The whole record thing is dumb. If I was a women's coach, I would be insulted that you are comparing me to the men in the same sport. But that is me.
Are there men's sports you find difficult to watch, and would you be just as adamant about getting rid of it? Not saying you have said ditch women's sports, but the general "guy" that you hear on sports radio/read in comments.
if it doesn't have support. i don't understand the restriction. hell the classics department has to be supported as well if it wants to survive. the other thing this money by and large is going to rich white kids. lacross, gymastics, crew, all rich white sports. i'm not sure how we benefit giving them scholorships over other people.
It's hard for me to want to get rid of something altogether just because it's not popular. When I was younger I felt like the only us soccer fan, so I realize people can be passionate about something that isn't overly popular around the country. I would say my interest in women's sports is comparable to that of the NHL. I don't watch and don't really know any of the players, but I'm not advocating shutting down the league for no reason. The things that bother me when it comes to women's sports are: 1. People who argue it's sexist that male athletes make more than female athletes. 2. People who argue that the quality of the sport is comparable (I mean come on, even the female athletes don't argue this). 3. People who wonder why the women's team is more successful than the men's team (a question I've heard in regards to UT basketball and US soccer multiple times). Other than that, I'm content to mostly ignore women's sports (like anything I don't find particularly entertaining).
I would definitely be on board with giving football some sort of "sugar daddy" exemption or modifier. There is just nothing comparable on the women's side in the number of players and scholarships required to run it effectively.
besides entertainment value, i'm a firm believer in athletics giving opportunities to people who would normally not get them. basically those sports are giving opportunities to people who could either get in on their own and afford the tuition on their own or is giving opportunities to people who had every advantage, yet still couldn't get it done academically. I don't really see the point of that. not that i'm suggesting rich white kids should never get athletic scholarships, I just don't understand supporting said sports to the detriment of the other ones.
Yeah I've never said "get rid of" anything. I just don't want to watch it. And what everybody else has said, pretty much.
To play devil's advocate, if the primary function of an institution is education, maybe we shouldn't have athletic scholarships at all.
many people certainly feel that way. I like the sense of community that athletics creates and as long as they are paying for themselves i'm all for it.
While that line of thinking may make sense, I really don't see what that would accomplish outside of taking educational opportunities away from students and increasing the popularity of pro sports.
you could argue they are talking educational opportunities away from the deserving students that would have had the athletes place if preferential athletic admission didn't exist. but life isn't perfect.
there are what 2 programs in all of women's basketball that pay for themselves? even the lady vols with it's sizable support is a net negative I believe. at cal women's basketball is almost as big of a drain as all of the other women's sports combined. of course the pac-12 requires you have a women's basketball team.
I'm not sure where all this media vitriol you're talking about is at. In three years of doing sports radio on a regular basis, there might have been ten calls about women's sports. If you take out the Jennings/Moshak lawsuits, the number drops to about two. We don't talk about it because it's obvious nobody gives a [dadgum] about it.