SoutheasternOhioPreps.com

BOYs

Warren
Marietta
Logan
Ironton
Zanesville
Chillicothe


GIRLS

Gallipolis
Marietta
Warren
Logan
Jackson
Chillicothe

noreply66 wrote:BOYs

Warren
Marietta
Logan
Ironton
Zanesville
Chillicothe


GIRLS

Gallipolis
Marietta
Warren
Logan
Jackson
Chillicothe

Logan finally ran as a team. good job for there 3rd place finish.

I talked to a small college XC coach about some SE OH runners and he said that he would be scared to call PEYTON ADKINS because her talent level is so far beyond what he thinks a small college could bring in.

I hope this girl is destined for greatness.

I would like to see the Adkins sisters, Skidmore, and Shultz (sp?) compete on a much larger scale

I am pretty sure Lauren A. has already signed her letter of intent to Ohio University. For sure Peyton is a DI talent in the making.

You can't sign letters of intent until Feb, but Lauren did indeed verbal to The Bobcats.

I'd be scared that OU would get rid of women's track, but I wish Lauren the best of luck.

SErunner wrote:I'd be scared that OU would get rid of women's track, but I wish Lauren the best of luck.

They would if they thought it would help there sad football program.

I believe you are correct.

Great thoughts from OU's past "Hey, Let's cut two men's sports and a women's sport and justify it with Title 9.

If I could have found an "I Got Hoccut tshirt I would have bought it.

I hope the New AD at OU doesn't make any similar mistakes.

I am taking some sports management and risk management classes this year in college and we have learned a lot about Title IX. After learning all the details I have a better understanding in how it all works.

But, still there were ways that OU could of avoided the situation all together in my opinion. It is unfortunate. Even the alumni of OU are mad about this. I know one man who was a MAC champion in track in the early 90's that was sent a letter to donate some money to the school. He sent it back with a letter telling them that there was no way he would donate in light of the track team being cut.

Ill tell ya, there is nowhere that is safe from the cuts. SEC schools have cut track for Title IX reasons. Without the various proposed amendments being passed to exclude football from the calculations, we are fighting an uphill battle. Womens teams are already carrying excess amounts of athletes in order to even up the numbers. The only way out is to cut men's numbers.

Excluding Football from the equation would solve a lot of problems. There is no woman's sport except for Crew (and how many schools have that around here?) that gives has as many roster positions or gives out as many scholarships as Football. So, that means many guy sports are already at a loss.

Title 9 was never meant to restrict mens sports.

Really by cutting men's sports colleges are reducing the number of
womens sports that they need to offer. Even if it appears balanced
it is still restricting womens sports.

You are absolutely correct in some respect SERunner. Unfortunately, when statutes are passed like title IX they have little power until the court interprets their meaning/intent and provides case law through prior litigation. That is usually the case with government bills. They need to be interpreted and precedents need to be set as to how the people falling under the jurisdiction of the bill are to comply with it.

You are, however, wrong in that the bill was never meant to limit men's sports. The law was not meant for scholastic/ICA sports at all initially, it as meant mainly for schools and was then interpreted by the courts to also include any subset of a school that receives federal funding. This was a major ruling in the courts and set the precedent that still stands today.

No major rulings have taken place as yet dealing with the reduction in total sporting opporunities. Schools merely have to comply with proportionality in the area of sporting opportunities (known as "Part I" of Title IX). As long as proportionality is met, schools can currently offer as many or as few sports as they wish. I used to think this was wrong, but complying with the law is complying with the law. Now whether this is ethical or truly "fair", that is another story altogether...

I would guess that, as has been the practice in the past, courts will take into account the original implicit meaning of the statute outside of the text it contains. They call this the "spirit" of the legislation. Theres a good chance that a ruling in this area would end these wholesale cuts, but theres also a chance that they could rule otherwise. Courts dont like to make it their business to tell a manager how to run his enterprise. With the money coming into ICA these days, its likely that business-like thinking would be applied to A.D.'s. Whether or not they saved money, or they acted in our bes interests at all is really irrelevant.

You are absolutely correct in some respect SERunner. Unfortunately, when statutes are passed like title IX they have little power until the court interprets their meaning/intent and provides case law through prior litigation. That is usually the case with government bills. They need to be interpreted and precedents need to be set as to how the people falling under the jurisdiction of the bill are to comply with it.

You are, however, wrong in that the bill was never meant to limit men's sports. The law was not meant for scholastic/ICA sports at all initially, it was meant mainly for academics and was then interpreted by the courts to also include any subset of a school that receives federal funding. This was a major ruling in the courts and set the precedent that still stands today.

No major rulings have taken place as yet dealing with the reduction in total sporting opporunities. Schools merely have to comply with proportionality in the area of sporting opportunities (known as "Part I" of Title IX). As long as proportionality is met, schools can currently offer as many or as few sports as they wish depending on division limits. I used to think this was wrong, but complying with the law is complying with the law. Now whether this is ethical or truly "fair", that is another story altogether...

I would guess that, as has been the practice in the past, courts will take into account the original implicit meaning of the statute outside of the text it contains. They call this the "spirit" of the legislation. Theres a good chance that a ruling in this area would end these wholesale cuts, but theres also a chance that they could rule otherwise. Courts dont like to make it their business to tell a manager how to run his enterprise. With the money coming into ICA these days, its likely that business-like thinking would be applied to A.D.'s. Whether or not they saved money, or they acted in the best interests of students at all is really irrelevant.

RvDistanceGuy wrote:You are absolutely correct in some respect SERunner. Unfortunately, when statutes are passed like title IX they have little power until the court interprets their meaning/intent and provides case law through prior litigation. That is usually the case with government bills. They need to be interpreted and precedents need to be set as to how the people falling under the jurisdiction of the bill are to comply with it.

You are, however, wrong in that the bill was never meant to limit men's sports. The law was not meant for scholastic/ICA sports at all initially, it was meant mainly for academics and was then interpreted by the courts to also include any subset of a school that receives federal funding. This was a major ruling in the courts and set the precedent that still stands today.

No major rulings have taken place as yet dealing with the reduction in total sporting opporunities. Schools merely have to comply with proportionality in the area of sporting opportunities (known as "Part I" of Title IX). As long as proportionality is met, schools can currently offer as many or as few sports as they wish depending on division limits. I used to think this was wrong, but complying with the law is complying with the law. Now whether this is ethical or truly "fair", that is another story altogether...

I would guess that, as has been the practice in the past, courts will take into account the original implicit meaning of the statute outside of the text it contains. They call this the "spirit" of the legislation. Theres a good chance that a ruling in this area would end these wholesale cuts, but theres also a chance that they could rule otherwise. Courts dont like to make it their business to tell a manager how to run his enterprise. With the money coming into ICA these days, its likely that business-like thinking would be applied to A.D.'s. Whether or not they saved money, or they acted in the best interests of students at all is really irrelevant.

ok we need to talk about the meets. nice job to all seoal team this weekend. logan team did good. Logan tisha grove ran a 20:01 and she is moving on to the next round. keep up the good work.

What's wrong with talking about Title IX?

4sporterEHS wrote:What's wrong with talking about Title IX?

nothing is but this is about the seoal not what you guys are talking about

Well, it came up.

It did come up in reference to SEOAL runner Lauren Adkins.
I think that it is relevant.

RV- nice job

SErunner wrote:It did come up in reference to SEOAL runner Lauren Adkins.
I think that it is relevant.

RV- nice job

well then lets talk about the seoal then.