Is it a business? Plenty of athletic departments around the country lose money on football. We lose money on sports like men's tennis. I realize that the specter of TV contracts and the like have created a windfall of money for certain football programs, but I don't think that college sports is supposed to be a bottom-line business as opposed to an opportunity provided for these people to compete at a institution of learning while getting an education. That's the realm of professional sports. If we want to do a zero sum game of franchises, then eliminate the school element from the equation. Until then, the money argument only goes so far, for me.
1. Why is it only women who can solely determine if something is sexist, or not? 2. You should do some research into the value of a brand. And that "identity" that they've formulated with the "Labia-Laden Vols" logo? That identity is, by definition, separate from the Tennessee brand, which is, you know, the institution that they represent, and who has (and continues) to bankroll their self-made "brand". 3. If it's "meaningless", then how can a change to bring them all in line then be significant? But I'll agree and say that you're right, they have no room to complain, given its absence of meaning. 4. Who cares? I would say those who understand the value of a brand, for one. Those who wish to grow their brand, for two. Or, "anyone associated with any other part of the University of Tennessee, except for those who are under the laughably false assumption that they are their own distinct and separate entity, within it", for three. 5. Correct. And guess what brand those "lesser men's sports" - and all others - fall under? The same one they represent and who bankrolls them - The University of Tennessee. See how easy that works, for everyone else? As for the rest of your diatribe...you should note that it's not the University who is attempting to segment the "Labia-Laden Vols" from be rest of the University, but they themselves who are doing so. However, if you want to trace that logic all the way through to its logical conclusion, and defend their right to be uniquely separate and independent, based purely on gender-specific criteria - go right ahead. But take all that comes with it, too.
I neither called it a business, nor inferred that it was, or should be treated as such. You did. I just answered Dros' question. Lots of men's sports lose money, including football, as you suggested. I'm not for the non/existence of a sport based purely on its profitability, either, so we agree on that point.
I really don't care. I just like to see the holier-than-thou Lady Vol fans get this angry. I also laughed every time they show a picture of Ralph Weekly and he's wearing a Power T on his cap, and not the LV logo.
1. You don't see the issue with telling women they are being sexist against themselves? 2. They represent Tennessee, which, as I currently understand, is not in contention by the Lady Vols. And, if you speak with girls who are in athletics, the Lady Vols certainly do resonate with that demographic. 3. The argument is meaningless, to me. The value of the Lady Vol brand that has been created by people clearly is significant and of value to the people who participate within the group. What exactly are we trying to "bring them in line" to and why is it necessary, at all? 4. & 5. Did they suddenly become the "University of the Lady Vols"? Last time I checked, they have been representing themselves as the "University of Tennessee" since the beginning. Ultimately, you are going to have to truly convince me of two things. One, are we fixing something that is actually broken and, if not, why bother? Two, if it makes little difference otherwise (and I remain wholly unmoved by your maintenance of a Tennessee brand that is somehow affected negatively by the use of "Lady Vols") and the people whom are affected by the move completely against it, how is this not a matter of a bunch of (mostly) men making decisions for an objecting group of women and telling them their input on the matter is irrelevant?
They do bring some of this antagonism on themselves and can be annoying as hell. But, I'm like you, I don't care and they do. So, I see no real reason to make a change from what they desire if it's of no material effect upon the University of Tennessee.
the vast majority of teams nationally have dropped lady from the name and I assume there is a reason: Women’s Sports Foundation president Aimee Mullins told the USA Today, “On surface, it seems like a small issue, but it’s symptomatic of a larger pattern of women’s sports programs being viewed as the stepchild of men’s programs. Because men’s teams were in place years before women’s teams, some women’s programs did this to differentiate between the two programs, but I think it’s passé now.”
Uni, we have male coaches teaching the "lady vols," we have female trainers for male vols. "Lady Vols" is an anachronistic term with sexist overtones from a misogynistic era, and it divides a single brand, which isn't good either. There isn't a Lady University of Tennessee. I've yet to hear a reason why we should keep "Lady Vols" that isn't an empty appeal to "the way things have been." Do I care? Not a whole lot to this specific issue, but I do care about a stronger, less divided university and alumni base as a whole and this a symptom of a compartmentalized segment that wants their own little pet athletic sphere. Bullshit. One flagship university, one AD, one logo, one name. If they want a female Smokey, I have no issue with that whatsoever. Come at me.
It will be inconvenient when it's gone. Right now, if I see the logo or hear or see "lady" in front of Vols, I automatically start tuning out. If that changes, seconds of my attention are going to be wasted time after time, and I don't think I'm alone.
They had their athletic sphere, or department, and now that's gone. The best reason to allow the name and symbol is because the women themselves want it and it makes absolutely no difference to any of us, as I see it. It's also a brand that absolutely, positively has cache in the group of people most desired by the Lady Vols, young female athletes. The only people I see wanting to get rid of it are male fans, most of whom scoff at women's sports anyway, or administrators and the people who want to keep it are the ones whom are actually affected. So, again, how is it a necessary thing to get rid of it, again? It divides the brand? You think this change is going to make one damn bit of difference in that regard? Those who despise and don't go to women's sports still won't and the blue hairs and lesbians who don't like their male counterparts won't switch over, either.
Of course it will sort itself out, but it's still fun to argue about it, right? I mean, you don't think I'm under the delusion that what I'm saying will have any effect on the situation, do you?
The LV logo was nowhere to be found on the soccer uniforms this season because coaches and players wanted it gone. Edit: IIRC tennis and volleyball too, but I can't remember what they wear off the top of my head.
This restructuring and consolidation of brands seems like the same crap our company has been doing for the past 10 years. Why change a historic brand that is recognizable nation wide? Who exactly was offended by "Lady"? IP made a point about having male trainers and coaches, but still the sports are considered Women's Basketball/Soccer/etc... because the participants are in fact all women (Brittney Griner being the exception). Should we no longer make that distinction? Seems like a waste of time and effort.
As Brewski mentioned, many of the teams and coaches didn't want it. There is not this monolithic female support for "Lady <mascot>," as it is obviously an odd distinction to make. This isn't antifeminist, btw. By definition of the original movement, removing the "Lady" in the team names IS the feminist course of action.
