Wed 10 Mar 2010
Urgent: Support Coach Dan DiCenzo!
Posted by wrestlingfan under Athletics at 9:05 am
With the recent announcement of football coach Mike Whalen moving to Wesleyan, there is a possibility that Coach DiCenzo, who has been an assistant football coach and head wrestling coach for several years, may leave as well.
Coach DiCenzo leaving Williams would be a serious blow to the football and wrestling programs. Below is an email that was distributed to football team parents. It was subsequently circulated to the wrestling team parents. PLEASE take a moment to write or call the Athletic Director with your support of Coach DiCenzo.
Thank you!
* * * * * * * * * * *
“You all know that Coach Whalen is leaving for Wesleyan. That will be a significant loss to the football program and all of us personally. However, there is a very strong likelihood that Coach Dan DiCenzo will go with Mike to Wesleyan unless we all take immediate steps to let Williams know how we feel.
If Mike was the brains and backbone of Williams football, Dan DiCenzo is the heart of the team. If you haven’t seen it for yourself, ask your son.
The entire Williams coaching staff is exemplary, but Dan has distinguished himself by what he’s done over the last six years at Williams and deserves to be the head football coach. Dan’s resume includes stints with Trinity, Brown, and the Kansas City Chiefs, but Williams is his alma mater and that is where he has had his biggest impact. He is the best motivator on the team and knows each player personally and what makes them tick. He has a consummate knowledge of the game. Dan was a standout player at Williams and knows the system as both a player and a coach. He is the best recruiter in the NESCAC. His organizational skills are unparalleled. But most important is the emotion that he brings—he inspires his players; they love him and
want to play for him.
Dan is also the head wrestling coach and has done a phenomenal job with that program as well. If Williams loses Dan, they will have to hire two people to replace him.
If WE lose Dan DiCenzo, we lose more than a coach, we lose the foundation of our football program.
Dan has a definite offer at Wesleyan, but he wants to stay and be the head coach at Williams. In all likelihood, Williams will conduct an extensive national search. Dan will put himself through that process if he knows he is the top internal candidate.
Please contact the Athletic Director, Harry Sheehy, as soon as possible to let him know that he should do everything possible to retain Dan DiCenzo and consider him a top candidate to replace Mike Whalen as the head football coach at Williams. If you have personal stories of what Dan has done for your son or your family make sure to share them.
Coach Sheehy’s number is: 413-597-2366
His email is: hsheehy at williams dot edu
Also, reach out to Dan DiCenzo and let him know how much he means to this team.
Dan’s number is: cell 860-463-8868 office: 413-597-3573
His email is: Dan.DiCenzo-II at williams dot edu
If you know of any alumni, former players or parents or anyone who could influence this process, please share this email with them. Encourage them to contact college administration or trustees as well.
Please do everything you can to make sure that Dan DiCenzo is walking our sideline (and wrestling mats) next season as head coach.”
Print • Email| « Unwedded Bliss | Five Questions with Lee Kindlon » |
137 Responses to “Urgent: Support Coach Dan DiCenzo!”
Leave a Reply
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
aliu says:
i’m not on the football or wrestling teams, but i took a plyometrics class with dicenzo, and he was great
JeffZ says:
I hope the Ephs keep Dicenzo. But aren’t there two other coaches (defensive and offensive coordinators, also currently head coaches of baseball and lacrosse) who would be logical internal candidates as well, if they are interested? I just don’t want to give other good coaches the shaft by supporting only one as the sole internal candidate. I know nothing about the internal workings of the football program (or for that matter the baseball, lacrosse, or wrestlings programs), so maybe Dicenzo would be the clear front runner, again, just raising that as a concern. All things being equal though, I am all for supporting an Eph alum who has had success as a head coach, knows the challenges of balancing academics and athletics at Williams, and who is well-liked by players and a proven recruiter, so I do hope Dicenzo at least receives strong consideration.
Loweeel says:
DiCenzo is a great guy. Anything I have to add to wrestlingfan’s post would be superfluous. I emailed Sheehy and hope that it does some good.
Losing Dan would be a huge blow to two great programs.
nuts says:
You got my attention when you mentioned the potential of losing a great coach.
Calling Coach DiCenzo’s potential departure from Williams a “grave danger” seems like hyperbole and more significantly introducing an element that may not serve Coach DiCenzo’s interests or the hiring process – that element being a threat.
I’m quite certain that is not the intention but if you were on the search committee for a new head football coach, you’d certainly feel like that is one element Coach DiCenzo brought to the table. If it is Coach DiCenzo who framed the threat, it is also an exhibit of poor leadership.
What is not clear is whether the likelihood that Coach DiCenzo departs if he is not appointed to the position he seeks is a threat or a result concluded a well thought out decision.
Is “the administration” supposed to be willing to concede a particular candidate is the “top internal candidate.” I don’t recall being part of a search committee where the process included ranking candidates as they applied and declaring our rankings publicly.
If wrestlers and football players have reasons they want Coach DiCenzo to be their leader, they should explain those reasons in writing and try to keep the focus on what DiCenzo brings to the team, not how the search process is flawed or what Coach DiCenzo’s plans are if he is not selected to fill the position.
wrestling fan says:
nuts, thank you. your points are well taken. I have edited my introductory comments accordingly. The email that was distributed to the football and wrestling parents remains unchanged.
willephs says:
Wrestlingfan – How well do you know the internal workings of the football program? And how well do you know the other candidates?
You’re post is ridiculous. I hope people who are not familiar with Williams College Football understand that more than half of what wrestlingfan stated is unfounded and flat out wrong. I know Dicenzo’s impact will be felt greatly in Wrestling but to try to tie football in this way and at the expense of two other highly (higher, I would say) qualified coaches is flat out wrong.
I played for DiCenzo for four years. He’s a great motivator, a good coach and an okay recruiter. But to say that his loss will leave the football program hanging in the balance is laughable. He certainly will be missed but Williams College Football is much bigger than Dan DiCenzo. You make him sound like Knute Rockne or something…
Dicenzo’s a smart guy. He hitched his wagon to Whalen’s. Whalen will be AD in three years and DiCenzo will take over as Head Coach.
nuts says:
@wrestling fan: You’re welcome. Go Ephs!
hmmm says:
willeph – I respect that your are a clearly a current or former student athlete at Wiliams; however, your analysis is a bit misguided. If nothing else, Dicenzo is a great recruiter. He has not only been the primary recruiter for the football team, but also turned the wrestling program into a top tier NCAA power with very little, if any, formal support from admissions. I don’t have a major role in this debate but be careful what you deem to be “flat out wrong.”
NoDiv4 says:
George McCormack is an excellent coach, who’s preparation and temperment certainly resemble Coach Farley better than Whalen. I played for all three and with Dicenzo.
Not to knock Dan. I know the intesity and knowledge he’s talking about here and am sure that has translated to his coaching career. He should have a shot and he will have his turn somewhere if not here and now.
But parents don’t be alarmed by the straw man argument that if he’s not selected it’s lights out. This is some wrestler (does he even play football currently) with a man-crush on DiCenzo (or even a vendetta against other coaches) trying create a panic to push Dan to the front of the line.
I can say that there is no shortage of talent and commitment in the Williams coaching staff, and the program and school are held in high esteem across the country, so it will not have trouble either finding from within or attracting the coaching talent to continue its record of success.
JeffZ says:
No matter what happens, the Ephs are going to be LOADED next year. They return, I believe, 19/22 guys who started vs. Amherst (two out of three senior captains missed that game … the Ephs were a couple of bad bounces and a few tough injuries away from 8-0 last year, but that is football …), including two very experienced and talented QB’s, the top TB in NESCAC, a slew of talented young receivers (several of whom had break-out games late in the year), and the entire defensive front seven, which was talented but VERY young last year and is now far more seasoned. They lose some good DB’s and offensive linemen, but the Ephs are always very deep at both of those positions and will have no problem restocking the pipeline there. And this year’s recruiting class is supposed to be great, including potential stars at all the offensive skill positions. No matter who is the coach next year, the Ephs will probably be co-favorite in the league along with Trinity (I realize Amherst was 8-0 last year, but they lose a ton of stars from their defense, and they eeked out several very close wins).
willephs says:
Hmmm – I understand you’re point, though I am only discussing the football piece of what was said. I still disagree with you in that I do not think he was a “great” football recruiter. To me the biggest recruiting tool at Williams College is the college itself, plain and simple. But I also want to make it clear that the “flat out wrong” part of what I was responding to was geared primarily toward the sentiment that the program is now hanging in the balance and in danger. I didn’t want this to become a critique on his coaching/recruiting ability.
