Aside from geographic location, the University of Arkansas looks nothing like it did a couple of years ago. Seriously, ya’ll. Who would’ve ever thought that the calls for a clean house would actually be answered? And to such an extreme extent?
Aside from our new chancellor, athletic director, basketball coach, football coach, track coach and volleyball coach (did I miss anyone?), there’s a new major change taking place within the women’s athletic program.
As a part of the merging of the men’s and women’s athletic departments that Jeff Long is heading up, all teams will now be known simply as Razorbacks. “We’re all Razorbacks, and that’s something you’ll see more of in the future,” said Long.
According to an article in Athletic Business, as of this time last year, as many as 63 four-year colleges and universities at all levels of competition include “Lady” when labeling at least one women’s team. “It just seems schools are working way too hard to differentiate something that doesn’t need to be differentiated anymore,” says Kim Ode, a Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist who first started exploring the issue in 1999. “The term is diminutive and perpetuates a form of sex discrimination,” said Ode.
Whether you feel that strongly or not, we won’t have to worry about it anymore here in Fayetteville because the era of the Lady’Backs is a thing of the past. Personally, I welcome this change. What do you think?
[Via Whole Hog Sports]
July 14th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I’m with you. I always thought it was silly.
July 14th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Yes, it’s about time…that term is totally demeaning and just plain ridiculous.
July 14th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Eh I thought it was kind of distinctive. But whatever the girlies want…
July 15th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I was hoping for something like the BroadBacks or VagBacks. But hey, no one asked me.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Sows would be the proper colloquialism for female feral porcine, I believe.
I always thought LadyBacks was less embarrassing than calling a bunch of girls Hogs. But I am old fashioned.
This whole gender-neutral homogenous approach to nomenclature is as mis-guided as the entire Title IX philosophy.
I suppose the women’s teams aren’t demeaned by the fact that ALL of their sports are funded by revenues provided by men’s sports, though.
Then again, its been proven time and again that feminism only flourishes under paternalism.
Alanis thinks thats Ironic.
Don’tcha think?
July 16th, 2008 at 9:46 am
How about Mattressbacks?
July 16th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Yeah, Title IX: what a crock of shit. Why should athletic programs spend the same amount of money on women as it does on men? It’s not like women are equal to men. Heck, I think we should spend more on men for health care, welfare, education, roads, sidewalks, clean air, waste disposal, national defense, space exploration, scientific research, stoplights, sewage treatment, airports, farm subsidies, hurricane forecasting, parks, food stamps, and clean water.
Women can go back to field hockey and the stone age. Because they’re women and all. And they can get me and TotalBastard a beer while they are at it.
July 16th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
BS:
Good post. Actually, sarasm aside, you make excellent points.
Athletic programs like the one at the U of A are primarily funded by ticket revenues and by private donations (Razorback Foundation).
Zero women’s sports are even self-supporting, let alone show a profit for the Athletic Department.
Thats the way it is.
Men’s collegiate sports would exist (and likely be even MORE successful) without women’s collegiate sports dragging them down financially.
Women’s collegiate sports would largely not exist without Men’s sports.
Just telling it like it is. Its not my fault that no one gives a hoot about women’s athletics *snicker*. Blame God.
I do find myself intrigued by women’s volleyball from time to time, though.
Make mine a Miller Lite, btw.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Don’t mess with the IX boys. GW and company have done enough of that. If you have a sister, a wife, a girlfriend or a mother (and I’m talking a human mother not a swine) you would shut your fat fucking mouth and learn to read or go blow yourselfs (or each other).
Don”t mess with the IX. Ya hear?
July 16th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Jacked Up:
Great defense of a policy that has ruined many men’s sports and accomplishes nothing while wasting resources.
You cleared it all up. Oh wait, the policy is indefensible so if we disagree we need to go blow ourselves.
Stunning arguement.
Women outnumber men on most college campuses these days. What are we going to do to remedy that imbalance?
July 17th, 2008 at 1:34 am
wow - TotalBastard has proven nothing more than the fact that he’s accurately named. Nice going on digging yourself into a misogynistic shithole. What on earth is your problem with women’s collegiate sports?…(other than the fact that you’ve obviously been shot down by one or two of those hot volleyball women due to your patronizing, bastardly behavior). Men’s sports are dragged down financially???….huh? I don’t think they have a problem with finances considering the plush facilities and perks they get.
For that matter, why should profit for the athletics department have any bearing on the legitimate existence of a sports team? It’s the school’s duty to offer up these athletic programs and women have just as much right to compete and to do it with dignity (thanks for finally getting a clue on that one, U of A).
Plenty of people love these women athletes and cheer them on at every game…try going up to those people, TotalBastard, tell them about your inane detest for women’s athletics and see who comes out standing. Go ahead and drink your beer - but don’t be surprised if nobody’s cheering you on, especially us women athletes.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Jessie:
That fact is that many men’s sports have been killed because of the funds sucked away by women’s sports.
Men’s sports like football, basketball and most years, baseball at the U of A are SELF-SUPPORTING. NONE of the women’s sports are. Period. End of discussion.
Women’s collegiate athletics would be almost non-existent under any other circumstances. THOSE ARE FACTS.
