Columbus Dispatch mentions Krebs a lot

PGY Tiercel · Post by **PGY Tiercel** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:52 pm

Dr. Bucko wrote:From one Bio professor to another, thanks for the support UK.

Whoa, hold on a minute, Don't be giving UK to much credit. He still has years to go until he is a professor. Us graduate students are still trying to teach him what Molecular biology is all about.

UK Peregrine · Post by **UK Peregrine** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:55 pm

PGY Tiercel wrote:
Dr. Bucko wrote:From one Bio professor to another, thanks for the support UK.
Whoa, hold on a minute, Don't be giving UK to much credit. He still has years to go until he is a professor. Us graduate students are still trying to teach him what Molecular biology is all about.

Dude? That's not right. I have three letters behind my name,where's yours?

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:56 pm

I have three also - MBA. Does that count?

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:58 pm

People usually follow my name with 11 or 12 letters. Can I play, too?

PGY Tiercel · Post by **PGY Tiercel** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:59 pm

Mine are there, you just can't see 'em yet.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:12 pm

Dr. Bucko wrote: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.

To answer your original question, I would guess that it was a number issue. We needed to get rid of x number of men's scholarships and track and field had more than cross country. But I don't have numbers to back that up.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:34 pm

Dr. Bucko wrote: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?

In respect to this issue, I think we were looking at different perspectives. You ending up coming back with facts about participation numbers, when originally you said popular. Two completely different issues. I would say "popular" means number of fans that attend/watch a sport. Participation would be the number of people playing on some sort of organized team. I have no facts to back it up, but I still think soccer is more popular than volleyball and track.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 3:14 pm

Dr. Bucko wrote: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.

I don't understand.

Are you for or against varsity stock car racing?

BGFalcons232 · Post by **BGFalcons232** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 3:27 pm

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?

like most D-1 schools, BG was not, and is still not, in title IX compliance. so, at the time when all the athletic cuts were taking place, they had to cut men's sports or face lawsuits and funding cuts. BG's athletic budget could not support the amount of varsity teams that existed, so cuts had to be made.

while the athletic department will swear up and down that title IX had nothing to do with the cuts, ultimately, it led to the slashing of men's programs while leaving the women's programs relatively untouched.

when it comes down to it, having division 1-A football, men's basketball, hockey and baseball makes it very hard for a school the size of BG to ever get to title IX compliance. until then, budget cuts will almost exclusively target men's sports.

Dayons_Den · Post by **Dayons_Den** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 3:37 pm

BGFalcons232 wrote: when it comes down to it, having division 1-A football, men's basketball, hockey and baseball makes it very hard for a school the size of BG to ever get to title IX compliance. until then, budget cuts will almost exclusively target men's sports.

So as you point out the cuts are because of poor management or next to impossible management, not because of women's sports or because of Title IX- the fact that administrators, not just at BG, have had 25 plus years to "come into compliance with Title Ix" and haven't is a reflection on them, not the law, women's sports, or the sports that are being slashed.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:00 pm

For what it's worth, I'm glad we kept soccer rather than track.

It's a personal preference, one I'm not sure I can intellectually defend.

Of course, I can't intellectually defend the practice of offering 85 scholarships to football players, either -- and it hasn't diminished my enjoyment of Falcon football one bit.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:25 pm

Schadenfreude wrote: Of course, I can't intellectually defend the practice of offering 85 scholarships to football players, either -- a.

That's easy to do:

"Football good"

End of argument

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:58 pm

Back to topic ...

Any word on Krebs?

transfer2BGSU · Post by **transfer2BGSU** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 5:03 pm

Also since we're talking Title IX we should remember the women's athletic programs at BGSU are fully funded as far as athletic grant availablity as compared to some men's programs (not football, basketball, or hockey) that have only a few grants to dole out to the squad.

Dr. Bucko · Post by **Dr. Bucko** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:12 pm

Looks like BG will be putting in a new all-weather poly-urathane running track to the tune of some mighty big bucks. Picked that bit up from a very reliable source, so maybe men's track will be back on campus sooner than later. Go BG, Go football, Go hoops, Go Hockey, and Go Track (the grand-daddy of them all).