Placing so much credit for the success of the program on one man is disrespectful to the other coaches and to the legacy that former players have built. Dan is a great guy and meant a lot to the program but we were winning NESCAC championships before him and if he leaves we will win NESCAC championships after him. It’s no knock on him, it’s just a testament to how strong the entire program is.
ebaek says:
Just two-cents from a student non-athlete here… I’ve heard from many friends that student athletes not only look at the quality of the school when they come to Williams, but often take in to account the coaches that they will be working with.
I don’t know if we can say for sure that the football and wrestling teams will not be significantly impacted because of the coaching changes. The news of Coach Whalen moving was a big disappointment to some who had turned down other programs to work with Coach Whalen, and I think the same could be said for Coach DiCenzo as well.
Our athletic programs won’t be in a terrible danger, but I think that it’s nice to ask for more support for all of our coaches who devote so much to improve the experiences of the many student athletes who go through Williams.
PTC says:
I know one thing for sure… he built the Wrestling Team into a repeat New England powerhouse- without a doubt, the best Wrestling team in the modern history of the College. One of the best New England Wrestling teams of all time.
They will most likley win New England again next year, and have a real shot at being top 10, perahps even top 5 in the Nation.
Why does’nt the college offer him a raise as the Wrestling coach to keep him around? 10-15k a year would be well worth it.
Williams is on the verge of becoming a big name school in Wrestling- and the sport attracts a lot of great student athletes. It is one of the most participated in sports in the United States.
jeffz says:
This is not confirmed, but someone is reporting on a message board:
“Things just keep getting better for Wesleyan. Jack Siedlecki will be the O.C. and Williams alum Dan DiCenzo who is one of the best recruiters in the NESCAC will be joining Whalen in Middletown.”
Siedlecki is the former Amherst and Yale head coach, who recently retired from Yale; he is the guy who turned an 0-8 Amherst team around in just a few years.
If true, Wesleyan must be investing a lot in its football program to bring a group like that in. And, I am guessing they’ve made some representations about admissions support. I expect that Wes will be battling Trinity, Amherst and Williams on fairly even terms within 2-3 years.
wresd says:
PTC only scratches the surface of what Dan has brought to the table in the wrestling program. Besides delivering back to back New England Championships, this past week they were crowned National GPA Champions for the third straight year. Their 3.54 team GPA outpaced programs in all divisions (including the Ivy league teams). With a final national poll ranking of 11th in the country, this wrestling team is by far the best in school history….in every way. Dan has been able to recruit the brightest and best wrestlers in the country. Their team GPA shows that he did this without having to ask for extra “chips” to get a a stud recruit in. He has a favorable track record with the admissions office because of their past and present academic success (and obviously it doesn’t hurt that they have performed at the highest level on the mat too).
Those that think William’s reputation alone will afford the wrestling team the opportunity to continue at this pace are naive. The loss to the football program would be big if Dan left, the loss to the wrestling program would be gigantic. Wrestling at the college level is brutal, both mentally and physically. It takes a special coach to keep the troops motivated and to have them continue to keep showing up when there is such difficult academic (and other extra-curricular) demands on their time. They need a coach like Dan who went to Williams and understands that first hand. I hope the administration makes the right call on this one
willephs says:
What’s the right call? Making a football decision based on the impact it will have on the wrestling team. If that’s so, what about the lacrosse team? If Dan is placed above McCormack maybe McCormack (who has led his squad to a NESCAC Championship) would leave, profoundly effecting the lacrosse program. The same holds true with Barrale and baseball.
This is about football and what will keep our program at the top. If McCormack and Barrale want the position then they should be ahead of Dan plan and simple. If they do not want it then Dan would be the next best option.
PTC says:
Wresd- The best team of record is the team from 48-50, which won three straight new england championships…
Also, there was a D1 all American in 1957.
will- Why not just pay him more for Wrestling then?
willephs says:
PTC – If that would keep him here and they had the money in the budget to do it then by all means do it.
But in my humble opinion, I really don’t think that extra money is what Dan is interested in. He wants to be a Head Football Coach. If he remains at Williams he is not even guaranteed a coordinator position. Just like NoDiv4 I have no doubt that he will be a Head Coach at some point but not here and not now.
jeffz says:
Yeah, I mean, if the plan is, Whalen will be A.D. in three years and there is an implicit promise that Dan will become head coach, hard for Williams to compete with that short of making Dan head football coach right now …
Wesleyan is CLEARLY doing a lot to amp up it’s men’s team sports programs, especially high profile sports. They are already great in soccer and lacrosse, which is a fairly recent phenomena. Men’s hoops had a similar big-time hire from a rival school last year (Joe Reilly from Bates) and he brought in an absolutely LOADED recruiting class this year. I guess the Wesleyan alumni / admnistration is sick of getting pounded by Williams and Amherst. What’s interesting to me is that, when I think of the Wesleyan culture, I don’t think of a place that is particularly enamored of football and other such helmet sports. I wonder if this is part of a general cultural shift at Wesleyan, because if not, I have to question how much student support there will be for these teams. But I can almost guarantee there will be a lot of admissions support for football, especially after seeing a HUGE hoops recruiting class (and most of them can play) in year one of the Reilly era. I am not up to speed on Wesleyan, so perhaps it has already changed since the days I was more familiar with the school …
Wesleyan reader says:
the past 2-3 years has indeed seen a cultural shift at Wesleyan… not huge, but noticeable. the change has been slow, but the campus culture is definitely changing. definitely not as sports-oriented as Williams, but definitely creeping towards Amherst… condolences on the coaching losses – hope to see the Little Three a tad more competitive in a few years!
PTC says:
Will- I am not so sure. If they offered hima good raise and increased TIPS for Wrestling and told him to build a powerhouse, he could do it with the base he has established.
Wrestling is a big sport. Not as big as football, but fanatical and very widely participated in. I beleive it is the thrid largest male sport in the country, in terms of athletes. Also, Wrestlers have a certain way about them… more of a geek kind of thing in terms of Academics, so anyone admitted could be placed on a program that makes them do well in school- Team has a GPA of 3.54… I am not sure what the “Williams” standard is, but that strikes me as very high. What is the GPA of the Hockey and Football teams?
Does Wrestling have the highest GPA of any sports program at Williams? How does a 3.54 compare to other extra curricular programs like music and JA’s? It could be that the teams ethos provides an exemplary academic standard that is unmatched at Williams with a GPA like that. That is something to pay attention to. If these Wrestlers were not Wrestling, chances are they would be doing worse in school.
That is a model program then… however it is achieved.
Just out of curiosity, what is the average GPA at Williams, and how does it compare? What does the Wrestling team do to get these kinds of grades… is it something they track and facilitate through study sessions attached to the team if a student is struggling. Facinating.
jeffz says:
PTC, there is no way wrestling would ever get more tips. Williams only gets 66 tips per year for 30-something varsity sports. Football alone gets either 12 or 16 (can’t recall which offhand). So basically, we are talking about around one tip per year for more of the remaining sports, many receive none, and most team sports probably receive a few. Wrestling doesn’t really need many, if any (I’d guess that it gets at MOST one per year, maybe not even), tips because (a) several football players also wrestle and (b) there are apparently plenty of top-notch high school wrestlers with the academics needed to get in even without using a tip.
The 3.54 team gpa is certainly impressive, although the average gpa at Williams is usually in the 3.3-3.4 range, so it’s not THAT far above the mean.
PTC says:
Jeffz- Who controls the number? They are not scholarships.. so what difference does it make if they add a couple?
What is the average of the hockey team… or football… or basketball?
So, the average at Williams is a B+ to A-… really? Wow.
jeffz says:
Yeah, the average at almost any top school is well north of 3.3, some much higher … grade inflation … Williams is actually considered to be a school with LESS grade inflation than typical, among its peers. I don’t know the GPA of any other team.
The 66 tip limit is a reduction from previous levels (I believe once as high as 94). Williams, Amherst and Wesleyan have all agreed to cap tips at that level (the rest of the NESCAC, I believe, is a bit higher, maybe 72). Since Williams has the most varsity sports of any NESCAC school (some schools don’t field teams in ice hockey, golf, football, crew, wrestling, skiing, or some combination of the above), its recruiting allotment has to be spread fairly thin. There is no chance that number will ever rise; the only direction it could conceivably go is down.
wrestling fan says:
Let me comment on a few of the points raised.
While the wrestling team does not receive many tips (one maybe two?), there is coordination with the football team. I think each of the wrestling team heavyweights are defensive or offensive lineman. When you think about it, wrestling is a great complementary sport as it helps with their footwork, hand fighting, balance, etc.
From a academic perspective, I believe that the reason the GPA is so high is because of the type of student athlete Coach DiCenzo recruits. In my three year association with the team, I am not aware of any academic issues. Each of the wrestlers are truly very good students and fine young men. Like many sports, wrestling is a thinking mans game (probably runs counter to the conventional wisdom of the casual sports fan). It is much like a chess match in that you are thinking several moves ahead. You do something in the first period to set up a move in the third.
