MGR Update

Harry · December 13, 2005

http://www.gomeangreen.com/mgr

untcampbell · December 13, 2005

toasty.

thanks Harry

medpilot21 · December 13, 2005

Good write up, Harry. Hopefully good things are on the way...

GMG!!!

NT80 · December 13, 2005

That was certainly depressing.

PlummMeanGreen · December 13, 2005

Good overview, Harry...

No revelation with this even before reading the latest M.G.R., but won't the success of next football season largely depend on who NT signs from the junior college ranks in the next 4-6 weeks; especially in the NT defensive line that couldn't stop FAU in the closing minutes of that loss a few weeks ago (along with other teams in and out of the the SBC last season)?

Not the best way to build a football program in NCAA D1-A most might agree, but now time is of essence for an NT football program in the Sun Belt Conference and where our present standing now is in that conference

GOD BLESS TEXAS!

SilverEagle · December 13, 2005

At this point, I certainly hope that the coaching staff has revised their walk-on program. And by "revised" I mean making it more "approachable" and "accessable" to interested prospects.

What they've had so far quite frankly.......sucks.

MootPoint · December 13, 2005

At this point, I certainly hope that the coaching staff has revised their walk-on program. And by "revised" I mean making it more "approachable" and "accessable" to interested prospects.
What they've had so far quite frankly.......sucks.
←

There is a problem with "opening" it up, namely Title IX. The more walk-ons that come out for football, the more "opportunities" that are needed for women in other sports and, quite frankly, most women don't try to walk on to a team. It's really only football where you get a huge number of students that are interested in trying to walk on to the team.

SilverEagle · December 13, 2005

There is a problem with "opening" it up, namely Title IX. The more walk-ons that come out for football, the more "opportunities" that are needed for women in other sports and, quite frankly, most women don't try to walk on to a team. It's really only football where you get a huge number of students that are interested in trying to walk on to the team.
←

So, let me see if I understand this correctly. Even if women are NOT calling up the athletic staff and saying that they want to "walk-on" the NCAA will bring sanctions down on NT if 50 or 75 football players want to walk-on this spring and the women's programs don't have the same purportional number of walk-ons?

To me, in this scenario, "opportunities for women" is merely the documentation that there was sufficient salaried (or volunteer) staff available to answer the phone and/or answer questions (face to face) for ANY woman that is interested in "walking on" at North Texas.

This is friggin crazy, but it's still absolutely no excuse for the lack of a a viable or "user friendly" walk-on program at North Texas. Any program in our position needs to be "hungry enough" and "creative enough" to get "viable" and "motivated" athletes into our program. Everyone else has to deal with Title IX. To me, this is a minor annoyance, not an excuse to not have a viable "walk-on" program.

MootPoint · December 13, 2005

So, let me see if I understand this correctly. Even if women are NOT calling up the athletic staff and saying that they want to "walk-on" the NCAA will bring sanctions down on NT if 50 or 75 football players want to walk-on this spring and the women's programs don't have the same purportional number of walk-ons?
←

That is correct.

SilverEagle · December 13, 2005

That is correct.
←

Do you have any information about how (or if) this has effected the legendary Nebraska walk-on program?

MootPoint · December 13, 2005

Do you have any information about how (or if) this has effected the legendary Nebraska walk-on program?
←

I don't have any specific information, but I do know Nebraska has a lot more sports teams than we do, including women's rifle, gymnastics and other sports.

edcollopy · December 13, 2005

I don't know if it's a result of title IX, but SI said that Callahan had really trimmed down the whole walk on program.

UNTLifer · December 13, 2005

Wow, who mentioned that? Madden or Michaels? I must have missed that.
←

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought Title IX related to scholarships or "school funded" opportunities being equal for women and men. If a walk-on wants to pay his/her way, why does this affect Title IX? Or does Title IX also state that if there are 20 walk-on spots offered for men then they has to be an equal amount, 20, of spots for the women?

Edited December 13, 2005 by UNTLifer

SilverEagle · December 13, 2005

I don't have any specific information, but I do know Nebraska has a lot more sports teams than we do, including women's rifle, gymnastics and other sports.
←

Well, to me, it doesn't matter how many women's sports you have. If you don't get calls or walk-in inquiries from women about wanting to "walk-on" the football team ends up being in the same boat.

So, to me it goes back to my original statement about "how to comply". You just document that there was sufficient (and knowledgable) staff available for any interested women to talk to about walking-on. And you keep a daily phone and/or face to face contact log, on any and all calls/contacts coming in about women interested in walking on.

untbowler · December 13, 2005

I know in 3 years of Tennis coaching we had a grand total of 3 walk-ons even try-out and the 1 or 2 who did make it either quit or sat in the stands all season.

