oing the same thing over and over - and expecting a different outcome, right?
College athletic directors continue to drop men's swimming, but they usually leave women's programs intact.
They claim to be doing women a favor, but we know this hasn't been a reality. If dropping men's teams were helping the women, shouldn't we see more women-only programs dominating at NCAA's?
Are the best women-only programs good because they don't have to share pool time with the men?
Did the Miami Her-icannes
springboard to the top when the men got dumped? How many titles have the Nebraska
women won since Byrne cut their men? Are the Rutgers
women better off since the guys were shown the door?
I'm not trying to pick on women-only swim teams - if it had been up to them, men's programs would not
have been discontinued.
I ask because one of the more idiotic reasons A.D.'s often give for axing men's programs is that doing so will strengthen
Nothing could be further from the truth!
Last year, it was the Kutztown
women trying to make this very point. This year, it's the Duquesne
gals who are saying the same thing. Read more here
."Unlike what Greg Amodio said about this being beneficial to all the other teams left over, this is devastating to the women because we are not two teams, we are one team," said Skyes, in reacting to plans for the men's swim team to be axed. "We train together, we travel together, compete together, and we are family. It's like cutting half of our team, not just one team."
Labels: Title IX/Men's Swimming Cuts