Our high school athletic counsel did a study a few years ago and measured the GPAs of the students in the term before and after their season and during their season. The student athletes tended to have higher GPAs in-season. One explanation is that they become very good at time management. Off-season, much less so.
The life blood of success is good recruiting and coaching. There are many fine coaches and recruiters out there. Unfortunately, they often times tend to not be the same person. Coach DiCenzo excels in both and as a former Williams football player and wrestler, knows the academic challenges these guys are going through and provides them with the tools to be successful.
I am remain hopeful that things turn out for the best.
Jeffz says:
Re: wrestling and football, Phil Steele, who puts out by far the best college football preview annual (not even any debate) loves linemen who were star wrestlers for the reasons noted above, and will often make special note in his preview of incoming frosh who excelled at wrestling.
dcat says:
PTC –
Where do you get your numbers for this assertion: ” I beleive it is the thrid largest male sport in the country, in terms of athletes.”
I just did a little searching and wrestling may barely be a top ten sport in terms of participation nationally at the collegiate level (it seems to be between 9th and 11th before counting cross country and track, both of which have many, many more participants at the collegiate level no matter hgow you measure it) and is right around 6th or seventh at the high school level.
dcat
wresd says:
The 3.54 GPA of the wrestling team is extraordinary in that it is computed by taking your 10 weight class starters that were entered in the conference championships and adding 2 other wrestlers that had to have competed in at least 50% of the team’s matches. Thus, there is no hiding a “bad egg” or padding the stats by having a glorified manager with a large GPA on the roster and submitting his stats to help the cause.I would challenge any other Williams team to submit the combined GPA of their starters and come up with that high a number.
I would beg to differ that wrestlers fall into the “geek” category. On the contrary, many of the wrestlers on the Williams team are multisport, multi-talented individuals. Almost every guy on the team played multiple varsity sports in high school. There are also a number of talented musicians, singers, and actors on the squad. But, this is not necessarily outside the norm of allot of student athletes here at Williams….there are hundreds of multi-talented people here….that’s why Williams has the reputation that it does. What may set the wrestlers apart is the extraordinary discipline it takes to endure the grueling practices, weight management (guys have to drop 5-10 pounds, or more every week to make weight for matches)while maintaining that high GPA. It is that discipline that wrestlers learn on the mat that carries over into the classroom and real life. But high GPA averages is not universal to all wrestlers. There are plenty of lesser performing, low GPA wrestlers out there. There just not at Williams. The NEWA conference that Williams won the past two seasons has only 2 other NESCAC schools that have wrestling (Trinity and Wesleyan). The rest of the schools are ones that will have many “lesser” performing students who wouldn’t have a prayer of getting into Williams on their rosters. That’s also why it is ironic when they announce the All Scholastic All Americans. If I am correct to attain this milestone a wrestler has to have placed in the conference tournament or have won 67% of his matches while carrying a 3.20 GPA or better. So basically you have to be a real good wrestler and a good student. Four Ephs wrestlers obtained this honor this season. But, the wrestling aside (which is the same for all members of the conference), do you think it is a little harder to obtain that 3.20 at Williams than at Johnson and Whales or Plymouth St.I heard that there were several other Williams wrestlers who had like 3.19 with the other criteria who didn’t make Scholar All American. Too bad!
I hear that Dan gets one minor tip a year for wrestling. Pretty good recruiting and coaching performance to post these results with that kind of admissions help.
wrestling fan says:
According to a 2008 survey, wrestling was sixth in terms of high school participation rates. Due to Title IX considerations, I imagine that wrestling would drop in the college version of this survey. Here is the link.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/ncaa/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2008/Assocation-wide/High+school+participation+up+-+09-05-08+-+NCAA+News
Dave says:
Some of the attempts on this blog to minimize the extraordinary accomplishements that Coach Dicenzo has orchestrated and presided over are so irrational that they can only be the product of bias and/or self interest.
Wrestling competes in a competitive conference-not the sheltered NESCAC. The team won it two years in a row and maintained a team GPA over 3.5. Res Ipsa Loquitor.
The attempt to rationalize and minimize these simultaneous accomplishemnts by claiming that wrestling has a geek factor going for it is laughable and clearly the product of ignorance. These young men are warriors not geeks. More than 75% of MMA and UFC fighters come from wrestling backgrounds. If the expounder of this brilliance wants to test his theory I suggest that he shows up at the NCAA Nationals in Omaha this week and repeats his words of wisdom. I think he might learn something about wrestlers.
Nobody has exceeded what Coach DiCenzo has accomplished in terms of recruiting and mentoring young people that excel in both the gymnasium and the classroom. It would appear that nobody has produced a greater percentage of athletes that truly live up to the image of the Williams student athlete we are so fond of projecting to the outside world. This, combined with his unquestioned exceptional character, work ethic, knowledge of football and background as an outstanding Williams student-athlete himself, make him an exceptional candidate for the position of head football coach.
willephs says:
Dave – I’m glad you’re so passionate about Dan. You’re right, he is an exceptional candidate, but what’s being discussed is whether it’s right for him to be named the top internal candidate. Should he be placed above McCormack or Barrale? Bear in mind these are two coaches who have seniority over him and are coordinators. Seldom, if ever in football, would a position coach jump a coordinator in this situation. I can also attest that much of what you say about Dan can be said about the other two as well.
Anything that was said was not meant to minimize Dan’s accomplishments. Much of it was a reaction to the first post that wrestling fan made, which made it appear that the only reason why the football team was successful was because of Dan. And I do think that you took PTC’s comment about the geek factor the wrong way.
You’re comment about the posters being bias is a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black. I think you may be a little bias toward Dan…
I have solid relationships with all three coaches mentioned and I don’t favor any over the other. I think they are great candidates and Williams is lucky to have this embarrassment of riches. I have a lot of pride in the Williams football program and I want to see things done the right way. That being said, I don’t think it is right to name Dan, or anyone for that matter, as the top internal candidate. Again, a football decision shouldn’t be made based on its effect on wrestling or any other sport.
dcat says:
wrestling fan –
That’s one of the sources I saw. Sixth is a long way from 3rd, and especially when sports like track have more than double the participation of wrestling. At the college level wrestling is far, far, far behind. Title IX plays a role, but I doubt it explains the difference between wrestling and the other sports. And of course at the high school level the participation in many sports — golf, swimming, tennis, say — is going to be hidden because so much of the participation happens at the club level.
dcat
Dave says:
What I am passionate about is the truth and the deliberate attempts of others to distort it.
Coach Dicenzo did what I had thought impossible. He combed the country for outstanding wrestlers who had 1500 SATs, straight As and outstanding extracurriculars. He brought them to Williams and won two NEWA titles with wrestlers who achieved team GPAs of over 3.5. How many coaches have achieved anything like this level of success on both fronts?
I took issue with certain attempts to cast shadows on this success. These attempts were grounded on assertions so ludicrous and logic so shaky that they could not possibly have been advanced in good faith.
kthomas says:
@Dave:
Thanks for your explanations of what Coach Dicenzo has done. It is appreciated.
I do want to add a motto borrowed from WikiPedia, however– please assume goodwill. I don’t thing those who caused you to add your comments were right– nor necessarily that their motives were positive– but from the point of view of running a forum, it helps if we start from the position of assuming goodwill on the other side.
Yours,
–Ken as moderator
willephs says:
Dave – You still aren’t addressing the actual issue that we are discussing. Again, no one is bad mouthing Dicenzo’s success as a wrestling coach. But this is about placing him at the top of the search for Williams’ next head football coach. The fact that he has had such great success as a wrestling coach does not necessarily translate. Football is a different beast. It’s the most high profile sport on campus and Sheehy isn’t just going to bow down to Dan because he is threatening to leave.
I’ve gone over a lot of what was said and I honestly can’t see what you are so fired up about. Everybody is in agreement that Williams would be better off with Dan then without. But he doesn’t deserve to be treated differently then anybody else who is applying for the job. If he truly feels entitled to the position (which I think would be beneath the Dicenzo that I know) then he proves that he is not mature enough to be head football coach.
If Sheehy looks over all the internal candidates objectively and Dan is the clear cut favorite then fine. He should not just hand it to Dan.
This is about the football program.
PTC says:
Dcat- Sadly that may be true now. A lot of programs were cut because of title IX, it being a male sport that does not make a lot of $$.
Make sure you are looking at only males when you make the comparison.
But you may in fact be correct, title IX chopped a lot of teams off of the roster. Some of the best D1 programs in the nation were axed (SU for example).
The three sports of swimming, track, and wrestling that bring home the most Olympic medals for the United States have been hit the hardest by Title IX.
Wrestling was hurt very badly by the law.