My point stands. Feminist policies like Title IX REQUIRE paternalism. And that is pretty fucking funny, considering the attitude of feminists like yourself.
Refute me. Or call me names. I’m really hurt when you call me a Bastard.
Your points:
jessie said: “For that matter, why should profit for the athletics department have any bearing on the legitimate existence of a sports team?”
Well, sweetheart, because these things require cash. Cash is what is building that nice little softball field that will suck money from the Razorback Foundation for the next several decades. Thank the football team and its revenues for that one, not the taxpayers.
jessie said: “It’s the school’s duty to offer up these athletic programs and women have just as much right to compete and to do it with dignity (thanks for finally getting a clue on that one, U of A).”
Duty? In your opinion. In my opinion its a big favor. AND primarily funded by men’s athletics. (THANKS GUYS!)
jessie said: “Plenty of people love these women athletes and cheer them on at every game…”
ORLY? Well, maybe “plenty” but not NEARLY enough to pay for even 50% of the costs of funding these awesome women’s sports.
So, since there’s not really any defending Title IX, I should challenge the lesbian basketball fans to a duel?
I’m pretty confident I’d be ok.
Thats not a bad idea, though. A fight is what it would take for me to attend any of the lame-ass women’s sports “competitions” at U of A. Otherwise, its like watching Jr. High sports, only more expensive.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Total Bastard!
You’re a total prick!
Congrats!
July 17th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
ugghhh….you hardly deserve a reply on this, Totalbastard. I am just going to leave you to wallow in your ugly opinions. I strongly disagree with you and that’s fine.
Thanks to Ted Dancin’ for being one guy who’s got enough brains to post this news as a positive step.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I just wish that there was enough cash to go around to support a Men’s Soccer program. Hell, it would have been nice to have a school funded or at least acknowledged club team. Intermurals in soccer were always very competitive and we historically fielded a pretty strong club teams that was always damn good in the tournaments we played in. Our teams always ran out of steam because there was no cash from the school. They wouldn’t even let us use the U of A name. They wouldn’t let us schedule games against other NCAA schools. We’d have probably been shot if we set foot in LadyBack stadium, unless we were paying to fill the stands.
Title IX is great in theory, but like Affirmative Action, it caters to the fringes and leaves everyone else in the middle that gets along just fine, thank you, to pay the price. There is no inalienable right that supports anyone’s desire to play a sport at a school. Sure it would be nice, but at the end of the day universities are run like every other corporation. It’s all about the bottom line. Sometimes things get cut or outright rejected. My experience at the U of A didn’t turn into a big bowl of shit because I didn’t get the chance of a letter jacket or free cleats. Sometimes you have to buck up and keep doing your thing, regardless.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
There are two things about which Totalbastard is just plain wrong:
1. The biggest killer of many minor collegiate men’s athletic teams is football, not Title IX (or women’s athletics, generally). Most Div A football teams have rosters of 120 players or more. The maximum for NFL teams is 45, making collegiate teams, for whatever reason, almost three times the size of the pros. These ginormous rosters take away from scholarships that could be going to wrestling, tennis, or whatever. Also, the feeding, padding, coaching, flying, and miscellaneous care of these scores of athletes require an additional diversion of resources that could be going to other men’s programs.
2. Men’s athletic programs do help channel funds to women’s programs – that is, in years they are solvent ONLY. In any given year, the majority of Div. A teams are running a deficit. You never hear about this because sports writers don’t care about finances and when they do write about them, they rarely go beyond the glowing press releases they get from the men’s athletic department. A little digging would find the programs are in far worse shape than most people think. This is even true at the UA.
Don’t get me wrong. I would much rather prefer watching football or men’s basketball to women’s basketball or gymnastics…by light years. As a former wrestler myself, I’m sad outside of places like Iowa and Oklahoma, there just aren’t many wrestling teams left. But, I also want my daughter to be given the same chances to participate in athletics, collegiate or otherwise, as my son. I also want her to live in a society where women generally have access to the same to resources as her brother. If that means Totalbastard has to suffer because women’s teams exist, so be it.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
@BS:
The athletic DEPARTMENT as a whole is profitable at U of A. That is, in spite of funding for unprofitable sports, the majority of which are Title IX requirements.
Football is in the black every year.
At the U of A, students do not pay an athletic fee as they do at many other universities.
You are right, however, the unprofitable men’s sports (such as men’s swimming and diving, wrestling, men’s soccer) have all but disappeared at major universities.
Unprofitable women’s sports, however, continue to exist. They exist due in large part to profitable men’s sports programs.
July 19th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
For those still paying attention, here’s something that might interest you:
In the 2006 fiscal year, the latest of three examined in the study, only 19 of the 119 Football Bowl Subdivision institutions had positive net revenue, while for the rest, expenses exceeded generated revenues. (For the entire three-year period, only 16 athletics department turned a net profit.)
This is from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/05/16/ncaa which reports on a NCAA report examining the financial viability of men’s athletic programs, which, to the surprise of many, showed not just some, not just the majority, but the *vast majority* of programs to be operating in the red. This is regardless of the financial health of the UA’s program.