Baseball?

[PonyKai]

A cheap shot? How?

[PK]

A cheap shot? How?

By insinuating that those two women's sports were the only ones not "really drawing well". The fact is, when we had men's track and field, they didn't draw all that well either...and before anyone gets his undies in a wad...I personally wish we still had men's track and field teams and hope some day we will again. Title IX is a challenge, but it appears to be here to stay, and to try and make fun of the women athletes is stupid. I don't know about you, but riding a horse is a challenge for me muchless riding them as they jump over fences, etc. I suspect most of the guys posting on these boards could not do what our women athletes do...so cut the crap.

[PonyKai]

Except I never did make fun of the athletes. I was poking fun at the fact that I'm sure equestrian draws about as well as our club hockey team- about a dozen fans. Kind of like all athletics at the school, even the revenue ones. Personally I don't like having equestrian even as a title ix sport because of the steep costs that come with raising, training, breeding, feeding, equiping, and housing very expensive, powerful, large animals. I would prefer to have something a little more campus friendly. That was not belittling them as athletes- that was poking fun at something I don't agree with.

[PK]

So what part of women's track and field do you have trouble with?

[PonyKai]

I never said I had a problem with womens track and field. I like it. It's a successful program which I believe is better to have at a school. I prefer 'traditional' sports for a school to endorse, such as basketball, track, baseball/softball, lacrosse, football, golf, tennis. PERSONALLY, I do not prefer sports such as equestrian, rowing, gymnastics. In my opinion they do not generate enough revenue or exposure for the student athletes, and it is not beneficial for the university. These expensive, non-mainstream sports do not enjoy campus support, recognition, funding, exposure, and do not generate revenue. It hurts the overall program in my opinion.

[PK]

The reason I asked is because you included them in your remark along with equestrian ,"But boy those women's equestrian and track meets really draw well don't they?", and you said you made your remark about equestrian because you were poking fun at something you don't agree with. So what was up with women's track and field?

There are of course a limited number of sports available for women that don't involve constructing new facilities, etc. I don't know what the cost of running our equestrian program is compared to say lacrosse might be nor do I know if there are many women's lacrosse teams in the area vs equestrian teams...thus travel expenses. We have men's and women's golf which do not compete in a manner conducive to campus support. Rowing is a very traditional college sport...just not so much down here in the south...so what? Up north, it is a popular men's sport as well as women's. Don't forget hockey...ice and field.

Broaden your sports horizons dude.

[PonyKai]

What's up is I made a light-hearted off handed comment about two women's sports that don't draw well. Fine, I will revise my statement to better fit my opinions: Boy those women's equestrian and rowing matches really draw well don't they?

I don't think I need to broaden my horizons because I think it's a mistake to field several of the non revenue sports we have. If rowing is popular in the northeast and among the Ivy League, why fund it in the middle of Texas, where a softball, lacrosse, or field hockey program would most likely be more beneficial to the program and its athletes?

[Water Pony]

I think we are all in violent agreement. Title IX creates challenges for schools as does the arms race for FB and BB. College sports is a complex, but rewarding pastime for all of us.

In a perfect world, students should be able to complete in a sport of their choice without the limitations of a budget problem, excessive mandated requirements, etc. As a big non-revenue guy, I strongly believe participation in a sports is positive and character building. It adds to one's life and college experiences.

That said, women should have equal opportunities. That is not the same as equal outcomes. Title IX does need Men's FB to exist for the revenue, but unfortunately it absorbs an a great many roster positions for men in sports which must then be cancelled.

Supporters of IX say that is the schools position to cancel, they aren't demanding it. But, there is no other way to have equal or proportional numbers playing sports because you need to create two women sports (at least with big rosters) to cover one men's sport, not to mention the resulting budget shortfall, since non-revenue sports don't generate much revenue (surprise?)

My daughter competed nationally on club equestrian team in college and my son did club LAX at SMU. Adequately funded club sports should be considered as a way to meet demand for men and women.

I'd love SMU to have baseball, softball, men's T&F/CC, and M/F lacrosse as varsity sports, but can't write the check.

Watch Orsini focus on: revenue, attendance, facilities and on the team / coach performances. Anyone who wants to wait on the sidelines, complain, withhold funds, second guess and blame the past, is part of the problem.

Give it up for the Mustangs!

[mr. pony]

Women's softball is one of the hottest things going. We have rowing and equestrian. What the???

[EastStang]

Because rowing and equestrian are cheaper than softball. Fewer athletes, fewer meets, lower travel costs. And Equestrian is more in keeping with our snobby personna than a pedestrian sport like softball. We ought to add polo and have Cartier and Nieman's sponsor our team. Hey look Biff, Muffy just scored a goal in the first chukker. SMU, Rice, Tulane and Tulsa would probably be great schools for Polo. Baylor wouldn't join because BRUT champaigne would be served in the stands during the matches.

[PonyKai]

I don't know any of the numbers so I can't pull anything out of my backside, but I say again that I have to believe that training, equiping, feeding, breeding, and housing HORSES as well as athletes is very, very expensive.

[mr. pony]

Football, baseball, basketball, track, softball, tennis, swimming, golf, and volleyball - that's where our focus should be.

Juggle it, twist it, cypher it, whatever. That's where successful schools - similar in size and scope to SMU - are participating.

Equestrian and rowing are cheaper? So what? So is going without all the new-hires in marketing and sales. But that had to be done.

[abezontar]

I don't know any of the numbers so I can't pull anything out of my backside, but I say again that I have to believe that training, equiping, feeding, breeding, and housing HORSES as well as athletes is very, very expensive.

If my memory serves me correctly, one of the reasons given for adding equestrian as opposed to another sport was that the athletes came to SMU with their own horses, and provided most of the training, equipping, feeding and housing for the horses. I doubt very seriously that SMU carries on a breeding program for the horses of the equestrian team. They have bred Peruna, but that is a different situation.

[CalallenStang]

Forgive my ignorance, but could someone explain to me why we would have to add two women's sports for every men's sport added?

We should be in compliance if we meet any ONE of these three prongs:

Prong one - Providing athletic opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR
Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented gender, OR
Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented gender.

I interpret that to mean that we should have at least a 1:1 ratio of mens':womens' sports.

Perhaps there is a further ruling that I am not aware of.

[PonySnob]

With the exception of soccer, none of the non-revenue sports really draw well...do they?

Our revenue sports don't draw that well either!