PTC says:
I was talking about Wrestling in HS, because that is where kids get recruited from to go to college. And now in college, forget about it, Wrestling got killed by title 9. Dcat is right, it is much smaller (now). Title 9 cut male programs in a lot of sports, but Wrestling had the dubious postition of being the only other all male sport in competition with Football in most colleges. That was a killer.
I guess today it is 6th in HS. You may be right Dcat, it may have only been 4th before it was gutted (or less, but I doubt it). Remember, you need to look at only male v male athletes… because it is an all male sport.
Where does Wrestling fall out in terms of male participation in HS now v the past? Prior to Title 9? 3rd some years I do believe, but that is from memory… I could be wrong… I know one thing, it is still a huge male sport, but it used to be much, much bigger.
For a local example… After title 9, Berkshire county went from 9 strong HS Wrestling programs to 3-4.
wresd:
As far as my geek comment goes… being a geek, does not make you a wimp by any stretch of the imagination. There are an awful lot of tough geeks out there. A lot of good wrestlers are indeed geeky.
PTC says:
2004-05 High School Sports Participation Rates
(2006-07 Fresno State sponsored sports in blue)
California Boys Participation Rankings California Participants California Percentage Increase since 2003 National Participants (rank)
1. Football* 99,079 3.7 1,045,494 (1st)
2. Track & Field* 45,038 8.9 516,703 (3rd)
3. Basketball* 42,061 0.7 545,497 (2nd)
4. Baseball* 40,676 -1.7 459,717 (4th)
5. Soccer 39,453 2.5 354,587 (5th)
6. Wrestling 23,318 6.0 243,009 (6th)
7. Cross Country* 22,782 11.3 201,719 (7th)
8. Swim & Diving 17,579 11.7 103,754 (10th)
9. Tennis* 17,238 3.1 148,530 (9th)
10. Volleyball 13,133 8.0 41,637 (13th)
11. Water Polo 12,570 8.4 16,822 (18th)
12. Golf 11,459 9.3 161,025 (8th)
Interesting. California is not a big Wrestling state… I wonder what the stats were before they cut most of the good college Wrestling teams?
Title IX thread time I do believe… Jeff?
PTC says:
Derek- Here are some interesting stats in regards to college Wrestling popularity from the USA wrestling webpage.
*Wrestling is the No. 3 revenue-producing sport among all NCAA Div. I Championships, behind only men’s basketball and men’s ice-hockey. In 1997-98, the NCAA Div. I Championships turned a profit of $111,463. No women’s sports turned a profit in the 1997-98 study.
*Many colleges draw sizable (and paid) attendance for their major dual meets. The 2000 Iowa vs. Minnesota dual meet in Minneapolis drew over 13,000 fans. The 2000 Iowa vs. Iowa State dual meet drew over 12,000 fans. The 2000 Iowa vs. Penn State dual meet in Iowa City had over 10,000 fans.
Of course… football is not listed because they do not have a NCAA championship game.
One thing for sure… it is a very popular sport.
Do the NCAA track and field championships draw that many fans? I have seen them on TV, adn it looks like a big crowd…
Jeffz: Title IX thread?
Anyone have more info on Berkshire high school Wrestling programs that were dropped?
wrestling fan says:
Let me throw out a couple of questions to the football community.
I spoke with two football parents regarding Coach DiCenzo. One is a parent of a junior and the other a senior. They tell me that within their circle of football parents, the overwhelming support for the next head football coach is Coach DiCenzo. Further, another football parent wrote the pro Coach DiCenzo email (posted in my original entry) that was circulated to the football (and subsequently) wrestling parents.
My questions are this.
1. Is there another internal candidate for the position that has same or greater level of support within the football community? I realize that this is not the sole criteria by which a head coaching job is awarded, but it has to be an important consideration.
2. Do either the defensive and offensive coordinators (the most frequently mentioned internal candidates) want the job? Given their other head coaching responsibilities, maybe they would prefer the status quo for their own situation.
Dave says:
My original point was that Dan Dicenzo is not only an experienced football coach but also an experienced and very accomplished head coach. While his head coaching experience is in wrestling he has established himself as a master of so many of the key responsibilities of being a head coach in any sport. His ability to deal with administrations, admissions, parents and recruits is universally regarded as phenomenal. He is experienced in all phases of running a program including managing travel, fundraising, assisting students with family issues and the like. He does all these things with the savvy and maturity of a fifty year old man.
I do not know anything about the other internal candidates, but I can assure you that I am not about to try and mischaracterize or demean any of their accomplishments. For all I know they may also have head college coaching experience. I am merely trying to convey my knowledge of the extraordinary qualifications of Dan Dicenzo.
Dave says:
Dave.
I meant to say “For all I know they may also have had exceptional head college coaching experience”. The word exceptional was omitted.
PTC says:
Dave- Wrestlers do more with less than most. All you need is a mat and a couple of guys who want to go at it. No special pads, no sticks, no ball, no hurdles… just a mat and a mop to clean the sweat and blood aferwards.
No doubt coach learned a lot about varying levels because he was part of a two man show.
Imagine if the New Englands were held at Williams? That would be huge… Nationals? I don’t think that most people have visbility on exactly how huge the sport of Wrestling is. The contest would draw thousands of spectators if it was publisized correctly. It would make local TV, and national newspapers.
Medic5392 says:
PTC bring up some good points, at the National Level the sport of wrestling is very big, it is not as big in New England, Hockey is still the dominant sport here. However, in the Mid-West, to include Minnesota, Wrestling is huge as well in the Mid-Atlantic States of NJ, PA and NY. The problem would be selling it in New England, but the sport is growing here and a large part of that growth is due to the cheapness of the sport. Outside of initial purchase of a mat (10k-20k, depending on size and decoration) that will last indef with a refurbish every 5 years (3-5k) the only cost involved are shoes, head gear and singlets that can be used over and over again. The New England HS Championships were just held and they routinely sell out and are one of the few tournaments that involve a Regional Championship. If New England or NCAAs were held in the area they would sell out and the D1 NCAAs are one of the highest money making tournaments, only Football and Basketball make more. There are ways to get the coach to stay and make Williams a D3 Contender at the National Level with minimal investment of money compared to other sports and the lure of a Williams education is a very powerful thing for recruiting.
Medic5392 says:
Wrestling is no longer just a male sport, womens’ participation in it is growing with a few D3 schools actually adding it at the College Level and at the HS Level it is also growing with MA putting forth a request to the MIAA to form Wrestling as an Official MIAA Sanctioned Sport based on National Weights and hold it in the Spring. It is also a back door way wrestling is attempting to fight the terrible consquences of Title IX, if you have a male/female sport at the College and HS level and the Mat can be used for both and the Coach can coach one in Winter and the other in Spring it is cheaper, helps fight the crazy quota system in place for Title IX and is a win for the sport. Many girls attempt to wrestle on the boys teams but once a boy hits puberty the girls are at a huge dis-advanatge and it is a fair move to make and Women’s wrestling is also an olympic sport now (Freestyle).
Lastly, correction, I thought Wrestling Made more than Hockey, Football, BBall and Hockey do make more money than wrestling so it is Fourth for revenue, my mistake.
wresd says:
Has anyone heard anything more about a decision on the football job?? This would seem to have critical timing implications with regular admissions acceptances coming out soon. Recruits are going to want to know who the coach is going to be, for both football and wrestling. Dan has been an outstanding recruiter for both sports and now he and the recruits are in an awkward situation. Will some prized recruits bail and follow this coaching staff to Wesleyan? We would like to think that Williams (with whoever the coaches are) is the obvious choice for any recruit who is accepted, but that is a bit over confident. Williams has had extraordinary overall athletic success across it’s program, but with that comes the potential for apathy (resting on your laurels) and a jealous push from our competitors to rise up and beat down the lion at the top. This is what you will always see from Amherst, and now Wesleyan wants to join the party. The classic D-1 ploy of stealing away your best coaches has begun here in little old Williamstown. Success also breeds some internal strife as assistant coaches who feel they have played a vital role jockey to be the big cheese in the program. Ultimately there are not enough “pieces of cheese” to go around and a solid coaching staff imploads somewhat from within…. and you rebuild again. This is not a new concept, but one that Williams has probably not dealt with as much as some schools. How long will be before Coach Maker (men’s basketball) is lured away based on his success here to either move up to D-1 or rebuild a D-3 program that wants to “pay” for a proven winner. This football/wrestling issue may only be the beginning.
jeffz says:
wresd, take a DEEP breath. Dick Farley was the most successful football coach in Williams history. He retired, and Coach Whalen had a pretty stellar run following him with an undefeated years and a bunch of 6-2 years, including a solid record vs. Amherst. Whoever coaches the Ephs next year will inherit one of the two most talented rosters in the NESCAC (along with Trinity) and will have a great shot at a 7-1 or 8-0 season. Coach Sheehy was a legend as a hoops coach … then Coach Paulsen won a national title … and now Coach Maker had the team right back in the Final Four and better than ever. I hope Coach Maker sticks around for a LONG while, but if D-I calls (I do NOT see him leaving for any D-III school), the Ephs will have, yet again, an enormous number of fantastic candidates, just like they did when Paulsen left. Legends leave at Williams, and the programs do not falter … look at swimming and diving and men’s and women’s tennis as examples.
