programs are), you simply have to take steps to gradually correct the imbalance. This could conceivably take a century or longer. But during that time any changes you make to the balance of male and female athletes MUST mitigate your gender inequity -- it cannot add to it. If you take the case of Oregon adding baseball, the Ducks must make the move combined with adding women's sports and/or dropping men's sports so that you add at least ONE more opportunity for the women than you do for the men. So let's say UO adds 25 men's scholarships for baseball (I'm making up a number, I have no clue how many the actual number is to start). Let's go on to say the dropping wrestling subtracts 15 scholarships (another hypothetical). The net addition of ten new male athletes (after adding baseball and dropping wrestling) MUST be offest simultaneously by adding a women's sport with more than 10 scholarships. So let's guess that the Duck administrators poked around until they found a sport that could be added with 11 scholarships and VOILA! -- women's cheer is born. Oregon has taken a small step towards mitigating their gender inequity by increasing, by one scholarship in this hypothetical, their women's oportunities as relative to the men's.

NCAA Div. 1 baseball can only offer 12 scholarships, if I recall correctly. Much like Div. 1 lacrosse, very few players get a full ride for baseball.