Columbus Dispatch mentions Krebs a lot

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:52 am

Dr. Bucko wrote:Well, Krebs has certainly done a creditable job in moving the women's program forward, and you can applaude him for getting the football program turned around, but when you review the whole intercollegiate sport's scene at Bowling Green, it doesn't look to be exactly on the cutting edge with only five/six men's teams vs 13 for the women. Who made the recommendation for cutting so many of the men's programs?

The problem is that you have men's basketball and women's basketball, and those balance out. Same with baseball/softball, etc. But there is no women's counterpart for football, with 85 scholarships. You may need four women's sports to balance that out, and at BG you actually need more women's schollies than men's.

So, your challenge is to get them roughly even. The choices are to ADD women's sports until its even, or CUT men's sports until its even. The budget wouldn't allow the former, so your only choice is to do the latter.

I don't believe this is uncommon at other schools.

Its unfortunate. I support Title IX. Women deserve to participate in sports just as much as men do. I would guess overall reduction of the total number of sports is an unanticipated consequence.

momtartin · Post by **momtartin** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:15 pm

The story didn't mention it but Tom Hof also has the BG connection. He's the son of retired BGSU alumni official and all-around glad hander Jim Hof.

My dad actually roomed with Hof here at BG, and is one of his best friends, so i know him pretty well, and we talk to him a lot. From what I've heard from him though, Hof's not really being considered for the job, but I wouldn't count him out, he's a good guy, and knows what hes doing. I dunno whether he wants it or not though, what with all the problems they have down there. But who knows, he may surprise us. Personally I would rather have Hof take it than Krebs, but thats because I'm selfish and wanna keep Krebs.

Dr. Bucko · Post by **Dr. Bucko** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:31 am

I have no trouble with Title IX, but what I do have a problem with are the sports that get cut to satisfy the requiremnt. Are judgments made totally objective. I'd love to know, for example, why it is that they cut the mens track and field program. Track and field, at the secondary level. is the second most popular sport in the country for boys and girls (based on participation). Further more, over 80 per cent of those blue chippers that wind up getting football scholarships were track stars in high school. And with the fantastic facilities that BG owns to support this activity, why would they cut it. And if they cut the track program, why would they keep the crosscountry program. Miami did the right thing --- they cut soccer.

BelieveNBG · Post by **BelieveNBG** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:41 am

Cutting track could actually have an impact on the football program. A recruit may also want to chose a school that has both in order to also participate in track. As stated, many of those blue chippers are also track stars and some of them don't want to give that up. Speed is a large reason why some of those players are recruited and running track keeps those speed skill sharp.

UK Peregrine · Post by **UK Peregrine** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 9:05 am

Dr. Bucko wrote:I have no trouble with Title IX, but what I do have a problem with are the sports that get cut to satisfy the requiremnt. Are judgments made totally objective. I'd love to know, for example, why it is that they cut the mens track and field program. Track and field, at the secondary level. is the second most popular sport in the country for boys and girls (based on participation). Further more, over 80 per cent of those blue chippers that wind up getting football scholarships were track stars in high school. And with the fantastic facilities that BG owns to support this activity, why would they cut it. And if they cut the track program, why would they keep the crosscountry program. Miami did the right thing --- they cut soccer.

What's the logic behind soccer being the "right thing" to cut? It's only the most popular sport in the world. No matter what BG would have cut, they were going to upset someone. Title IX was not created to cut men's teams, but to instead create more women's teams. Unfortunately, most schools have taken the approach that it is more cost effective to cut men's teams than to create more women's teams. When schools cut sports, both men's and women's teams lose.

Dayons_Den · Post by **Dayons_Den** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 10:22 am

UK Peregrine Fan wrote:
Dr. Bucko wrote:I have no trouble with Title IX, but what I do have a problem with are the sports that get cut to satisfy the requiremnt. Are judgments made totally objective. I'd love to know, for example, why it is that they cut the mens track and field program. Track and field, at the secondary level. is the second most popular sport in the country for boys and girls (based on participation). Further more, over 80 per cent of those blue chippers that wind up getting football scholarships were track stars in high school. And with the fantastic facilities that BG owns to support this activity, why would they cut it. And if they cut the track program, why would they keep the crosscountry program. Miami did the right thing --- they cut soccer.
What's the logic behind soccer being the "right thing" to cut? It's only the most popular sport in the world. No matter what BG would have cut, they were going to upset someone. Title IX was not created to cut men's teams, but to instead create more women's teams. Unfortunately, most schools have taken the approach that it is more cost effective to cut men's teams than to create more women's teams. When schools cut sports, both men's and women's teams lose.

Dr. Bucko-

You seem to go against your own logic here, arguing that Track and Field at the secondary level. is the second most popular sport in the country for boys and girls (based on participation). Any guess to what the number one participatory sport in the United States is?

Dr. Bucko · Post by **Dr. Bucko** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 10:33 am

To all the Doubting Thomas' out there, the number one sport for both boys and girls at the second level is basketball. If you look at just the girl's sports, basketball is number one and track and field is number two. For boys, it's football, basketball, and then track and field. Baseball (the world's most sedentary sport) trails in 3rd place. And Mr. UK, your statement that Soccer is the world's most popular sport is a myth. It is the most popular in Europe although Basketball is closing in, but on a Global basis, believe it not, Volley Ball is the most popular sport. ----- Furthermore, the fastest growing sport in the country right now (for girls) at the secondary level is indoor track and field.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 10:39 am

In the end who cares!?

