After 100 Years, UD Drops Men's Track & Field

[superman7515]

Delaware Axes Men's Running Programs (http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110120/SPORTS07/101200301/UD+axes+men+s+running+programs)


With Title IX in mind, outdoor track, cross country teams dropped after 2011


NEWARK -- The University of Delaware recognized its upcoming 100th anniversary season of outdoor men's track and field by dropping the sport on Wednesday.

The 2011 season will be the program's last.

Men's cross country also bit the dust in a move UD athletic director Bernard Muir attributed to Title IX gender-equity requirements, though nobody, including the NCAA, had accused the school of not meeting those requirements, Muir said.

"It's just a difficult decision because you're impacting lives and we understand that," said Muir. "But with the resources available to us, we felt this was the decision we had to make."

Delaware thus cuts two long-standing sports that have had many of its most academically successful student-athletes and helped enrich area youth and high school programs with qualified coaches.

Eight cross country and 23 track team members were Colonial Athletic Association Academic honor roll selections last year. Eight of the 12 runners on the 2010 cross country team and 15 of the 47 team members on the 2010 spring track roster were graduates of Delaware high schools.

Much more in the article...

[JohnStOnge]

More casualties of the twisted notion that "equal opportunity" means equal results. As I've written many times on message boards, the very existence of womens' sports at all means women are being given MORE than equal opportunity because if they were simply given equal opportunity they could not compete. True equal opportunity would be eliminating the distinction between mens and womens athletics and letting everybody compete for positions regardless of sex. We know what would happen if such true equal opportunity was in place.

A woman who runs a 11.0 100 meters is likely to be able to earn an athletic scholarship because she is given the opportunity to pit herself against lesser competition (i.e., other women). A man who runs a 10.9 100 meters would have a harder time earning a scholarship as a 100 meters sprinter even though he is faster in the 100 meters than the woman is. That is NOT equal opportunity. Setting aside a lower level of competition so that women who are not as capable athletically as men are can earn scholarships is NOT equal opportunity. It may be in the twisted world our Judiciary has created but it is not in reality.

[Seawolf97]

More casualties of the twisted notion that "equal opportunity" means equal results. As I've written many times on message boards, the very existence of womens' sports at all means women are being given MORE than equal opportunity because if they were simply given equal opportunity they could not compete. True equal opportunity would be eliminating the distinction between mens and womens athletics and letting everybody compete for positions regardless of sex. We know what would happen if such true equal opportunity was in place.

A woman who runs a 11.0 100 meters is likely to be able to earn an athletic scholarship because she is given the opportunity to pit herself against lesser competition (i.e., other women). A man who runs a 10.9 100 meters would have a harder time earning a scholarship as a 100 meters sprinter even though he is faster in the 100 meters than the woman is. That is NOT equal opportunity. Setting aside a lower level of competition so that women who are not as capable athletically as men are can earn scholarships is NOT equal opportunity. It may be in the twisted world our Judiciary has created but it is not in reality.

The failed system goes on and on. Sorry to hear this. So far we have been very lucky at Stonybrook. But major budget cuts loom ahead thanks to New York State's 11 billion dollar deficit!