Welcome Gymnastics Fans!

ChalkBucket was created in September of 2005 to help everyone learn more about gymnastics.

Joining ChalkBucket not only allows you access to the main forums... but also to our "Social Groups". Around 25% of our conversations now happen in the "Social Groups" which are only available to members.

Cal athletics

Discussion in 'Men's Artistic Gymnastics (MAG)' started by skschlag, Apr 1, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Not directly related to MAG, yet, but good to keep an eye on.......

    California will move towards Prong 1 for Title lX compliance. California got into the position described below because it followed the spirit of the law - when it first became an issue, California cut no men's teams, only expanded opportunities for women by adding women's teams.

    "Title IX’s goal and legal requirements of gender equity in collegiate athletics has schools like Cal, with extraordinarly high numbers of athletic programs, over a barrel. It becomes virtually impossible to cut any women’s sports along with men’s because doing so brings the university further out of compliance with Title IX. Consequently, the university and Chancellor Christ are committed to rectifying the university’s ongoing problems with both compliance and budget deficits by likely moving from Prong 3 compliance to Prong 1, which appears to be the more sustainable model for the university’s unique situation. "

    The women's sports Cal cut in 2011 were reinstated fairly quickly. It's never been publicly acknowleged, but the likely reason is cutting them threw Cal out of compliance with Title lX.
    sce likes this.
  2. So much about this only sort of makes sense to me. What are the chances they end up cutting men’s gymnastics? They almost did it a few years ago but a big fundraising push saved them. There are so few men’s teams, Stanford and mostly compete against each other as it is.
  3. I can see it becoming club status :( I hope not, and I hope that they can figure it out. They compete nationwide so it would be a huge loss. and for our boys....ugh :(
    sce likes this.
  4. I think this is talking about the UC system, which would have no effect on Stanford. Berkeley was super mobilized and effective in saving their program a few years ago. I am interested to see the rise of the club movement and to see where it goes. Some of those teams are good and getting better all the time. My slow developer, if he wants a shot at college gym, will certainly be considering ASU, Washington, and Temple.
    BachFlyer likes this.
  5. Are you quoting an article from something? Interested in reading it. Losing Berkeley would be a huge blow to the sport, especially here in the far west.

    I do not undertand how it all works but from what I can tell club teams are a completely grassroots labor of love and need all the support they can get. Norcal United Gymnastics is the club team for Northern California. It is just starting to get off the ground and any support at all would be great so please spread the word. Right now they are fundraising for Nationals. See more: http://www.ncbga.com/?p=2651 and https://norcalunitedgymnastics.com/
    sce likes this.
  6. Here is the article:

    I will say that while the club teams are fantastic, they are causing more teams to consider going that route. I hope that we can sustain the NCAA movement, but I would say that things are definitely heading that way.
  7. Huh...I do not understand what you are saying. I do not know how it works in WAG, but in MAG I think it is safe to say that the very few Club teams are a somewhat desperate attempt to fill the enormous gap in MAG college opportunity caused by (what in my opinion is the misapplication of) Title IX. There remain at this point 16 college MAG teams in the entire country, down from something like 80 when Title IX was adopted. I do not see how this situation can in any way be blamed on club teams.
    Hollowarchkick likes this.
  8. Thanks for the link I will check it out.
  9. Ugh that sounds bad. Maybe I am cynical but Chancellor Christ sounds like Kevin Bacon shouting "REMAIN CALM! All IS WELL" just before he is flattened by the stampeding mob in Animal House.
    profmom likes this.
  10. Oh my goodness, how ever could Cal have gotten themselves into this mess? Is it those meany mcmeanypants nasty Title IX people who always want to cut men's sports to benefit women? Or perhaps is there another explanation, possibly even one that is tied to a particular sport and some bad decisions made around that sport?

    Flipfloppy and sce like this.
  11. So, I do know that some programs have discussed that since the club teams are doing so well, they might go that way. I cannot remember where I saw it, but i know I have. It was basically that they can covert to a club team and still do well, so why not. I hope that is truly not the thinking, but I have heard/seen it in more than one place.

    I am not blaming club teams, but that colleges can see it as a way "out" to deal with teh sport and other implications. I do think club teams have erupted to solve that need, but now colleges see the success and think that is a good plan.

    When you say 16 college teams, are you including clubs? Right now, competing NCAA at either varsity or club, I believe tehre are 21 teams. This doesn't include Illinois or OKlahoma club teams.