Most of the top athletic recruits are locked in early decisions, so they couldn’t leave for Wesleyan even if they wanted to, which I doubt many would, because it will still be a few years before Wes can really compete with Williams in football, and there isn’t the sort of fan or alumni support, at least not yet. And I’ve heard that this is one of the best groups of football reruits in a LONG time, including big-time players at QB, RB (several there), and WR, all of whom would probably play immediately at most NESCAC schools. Williams has a football tradition that just can’t be topped … College Gameday, the Amherst and Trinity rivalries, several NFL players, the 48-46 win, The Walk, and on and on. It will always be an incredibly attractive option for coaches and players alike. You are reading wayyyy too much into a SINGLE hire of a guy who is (a) returning to his alma mater and (b) has a chance to be an A.D. in a few years, whereas Sheehy is probably entrenched at Williams for quite some time. That’s really all there is to it.
This year, Williams’ sports are as good or better than ever. Coaches come and go but Williams is not going to be anything but at the very top of D-III for a long time. In fact, it’s a GOOD sign when coaches leave Williams for D-1 or administrative opportunities … it will only serve to reinforce Williams as a place where rising talents want to work.
Finally, no matter WHAT happens with Coach Dicenzo, it seems like the Ephs will need a new wrestling coach, either because he gets kicked up to football coach or leaves for Wesleyan. A lot of the comments act like the Dicenzo decision will decide the future of two sports, but the guy can’t be head coach of two different programs in all events.
In short, Williams has been enormously successful in athletics for well over a decade, and the type of implosions or recruiting of Eph coaches by peers has simply not happened, and is unlikely to happen any time soon. You extrapolate wayyyyyy too much from the coaching situation in ONE sport, where two guys are leaving for bigger jobs / better opportunities, not, as you suggest, making a lateral move. Believe me, Wesleyan is not going to start stealing other Williams coaches, as they don’t have any other carrots to dangle the way they did with Whalen (potential AD in a few years, associate AD now) and Dicenzo (potential football coach once Whalen moves up).
Derek says:
PTC –
As usual, your arguments are all over the map, with your typical cherry picking panache. I simply don’t have the energy for it. There was no point when wrestling was one of the top three played sports at any level. The revenues for the NCAA championships are not even vaguely relevant (so wrestling is more popular than baseball? Really?) and there is literally no metric by which wrestling is even close to track in terms of participation. Indeed by every stat we have before us, it has less than half the numbers. And you seem to think that my only considering men’s wrestling helps your argument — it does not. I also did not take into account women’s track participation, which would make it even a more woeful disparity.
Look — you made an assertion. The assertion was wrong. It does not diminish wrestling to say that it is not as popular as other sports. It does diminish wrestling to continue to insist things about it that are not true. These guys are incredibly devoted athletes. As are any athletes at a high level. There is no need for you to try to stake a claim for wrestling above other sports — by definition someone competing at that level is an elite athlete with other worldly commitment.
dcat
PTC says:
Derek- I am not making an argument at all, except to say that Wrestling is a very popular sport, that was impacted greatly by title IX. I am not sure where you are going with this… but it is pretty much mute. Wrestling is the 6th most practiced sport in the nation currently for high school… it is a huge sport… so, what’s your point, exactly? That I was wrong when I stated “I beleive it might be 3rd”….
Not the D1 argument Derek… good god… lol. I could care less if it is almost as popular as track.. or more popular that cross country… or Hockey.. or soccer… it’s a big sport. That was my only point…otherwise.. WHO CARES IF IT IS 4TH 5TH OR 6TH.
Dick Swart says:
Gang, I just had a great idea!
Minnesota has always been a great wrestling state, right? Back in the ’60′s, I had a beer client who sponsored a weekly wresting show broadcast from a Minneapolis hotel under the aegis of the great Verne Gagne. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verne_Gagne. I got to meet the pros and they were terrific guys!
Now feature this: Jesse Ventura as the next wrestling coach at Williams! A pro, a politician, and the former governor of Minnesota. And who else has been a governor of Minnesota? Right! Arne Carlson ’57. What a tie in! What a tag team! And they can both measure results!
jeffz says:
I like your plan, Dick. The wrestling team already has insufficient time to bleed, so The Body would fit right in …
Derek says:
PTC –
I said nothing about DI. Nice try.
You insisted X. The answer was Y, which was substantially different from X. I corrected you. Then you continued with the argument rather than doing the only thing you should have done: Said that your assertion was wrong.
And while it is easy to blame everything on Title IX, the fact is that it’s not like wrestling alone is a “victim” of Title IX, if any of these sports have been victims (and there is a debate about this).
By the way, could we put a moratorium on using “lol”? We’re not twelve-year-olds texting to our friends, when people write it they surely are not actually laughing out loud, and almost inevitably it follows something that is not actually funny.
dcat
Jr. Mom says:
Derek, I swear that comment #50 made me laugh out loud…
*…as does your lecturing PTC about proper use of language.
Thanks for the yuks, all.
* added once the chuckle set in.
;-)
wrestling fan says:
Over the years Title IX and general budget cuts have hurt a number of non-revenue producing sports. Since 1972, over 400 college wrestling programs were discontinued. Things seem to have gotten a little better. Since 1999, 60 were added and 28 were dropped. Unfortunately however, Duquesne and a few of the Cal State campuses are scheduled to discontinue their programs at the end of this season.
Here is a link to some useful information fro the National Wrestling Coaches Association.
http://www.nwcaonline.com/nwcawebsite/savingwrestlinghome/facts.aspx
Medic5392 says:
@Dick Swart:
Love the post Dick! lol However, I think Jesse is far to busy with conspiracy theories at the moment so he might not be up to the task. Last I heard he was hot on the trail of the real 9-11 Attackers and then off to chase down the makers of the weather weapon! I am not positive but I to think age is catching up with the old fella and causing “problems”.
Medic5392 says:
@Derek:
Derek, Title IX has been terrible to a lot of male sports-Vollyeball, Swimming, Gymnastics (The USOC had to ask the NCAA to maintain a Title so as to continue to feed the Male Teams) and Wrestling. Title IX is a classic example of a right idea implemented the wrong way. Look to NOWs Lawsuit against Cal-State Bakersfield and the schools reaction to it. Look at many of the colleges who instead of adding women’s sports will just drop men’s in order to remain compliant. Norma Cantou and many others who get involved with Title IX enforcement cared about the quotas not an actual increase in participation for women. Title IX has been terrible at the College level for male sports. The path to hell is paved with good intentions should be the actual name of the law.
Medic5392 says:
http://themat.com/section.php?section_id=3&page=showarticle&ArticleID=20647
Another study about Gender Discrimination, very different take than the Conventional Wisdom.
Dick Swart says:
@Medic5392:
Well, I read the reff’ed article and find it interesting that if I were a woman golfer, I’d have a better chance for a scholarship than a man. And golf is one game that can be played on a level playing field (ok, not too level), if you disregard the womens and mens tee-offs. Also bowling.
But what really caught my eye and chilled my heart was the phrase “Gender Symmetry”. I immediately googled and found a lot of cases of a situational definition that seemed to change by physical proportion, percentage participation, and bias.
But I couldn’t find a definition. In its’ pc bloodlessness, I am guessing that this is one of those newly-coined phrases that may be applied to any situation in which one wants to demonstrate discrimination or prejudice. And the definition may be changed by number of people, amount of dollars, number of pounds, length of arms, or whatever is the immediate causus belli.
Can you help me out? It is the words themselves that concern me.
Medic5392 says:
@Dick Swart:
Cannot help you out, it offends me I imagine just as much as you, I hate PC of any type. I thought it was an interesting take on a subject but the wording at times is..sigh…PC gobbley gook..
JG says:
Title IX does not prevent schools from offering wrestling. They are generally unwilling to balance expenditures by cutting back on giant expensive programs like football to make it happen. I don’t mean cutting – I love football and my brother and father both played for years – I mean cutting back.
But I will not cry more than a single tear when there are still major differences in how men’s and women’s sports get treated. If it weren’t for Title IX, I wouldn’t have been able to place sports in high school….not talented enough for college level, but I wish I had been.
And I’m glad to see that Dan DiCenzo has made a good place for himself. I was in his entry, and I’ll just say him now serving as a postive role model is a truly wonderful turn of events. I hope that whatever happens, he ends up in a good place where he can continue to be such a positive force for these young men. I’ll remind you all that he is 30 (31?) years old and has a long time to continue doing great things. If he leaves Williams it will be a short term loss, but I’d hope it wouldn’t be permanent.
Medic5392 says:
@JG:
As for High Schools, please, it helped kick start it but it is hardly something that is needed today and not in it’s present form of hard quotas and “gender” shares of the pie.
Classic case of good intentions wrongly implemeted.
I hope it is just a lack of information JG that is causing you to say things like that. Of course you would not cry a tear it does not directly effect you when they cut mens sports instead of increasing womens sports, it is a typical selfish answer and one that fails to look at the big picture. Title IX is and will continue to be used in an unfair way, go check out the NOW Lawsuit against Cal-State Bakersfield for just one example of how many women’s groups weild Title IX. See how many programs have been dropped at the college level due to Title IX. It is easier to drop a men’s program than add a women’s and really, like yourself, many women do not shed a tear, why would they when they can just say “I got mine!” even though many do not even play sports at the College Level.
PTC says:
Medic- 6-4 Female to male ratio in college in America today, I believe? Derek- feel free to check my facts for quality assurance please…
I would guess Title IX is partly to blame for that. In some states, the ratio is as high as 7-3. There is a massive over representation of boys on Ritalin… we can indeed cure boys of being boys. They have pills that can cure your maleness! Want one? Want to get your son some? He’ll do much better in school! He’ll sit still.
Personally, I think the feminization of America is a good thing, because a nation full of frustrated under educated boys and men lends itself towards positive production…
Medic- No one is cutting Wrestling dude… they are just not paying for it in order to balance out women’s sports. There is a big difference. You can still have a club man… College club teams can be very competitive, even beat some D1 programs…
Dick- All these men and their babaric physical sports. We really need to stop encouraging this aggressive instinct in boys! Everyone should do gender neutral sports!
That settles it, eliminate Football and Wrestling, and ban checking in hockey and lacrosse, no contact allowed! Boys- play nice, sit still, and eat two of these pills while you are at it!
lol.
jeffz says:
There is simply no way Title IX has anything to do with the gender ratio at colleges today. Varsity athletes are, at most schools, a VERY small percentage of the student body to begin with. There are an even smaller percentage of potential varsity athletes whose sport may have been cut at the margin who then don’t go to college at ALL rather than, say, going to college and not playing that varsity sport. I’d be surprised if you can attribute even one percent of the gender differential in colleges to Title IX. The reality is very simple: there are FAR more high school girls with academic qualifications to get into college than boys. There are plenty of explanations for this, but again, the gender imbalance has everything to do with academics qualifications.
Second, I absolutely LOVE football. I love to watch, I used to love to play (recreationally), I love to talk about it. That being said, after everything I’ve read about injuries to college football players, in particular long-term brain trauma, there is no way I’d ever let any kid of mine play college football. No chance. Ice hockey at that level would seriously concern me as well. Those very legitimate concerns, as much as anything else, underlie some of the shift towards non-contact sports, it’s not about feminization but rather about parents being more educated as to dangers inherent to sports that involve repeatedly smashing your head into hard objects.
Over-diagnosis of ritalin has nothing whatsoever to do with Title IX.
Personally, I have no problem with Title IX. Maybe it is not perfect and could be tweaked in light of societal changes since it was implementation, but it certainly was needed to help remedy a systematic bias which prevented women athletes from getting a fair shake. And as JG says, the overwhelming emphasis at colleges and universities is still on men’s athletics. Now, part of that will NEVER change, because fans much prefer watching men’s basketball and men’s football to any other sport, male or female, and there is just not much that ever can be done about that, but to the extent women athletes now have opportunities that were virtually non-existent just a few decades ago, while male athletes still have tons of fantastic opportunities but perhaps a FEW less at the margins (because Title IX has done a LOT more expanding the pie as opposed to simply eliminating half of it), overall I’d deem the legislation successful. Not to say it is perfect, not to say things can’t change a bit, but I think the world of college athletics in the aggregate is better off for it.
jeffz says:
Put it this way, which is a simple and efficient way to think about it: as someone totally objective, under a veil of ignorance, not knowing if I am going to have a female or male child, I am glad Title IX exists.
PTC says:
Jeffz- Injuries are a part of athletics, even in non contact sports. Running produces all kinds of injuries.
Ttile IX is a part of the trend, and the trend is- boys are bad.
Jeffz- Remember this conversation when they attempt to medicate your son at a young age.
jeffz says:
PTC, what on God’s green earth are you talking about? You might as well say, remember this conversation when someone tried to abduct your kid!!! Title IX has nothing whatsoever to do with prescribing Ritalin incorrectly, but has everything to do with providing previously non-existent opportunities for women in athletics. I guess if I say, let’s stop people from gunning each other in the street, you’d respond, hey, let boys be boys! Not all activities that are correlated with men (another example: child sexual abuse, an almost entirely male activity) should be applauded / protected. Sheesh.
It is also utterly ridiculous to compare running injuries to the permanent brain damage that, more and more studies are showing, are caused by repeated head-on-head collisions unique to certain sports. It’s sort of like saying, ingesting things can harm you, so why is it problematic to use heroine when we drink lemonade? Have you read any of the recent studies / exposes as to what happens to, in particular, lineman’s brain after repeatedly banging heads? It is really, really, really scary stuff. You don’t see retired runner having brain damage like you see happening to retired NFL players (and I’d imagine retired ice hockey players, although I’m not sure there).
PTC says:
JeffZ- I don’t care how nuts you think the argument is… or even if it is off base- just remember it if you have a son. Remember how crazy I sound, remember this stupid argument.
Remember it, the first time they try to medicate him. He’ll most likley be about 6 years old.
Sam says:
Why can’t we understand the message of title IX as: girls are good, too. Why should boys be privileged (i.e. given more resources) in the realm of sports? Why shouldn’t girls be given equal opportunities and resources to enjoy the glory and beauty of sports? Why is the idea of equality labeled “PC”? What is the alternative? Limitation of opportunities for girls and women. That is your preferred outcome?
PTC says:
Sam- The reality is that title IX cut mens sports.
Why should’nt all sports be equal?
Because some sports make a lot more money than others. The reality is that male football makes a lot of cash, and that in order to make as many scholarships and equal numbers for women on teams, you need to cut other male sports. That is the simple reality of the law. Money talks and BS walks.
The result of title IX is not that women are good… it is that boys are bad… and that male dominated sports, are wrong- and should be cut.
What makes the law “PC” is that it is based on “what should be” and what “we should feel and believe”… rather than the bold truth. That is what the very definition of PC-a denial of reality or creation of an alternate reality to feel good about things and be “correct” in our thinking, rather than objective.
Simple fact is, Title IX hurt male athletics. If that makes women and some men feel better… good for them.
JeffZ says:
PTC, without Title IX, all sports would NOT be equal, rather women would be disadvantage, the way they were before Title IX. You saying Title IX advocates are all about hurting men is the same as me saying you are all about thinking women playing sports is bad. I am not saying that, and neither should you. Your comments are just flat out silly, as are Medic’s. It’s not about “feeling” better, it is about making sure institutions provide opportunities for women. Again, Title IX has done MUCH more to expand the pie and create NEW opportunities than it has done to limit men’s opportunities. Now, there may be SOME limitation as an unfortunate consequence of Title IX, and perhaps as I’ve said there could be some improvements on the margins, but to suggest that Title IX arose out of some animus towards men (indeed, I’m sure plenty of men were involved in crafting the legislation) is belied by something I’d like to call “reality.” Again, if you think that ONLY men should be allowed to play college athletics, by all means, state that view. I am not going to impute that view to you, and you shouldn’t impute the contrary perspective to Title IX advocates. There is no “anti-male” message here, and college athletics, despite Title IX, continue to be overwhelming focused on men. Title IX has evened the playing field a bit by creating (for the most part) new opportunities were none existed in the past.
Here are the guidelines for evaluating compliance with Title IX. Now, call me crazy, but I don’t see any anti-male animus at play here:
With respect to athletic programs, the Dept. of Education evaluates the following factors in determining whether equal treatment exists:
(1) Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes (2) The provision of equipment and supplies; (3) Scheduling of games and practice time; (4) Travel and per diem allowance; (5) Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring on mathematics only; (6) Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors; (7) Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (8) Provision of medical and training facilities and services; (9) Provision of housing and dining facilities and services; (10) Publicity. Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the Assistant Secretary [of Education for Civil Rights] may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.
JeffZ says:
I’d be willing to bet, by the way, that since Title IX was implemented, while there has been a VAST increase in opportunties for women athletes, there has been, in the aggregate, no meaningful reduction in varsity athletic slots available for men, or perhaps, maybe even an aggregate increase.
Oh, and speak of the devil:
http://www.iberkshires.com/new/story.php?story_id=34306
wresd says:
Wow!! This blog has certainly taken an “interesting” track…..what happened to “who is going to coach football and wrestling”. But, since you’ve all already gone there…..Title IX was/has been a very good thing in it’s original origin (in opportunities it provided for women that were not there several decades ago). It’s present form is only a reflection of the economic downturn that is the state of our country right now. Many colleges simply can’t afford the programs they already have on the books and need to cut back in some way. What high school or college athletic program in America has not had a directive from above to cut 5 or 10% of their budget over the last couple of years. Very few have gone untouched, Williams included. Most schools can’t add a male or female program to their books because of cash, so you are just not going to see any AD complying with Title IX by adding a women’s program to it’s offerings. You are only going to see men’s teams cut to meet the budget (and also comply with Title IX laws) I’m not sure what female or men’s sport Williams could add that they don’t already provide??…Gymnastics maybe?….so the Ephs are incredibly lucky in what they have.
I may be wrong, but doesn’t Williams have one of the highest (if not the highest) percentage of their student body that participates in at least one varsity sport. I’ve heard numbers of 50-60%. So, if Williams had to start cutting sports for budgetary and/or Title IX reasons, it would have a bigger impact than Jeffz might think given our relative small enrollment and high percentage participation. It is clear that allot of people come to Williams to do both (participate in a top notch academic and athletic arena). I hope we are not having a discussion some day soon about Williams needing to balance the books and a sport like wrestling is on the chopping block. Given the extraordinary accomplishments sited here (on and off the mat) about that team, a cut would seem to go against everything that Williams stands for in the model student/athlete. But don’t think we are immune from the possibility. Other than football, I believe wrestling is the only other mens only sport on the books (and you know we aren’t cutting football anytime soon).
rory says:
Those numbers medic posted are absolutely atrociously horrible evidence.
three quick thoughts should suffice to show how biased that study is.
First, if we include football (and only the 119 schools with a full 85 scholarships. nevermind the others with some football scholarships), that’s an extra 10,000 (more, actually) male scholarships, equalizing the numbers.
Second, if the numbers presented are prima facie evidence of discrimination (and LMAO @ that argument in this case), then what of the other schools that do have football and thus unequal athletic participation in the other direction? Btw, that would be the large majority of schools in division 1 (72% in fact).
Third, why are sports (wrestling, crew, equestrian and bowling) that aren’t “gender symmetric” in the NCAA listed in the graphs (even if they are gender symmetric in HS, isn’t this about the NCAA)? I’d suspect its because of how much it makes some of the graphs look dramatically unequal.
wrestling fan says:
I am no expert in Title IX and I am expressing my understanding (which may be misinformed) and opinion (which also may be misinformed!)
Title IX has served to level the playing field for men and women sports in high school and college. No reasonable person can be against that goal and outcome. The issue (as I see it) is that the interpretation of Title IX is somewhat subjective, and in practice, schools have not applied it in a uniform manner. Some ADs have used it as the “convenient” reason to discontinue an athletic program that their school would rather not sponsor for other less popular reasons (e.g., for budget issues).
While I don’t have any statistics on this, I would venture to say that schools have become compliant with Title IX by adding more womens programs, as opposed to dropping mens programs. However, in absolute terms, there must be fewer men’s teams and participants today. Consider the loss of over 400 wrestling programs and many other non-revenue producing sports (like gymnastics). Even high profile sports like football have been dropped (e.g., BU, Northeastern, Vermont and Hofstra have dropped football).
Title IX should be revisited in terms of the athletic landscape that exists today and modified as appropriate to ensure that it continues to meet the spirit of the law and minimizes unintended consequences (such as pushing sports to extinction).
wrestling fan says:
Ops. My last sentence should have read …. “(such as pushing secondary sports to extinction)”.
PTC says:
A lot of wrestling programs fell victim to title IX. Even great Wrestling programs.
No one here is really disputing that, are they?
rory says:
@PTC: I am. It’s far too simple and biased a statement to actually be the whole truth. A lot of wrestling programs were cut. Some great programs were cut. Some part of that was title IX, and some other parts were budget crisis, stupid spending on other things, and smart spending on other things.
It isn’t a zero-sum game. Presenting it as such is a terribly inaccurate means of presenting it.
Derek says:
PTC -
I am disputing the direct causal connection, yes.
A lot of wrestling programs fell because schools found cutting wrestling, or track scholarships, or men’s gymnastics or . . . easier than doing the things they could have done to equalize their athletic programs. Title IX = Cutting men’s sports is a lazy and according to the studies that have been done on this issue, demonstrably false assertion. I hate that these sports have been cut.
I can see two possible ways to address this: Subtract football from the equation. If we did that, we would have a more accurate sense of things outside of the outsized world of football. Or: Cut football significantly. The second ain’t gonna happen in appreciably large numbers.
dcat
Medic5392 says:
@jeffz:
JeffZ, I would check your facts, they (being administrations) did not share the pie they just took away mens slices. The numbers of mens sports dropped to become Title IX compliant is incredible and easy to research, so feel free as I am sure you will-check number of sport teams in Volleyball, Gymnastics, Wrestling and Swimming from Title IX enactment to now, some of the stats for wrestling alone have already been posted. It needs more than tweaking.
I do agree that it has nothing to do with College Men vs Women Numbers, that is more due to the fact that Elementary-Secondary tend to direct energy to girls learning styles and social interactions vs boys. The over medication is also due to catering towards female learning styles, boys who are hyperactive or restless as many a normal young boy will be are often asked to be checked, insanity in my opinion for something that just a couple of decades ago would have been written off to being simply a boy.
Medic5392 says:
@Derek:
I agree with most of your post but instead of cutting football, how about just get rid of the quota prong of Title IX? Many schools were offered endowments, the Cal-State System among them, to keep wrestling going and not be any cost to the schools, guess what? The schools said they had to do it for the women’s sports too or they would be in violation and be sued and if you check on CA NOWs History it is a real threat. The Law has become a simple numbers game and it wrong the way it is used. The law itself needs to be changed, it has become an axe to wield by far to many.
Medic5392 says:
@rory:
Rory, the Number One Reason for Wrestling being cut was Title IX. Other mens sports as well, budget has to do with Title IX, if they get sued and are forced to add a women’s sport that instant or stop cutting a womens sport (Many schools have had this happen, look to Brown and Norwich)it is easier to cut a men’s sport and that gets them in compliance with Title IX.
Medic5392 says:
@rory:
Rory,
First-The numbers are on
Second-It is an interesting view point, that is all, get your panties unbunched
Third-Title IX is wrongly implemented, plain and simple. You tend to take the side of ANY left leaning argument and I am sure you will do the same in this as well, not shocking. However, since you also never buy into anything anyone says that counters your argument-go to the NCAA Web Page and do a google search to see how Title IX had been implemented to CUT mens sports and then also look up Title IX lawsuits, California NOW vs Cal-State and the Brown University Suit and tell me how the three prongs of the Title IX Law are not used in a terrible manner. I look forward to your post, should be pretty predictable.
Derek says:
Medic –
I have no problem with tinkering with Title IX. But the blame game becomes pretty obnoxious. The “quota prong” (a pretty loaded term) is not the only way to adhere to the standards of Title IX. If a school cannot afford to have an athletic program, maybe it needs to reconsider having an athletic program. I hate that schools have chosen to cut sports. But reductionist mono-causal arguments don’t really help us to understand issues. How many schools that cut wrestling had men’s football and basketball programs? How much were those programs, which at the typical DI school take up 74% of a budget, cut before imposing the death penalty on wrestling?
No school has ever been told to cut a men’s sport or add a women’s sport “that instant” unless they had long been shown to be in violation.
As for wrestling? Well, it’s convenient to blame women’s sports and Title IX. The problem is that there are some inconvenient facts that get in the way of the argument. From 1984 to 1988, a period when these Title IX demands were not being enforced, the number of NCAA schools with wrestling programs dropped from 342 to 289, a decline of 53. In the 18 years that followed, 61 more programs were lost. Did Title IX play a role in all of this? probably. But those 53 sure do toss a wrench into your argument. Meanwhile in the period from 1982? Women’s field hockey has declined precipitously as well. Meanwhile several men’s sports have grown across the NCAA and participation in a number of men’s sports has increased as well.
It’s all well and good to demonize Title IX, but clearly the facts on the ground are a lot more complex than you are making them out to be.
NOW, I do agree on some points and might add some others. Title IX is not supposed to be all about sports. Why is it that we don’t allow schools to show that while there might be some disparities between sports, in other extracurricular areas, men might be underrepresented. At almost every school I have ever been at I have been active in music. And in almost every music program there are a lot more women in choral organizations and drama. This might not balance off sports, but should be part of the larger picture.