You cut soccer you piss off the soccer people.

You cut track you piss off the track people.

In the end, they're all boring sports that nobody watches. If people were willing to pay to watch them they wouldn't have been cut. Either way someone was going to be upset when we had to cut a sport for financial reasons.

So long as we keep Football, Hoops, and Hockey I really couldn't care less about the other sports. Like it or not, my opinion is really not the minority.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 10:45 am

I think Dr. Bucko is wacko. :coo-coo: They play soccer everywhere. Latin America, South America, Africa, Middle East, for crying out loud, even Iraq had a soccer team in the Olympics. I am no fan of soccer, but to say it is not THE most popular sport throughout the world is just plain crazy.

And as far as girls indoor track being the fastest growing sport, what happened, did the participation go from 2 to 20, a 1000% increase?

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 10:52 am

http://www.johann-sandra.com/popular.htm

And if you are concerned about the number of participants in a sport in the world, I guess we need to add a table tennis team and a dragon boat racing team.

Dr. Bucko · Post by **Dr. Bucko** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:08 am

I think I'm wacko too, Warthhog, but not on the basis of anything you've said. I've done my research --- USA Today, OHSAA, and the Internet. Where are you getting your info?

UK Peregrine · Post by **UK Peregrine** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:19 am

Hey Bucko

,

First, I take it that you are getting your information from the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS), since this is the organization responsible for tracking high school sport participation here in the US. This is a nice piece of work on your part if you did. Here are the numbers that back up you argument:

Basketball is in fact the number one sport for participation for girls (2003-2004), with 457,986 participants. Next is outdoor track and field (418,322), volleyball (396,322), softball (362,468), soccer (309,032), tennis (167,758), cross country (166,287), swimming and diving (144,565), cheerleading (89,443), and golf (63,173).

For boys, the greatest participation was in football, with 1,032,682. Basketball was next with 544,811 participants, followed by outdoor track and field (504,801), baseball (457,146), soccer (349,785), wrestling (238,700), cross country (196,428), golf (163,341), tennis (152,938) and swimming and diving (96,562).

http://www.nfhs.org/ScriptContent/Index.cfm

The second point you make directly to myself is that "soccer is the world's most popular sport is a myth. It is the most popular in Europe although Basketball is closing in, but on a Global basis, believe it not, Volley Ball is the most popular sport." Depending on who believe, I think were both technically correct and wrong at the same time. The FIVB claims that volleyball has the most participants, making it the most popular sport for participation ( http://www.fivb.ch/ ). Whereas soccer claims to have the most people watching the World Cup (almost 2 billion in 2002), making it the most popular sport to watch. And yet baseball claims to be the most popular become more people attend their live games than any other sport for a season. And yet again football claims to be more popular because they average more per game. NASCAR and the IRL claim to be more popular too, based on more people at single races than any other live event.

This all doesn't really matter much, as Hammb puts it so eloquently. "Who really cares as long as we have football, basketball and hockey at BG." The non-revenue sports will always be the mercy of atheltic administrations. My point is simply that Title IX is not used for its intended purpose, which was to create more women's sports, not to disband men's teams. Hope this all is some sort of cogent argument.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:06 pm

UK Peregrine Fan wrote:The FIVB claims that volleyball has the most participants, making it the most popular sport for participation ( http://www.fivb.ch/ ). Whereas soccer claims to have the most people watching the World Cup (almost 2 billion in 2002), making it the most popular sport to watch. And yet baseball claims to be the most popular become more people attend their live games than any other sport for a season. And yet again football claims to be more popular because they average more per game. NASCAR and the IRL claim to be more popular too, based on more people at single races than any other live event.

Maybe Bowling Green should start a varsity stock car racing team.

In light of Title IX, we could let the young women drive.

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:31 pm

Schadenfreude wrote:
UK Peregrine Fan wrote:The FIVB claims that volleyball has the most participants, making it the most popular sport for participation ( http://www.fivb.ch/ ). Whereas soccer claims to have the most people watching the World Cup (almost 2 billion in 2002), making it the most popular sport to watch. And yet baseball claims to be the most popular become more people attend their live games than any other sport for a season. And yet again football claims to be more popular because they average more per game. NASCAR and the IRL claim to be more popular too, based on more people at single races than any other live event.
Maybe Bowling Green should start a varsity stock car racing team.

In light of Title IX, we could let the young women drive.

Why not a varsity tractor pull team?? They could practice over at the fairgrounds and, if good enough, go pro!

Dr. Bucko · Post by **Dr. Bucko** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:46 pm

From one Bio professor to another, thanks for the support UK. We bio guys need to stick together ----- we get the truth out. Sometimes talking on this websight is about as satisfactory as trying to convince a Creationist that his proposal can't be tested, and therefore doesn't belong in a science curriculum. Too much emotion involved in some of these dicussions. Your judgment is correct with regard to my source of information. The same info, however, can be found in Ohio HS Athletic Publications as well as some national newspapers. One doesn't have to be a brain surgeon to latch on to this kind of info. I'm also into the coaching and officiating ranks so I've got a good bit of experience both in the trenches and in the classroom. And having statistics of this kind available certainly beats just shooting off your mouth. My original question was a good one; in view of all the variables, why did they choose to get rid of men's track and field, and keep X-country (it makes no sense). I'm certain I would have taken a different route. --- I think, however, that I'll just let it drop.