  12. I did read more to this story for sure. While I do see unintended consequences of any thing, misappropriation of funds is key. I think we need to start looking at other ways to sustain our sport, without the reliance on colleges. Maybe USAG needs to have more OPEN divisions, and clubs need to change insurance to include gymnasts after 18. Tehn boys could go to college, and still train, without having to worry about these college teams, that more and more, seem to be dwindling, whether due to funding, Title IX, or just plain disinterest.
    CoachS, profmom and Jard.the.gymnast like this.
  13. It saddens me because sports like gymnastics, track and field, lacrosse, rugby, etc. really do fit into the proper model for what a college sport should be. I think there's a real educational benefit to doing a sport in college as part of the college experience, but that gets completely hijacked by the sports that alumni support rabidly and into which universities therefore pump endless fountains of cash that do very little to serve the educational needs of the "students" who play those sports.
    rosiekat, CoachS, John and 2 others like this.
  14. Keep blaming football. That has worked so well thus far.
    Jard.the.gymnast likes this.
  15. Maybe if I keep it up, people will start to pay attention. In D1A, coach salaries, the number of coaches, the size of the rosters, and the expense of the facilities and support are out of proportion with other sports. In several states, the coach of the PUBLIC flagship university's football team is paid much more than any other employee on the state's entire payroll. This is not rational, and it's not beneficial for the students, the universities, or the states' taxpayers.

    I think there's a place for football and it can work if it is kept a sport for student athletes who are students first and if it does not operate in a way that diminishes opportunities for a lot of other athletes to do a college sport. But the myth that it pays for itself and has no effect on other sports has to be debunked. If people want to give up other things to continue to support big football, so be it, but we need to recognize that the choice and the associated tradeoffs are real.

    And I have not said a word about CTE.
  16. Texas has done some fantastic things with a scholarship program called the Sims scholarship. It was started around 20 years ago. Every invitational contributes $1 per athlete in their invitationals in Texas and the state meets get a flat fee. Most gyms contribute more than required and they do some other fundraisers. I believe they’ve given as many as 10 partial scholarships to athletes that want to continue to train at their clubs or walk on to a division 1 program. It took some time to build but that program has given many kids opportunities to continue in the sport. I had a division 1 scholarship and was injured and left. I was able to get that scholarship and continue to train and coach. Without that, I doubt I would’ve continued to coach and eventually become a gym owner ( with a strong dedication to keeping a boy’s program).
  17. People have been loudly blaming football for the adverse effects of Title IX since the inception of Title IX. Football has also been blamed for a multitude of other ills for decades. Yet colleges with large football programs apparently have no problem attracting students and faculty, and women in the US are accepted to and graduate college at a higher rate than men. It almost seems as if people (including many women) like football or at least are not sufficiently turned off by it to take their business elsewhere.

    UC Berkeley (I am giving stats for this school as it is the only UC school with a MAG team, but the stats are similar across the UC system) admits and graduates 5% more women than men. The average GPA for admittance is 4.6 and there is an 18% acceptance rate. Also UCs are very expensive even for in state students- and that is just the tuition, housing costs in the Bay Area is insane. So clearly, plenty of very high performing and academically empowered women with many educational choices are not eschewing UC Berkeley or otherwise indicating they are suffering due to any lack of opportunity there to pursue whatever activities they wish. So who is Title IX sport participation quotas helping at this point?

    I understand the money argument against football. I understand many people hate football. I myself have never been a football fan. But I do not agree that anyone has the right to tell colleges they should eliminate their immensely popular football programs because football is not your thing! In particular I find the comments here that football is somehow not a "proper" college sport or the players are quote-unquote “athletes” a disturbingly elitist attitude.

    But more pragmatically in the fight to save MAG, colleges (or at least the larger Universities where most of this battle is waged) have made it abundantly clear they are not going to jettison their football programs to comply with IX. Ever. This is what my post was about. It is pointless to keep attacking football, it is not a solution.
    sce likes this.
  18. That sounds like a great program! As I think I mentioned on a different thread, I believe that to save MAG we have to think out of the box. Club teams are going to be part of the solution but they need help. Thank you for this idea!
    Mom2twingymnasts likes this.
  19. I'm a women and I love football! My brothers went to college on full-ride football scholarships and one went on to play professionally. I don't want universities to get rid of football. The problem is the way that Title IV has been implemented, it has made for less opportunities for men. Football takes up a large percentage of athletic opportunities for men. I just think it needs to be weighted differently so that ultimately their can be the same variety of opportunities for men as their are for women.
    BachFlyer, Seeker, gymboymom and 2 others like this.
  20. Exactly. Thank you.
    sce likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice