It's the Journey... wrote:We can, and have had threads about cutting sports and saving sports and all of that. But the simple fact is it's done and over. Hopefully the department and University can find a way to bring those programs back. It has happened before. But right now we've got 18 sports. Let's focus on making those the best possible.
If Americans had the same attitude about social equality as the one you exhibit here, we would still have slaves and I would be denied the vote.
What's the harm in having some reasonable discussion as to the viability of the men's track program?
+1. I LOOOOOOOVE track threads! BG had more success in men's track than they've had in any almost any other sport- Say "Dave Wottle" and anybody over about thirty-five is likely to know who you're talking about. Now try "Brian McClure". If schools weren't so invested in football infrastructure, getting rid of football or making it a pay-to-play club sport would make a lot of sense. Track allows a lot of participation but costs way less than football and in some places is considered a revenue sport. That's why almost every school struggling with Title 9 issues loves women's track. Besides-track is the purest of all sports-no special equipment, no need for any special surface (I've run on artificial surfaces, cinders and in a couple international meets, a grass track) just two guys or women pitted against each other. So- lose football-bring back men's track.