MootPoint · December 13, 2005

Talking scholarships/opportunities doesn't really work out exactly. Some teams, like softball, swimming/diving, etc. have a ton more players than scholarships because the girls get like 1/4 scholarships or 20% scholarships. They don't get a full scholarship. But, we still count all of the players on the team as having been given an "opportunity." The same thing with walk-on's. Each walk-on is an "opportunity." When you have 50 walk-on's as opportunities, you need to try to have 50 more opportunities for women. That's really tough to do when 1) women generally don't walk-on and 2) you have size limits on sports teams. The problem is that for a football loving state like Texas, men still think they can have the glory of being in front of tens of thousands of cheering fans while they pick up accolades and then a scout might see them and they could go pro. Women pretty much realize that they play, they graduate and they go to work in the real world and even if they somehow could go pro, they aren't going to be making millions of dollars.

SilverEagle · December 13, 2005

Talking scholarships/opportunities doesn't really work out exactly. Some teams, like softball, swimming/diving, etc. have a ton more players than scholarships because the girls get like 1/4 scholarships or 20% scholarships. They don't get a full scholarship. But, we still count all of the players on the team as having been given an "opportunity." The same thing with walk-on's. Each walk-on is an "opportunity." When you have 50 walk-on's as opportunities, you need to try to have 50 more opportunities for women. That's really tough to do when 1) women generally don't walk-on and 2) you have size limits on sports teams. The problem is that for a football loving state like Texas, men still think they can have the glory of being in front of tens of thousands of cheering fans while they pick up accolades and then a scout might see them and they could go pro. Women pretty much realize that they play, they graduate and they go to work in the real world and even if they somehow could go pro, they aren't going to be making millions of dollars.
←

So getting back to the issue of "how can we reasonably comply" have the title IX people given out a working definition of what "opportunities" mean to them?

I totally agree with you about women athletes and their "real world" attitudes. However, I'm interested in how the title IX people look at this situation. Just because women athletes are not as delusional as male athletes, doesn't mean that the football team at any University should suffer.

ipEAGLE · December 13, 2005

The argument is really making me ..... I'm not going to say anything.

TITLE IX

MootPoint · December 13, 2005

So getting back to the issue of "how can we reasonably comply" have the title IX people given out a working definition of what "opportunities" mean to them?
I totally agree with you about women athletes and their "real world" attitudes. However, I'm interested in how the title IX people look at this situation. Just because women athletes are not as delusional as male athletes, doesn't mean that the football team at any University should suffer.
←

Opportunites are opportunities. Every athlete = 1 opportunity, regardless of scholarship status. And everyone knows that football is the one sport that absolutely screws everything up when we're talking about Title IX and equal opportunities for men and women. That's why every school that offers football has to have a whole bunch of extra women's sports teams in order to balance the numbers and is why sports like men's soccer, baseball, wrestling, etc. are slowly being eliminated.

UNTFan23 · December 13, 2005

Moot, I'm sure the opportunity is there for women to take, but the problem is noone uses it. Why tax on side when the interest from the other side for the same opportunity (walking on to a sport) is basically nill?

MootPoint · December 13, 2005

Moot, I'm sure the opportunity is there for women to take, but the problem is noone uses it. Why tax on side when the interest from the other side for the same opportunity (walking on to a sport) is basically nill?
←

I understand and I agree, but it doesn't matter if I agree so long as Title IX doesn't agree. The other argument given is that walk-ons, even if they are not on scholarship, cost money. Money that is spent on men is supposed to be equal to the amount of money that is spent on women. If you spend additional money on walk ons in the form of equipment, academic tutoring, lockers, travel, etc., you also have to spend additional money on women somehow to balance the dollars again. Remember that even if we did not give out a single scholarship for football, we could probably field a team of walk ons and would be spending money on coaches, travel, equipment, etc. That is not necessarily true for any other sport. The problem is that the definition of opportunity does not mean just the chance to play if someone wants to, otherwise we could just have every team be composed of nothing but walk ons.

MootPoint · December 13, 2005

Think of it another way.

100 male student athletes (90 walk ons, 10 scholarship)

10 female student athletes (0 walk ons, 10 scholarship)

Is that equal? Is the same amount being spent on male student athletes as female student athletes if you factor in coaches, travel, equipment, etc?

That is why walk ons still count against your total number of "opportunities".

Also, think of it one other way, how many BCS schools would have 1000 walk ons for their football team if they were allowed to? If so, how would that impact teams like North Texas?

OldTimer · December 13, 2005

I thought there was a team "limit" of 105 players who could be on a team, but only 85 ships authorized.

MootPoint · December 13, 2005

I thought there was a team "limit" of 105 players who could be on a team, but only 85 ships authorized.
←

The 105 is an artificial number. I've seen as many as 125 or so players though.

NT80 · December 14, 2005

The argument is really making me ..... I'm not going to say anything.
TITLE IX
←

Can't we make the Dance Team a varsity sport?

Seriously, this is a major problem for NT, which I believe also has a slightly majority female campus. I think Title IX has to be proportional to enrollment too.