Furthermore, I have never understood the presupposition that women are equally as interested in sports as men. I may have always traveled in the wrong circles, but anyplace I have ever been men on average care more about sports than women. Is it sexist to say this? I don’t think so. Now, this might not mean anything with regard to participation in sports. But it also might — do as many girls want to play sports as boys? Do as many continue to do so over the course of elementary and high school and into college? I’d love to see the data. But anecdotally guys like sports more than women, play sports more than women, and if this is the case, yes, it seems like trying to equalize outcomes when there is a disparity of demand might be problematic. But since Title IX exists the burden would be on those who want to make changes to show this evidence. Lacking that I for one am happy to tinker with Title IX but not to change it.
dcat
Medic5392 says:
@Derek:
IT is not obnoxious when it is true Derek, it is reality and Title IX was enforced during the times you claim is was not, that was when it was just getting going, go back and research that area and you will find some interesting arguments against the idea. I do not blame women’s sports and nowhere in any of my posts do I say that, I do blame Title IX and there are 3 prongs and ANY can be used, again, I did a paper on this topic and happy to supply schools, lawsuits and orgs that went after it and used the quota system.
The rest of your post I pretty much agree with.
PTC says:
“From 1984 to 1988, a period when these Title IX demands were not being enforced, the number of NCAA schools with wrestling programs dropped from 342 to 289, a decline of 53″
Derek- I was Wrestling D1 during the years in question (85-89). We had a decent team for the region, four to five deep in every weight class.
We were on the chopping block while I was there, because of title IX. I can tell you from first hand experience that sports administrators and coaches were dealing with the threat of title IX during the period you cite, because I was in a program that was threatened by it. Coach Adams had several open and honest discussions about it with us in the Wrestling room.
As it went, BU ended up dropping the football team and Wrestling continued- thankfully to this day. Football was lost to Title IX at BU. It happened a decade later, but I can tell you from first hand expereince that Title IX was very much on the table in mid to late 80s. In fact, Football had already been neglected in preperation for the termination of the sport. They battled it out the best they could to keep the program alive, and lost.
“Boston University terminated their DI-AA football program on Homecoming Weekend 1997 during a one-win season in the Atlantic 10. The controversial decision was made worse by the timing of the announcement. The decision was especially painful for alumni and students who felt a national university needed a football team to be credible as a “major” college. The players at the time were allowed to keep their 4-year scholarships or transfer without NCAA penalties. The University has used the former-football scholarships to comply with Title IX requirements.”
Derek says:
Medic –
Can you stop this crap of telling us to “research this stuff”? I did “research this stuff.” The period from 1984 to 1988 did not see the widespread enforcement of Title IX with regard to college sports. You know why? It’s called Grove City College v. Bell. You know what changed that? The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. I’m glad you “did a paper on this topic” but if researching and writing is the coin of the realm I’ve got a whole lot more to spend than you do. Please, feel free to name names and dates and facts rather than continuing to threaten doing so. But until you can reconcile with the case and legislation I pointed to above, and until you develop a better sense of how the three “prongs” work I’m afraid you are shooting blanks.
dcat
PTC says:
Derek- I was there. I know Medic is right. A lot of Wrestling programs were lost to Title IX… to deny that fact, is to deny reality. Feel free to continue to do so if you like.
Are you really going to argue that programs like the Wrestling Team at Syracuse University (to take a big regional example)… were not killed by Title IX, and would have been sacked anyway?
No one is saying that it killed every program… but it did indeed kill many, and it was in consideration in the 80s. Some of the programs killed were the best D1 porgrams in the nation.
Wrestling was not the only sport impacted.
How was your sport, track impacted by Title IX- just out of curiosity?
Derek says:
PTC –
We overlapped. Your memory is great and all, but it simply does not reflect the documented historical reality. Your coach might have blamed Title IX. That does not mean that Title IX was to blame. (And in any case, for what? If BU did not cut wrestling during that time, in what possible way can you assert that title IX impacted wrestling at BU?)
Again: The Title IX requirements that so few here seem actually to understand have never required the cutting of men’s sports. Of the three ways to meet Title IX expectations, two do not have anything to do with the cutting of sports programs. Only the first of the three would allow a school to cut programs if it chose to do so.
Look, I’m not going to argue about whether the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 happened before 1987 or went into effect until 1988. I’m just not. Memories are fallible things. Facts are a bit more stubborn. I have laid out a whole lot of facts here. Memories of discussions from the BU wrestling room a quarter century ago don’t quite carry the day in the face of actual demonstrable evidence.
dcat
PTC says:
Derek- I doubt very much that Coach Adams lied to us.
1987.. yes derek.. I was in the room, in 1987. It had a major impact… and was a huge consideration. What you are arguing.. is that it was not. That’s a lie.
PTC says:
Title IX had a major impact on College Wrestling… there is no doubt about that… you can deny it if you like.. that’s fine.
Derek says:
PTC -
I don’t care about the “I was there” arguments. I’ve fallen before. Doesn’t mean I have a mastery of the laws of gravity.
As for track: Depends on how you measure it. But there is greater participation in men’s track now than there was in 1982. Fewer scholarships, but more athletes.
I have no idea why you are bringing up Syracuse wrestling, as they did not fold during the 1980s. And it is in the 1980s when we are discussing whether or not wrestling teams or others folded because of Title IX. And Syracuse is a classic example of a lousy argument for Title IX being the demon in any case. Syracuse devotes a massive percentage of its money to football and basketball. I have zero sympathy for schools with major DI football and basketball programs claiming that having to provide gender equity in other sports is the problem. None. Schools with those two sports devote nearly 75% of their operating budgets to them. You want to save wrestling? Reduce D-IA football scholarships from 85 to 75 or 80. Don’t stay at four star hotels on road trips. Don’t stay at hotels the night before home games!
Seriously — at major DI programs the idea that Title IX is the problem is absurd.
dcat
PTC says:
No derek… what we are discussing is the impact of Title IX on college Wrestling… you are attempting to distort the argument by cherry picking data.
Bottom line, there is no doubt, absolutely none whatsoever, that title IX had a major impact on College Wrestling. None. Zero. Zip. While many programs were lost in the 90s, that is because they faught the law of the 80s… to say that it was not an issue in the 80s is just plain untrue.
Thanks for the honesty… you have no sympathy for Wrestlers because of football? Seriously? You want to talk about a lousy argument?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/opinion/wrestling-with-title-ix.html?pagewanted=1
Ephlboggers may recognize this author.
PTC says:
Cool side note.. I wrestled against this authors son in New Englands one year.
PTC says:
And yes Derek, D1 programs where they give athletes “full ride” scholarships for being athletes matter. That and the size of the school is what makes it D1…
A paid for Wrestler in every weight class. That is why you have great teams. That is what makes it, D1.
rory says:
This appears to be one of those arguments where sides won’t listen. The numbers Irving cites are equally weak evidence without him delving deeper (how many basketball players are there? how many get scholarships? etc.) Yet apparently it is derek and myself who are cherry picking data points. All I’ve done is criticize false representations of title IX. I’ll continue to do so. Many of the arguments against title IX are eerily similar to the arguments of rejected white applicants bemoaning affirmative action for their rejection (you weren’t likely to get that spot anyway, sorry!).
I like collegiate athletics. I’m a season ticket holder for the georgetown Hoyas. I just don’t think a proper collegiate athletic process is to blame title IX for anything when there are many other low hanging fruit to consider.
rory says:
@PTC: No PTC, he has zero sympathy for the schools that cry about title IX when they have 30k+ fans at basketball games. The individual wrestlers, sure…but not the schools.
Derek says:
PTC –
I am not cherrypicking data. I am the only one giving any data. What more data do you want? I have it. I can cite literature that you have not bothered to read.
And your assertion that “there is no doubt” is a perfect encapsulation of your worldview — there is planty of doubt. It is in fact telling that when you say “there is no doubt that Title IX had a major impact on college wrestling” it is nearly impossible to figure out what the subject of your sentence is.
The facts are that during the 1980s, when a huge number of wrestling programs were ended, the government was not enforcing Title IX. And, by the way, we have not even discussed Franklin v. Gwinnett Public Schools, which did not allow for a financial punishment for schools not trying to find balance until 1992. Title IX does not and never has called for closing out sports programs. This is simply an irrefutable fact. Any school that decided to end wrestling made what i think was an unfortunate decision, but it was a decision purely of its own making.
As for the assertion that “D1 programs where they give athletes “full ride” scholarships for being athletes matter.” is one of those typically empty pronouncements that you love to make here with full but empty authority. DI programs that decide to give 75% of their operating budgets to football and basketball have made their decision. I will gladly say they “matter” because they are the ones that cannot possibly claim that Title IX costs wrestling programs at those schools. But it is irrelevant whether they are DI, DII, or DIII, or for that matter NAIA. Blaming Title IX for these issues is a way to avoid the culpability of universities and colleges that have never been told or asked to cut a single men’s sport.
Rory — I’m not certain how I get to be painted as not listening to the other side. I am listening and taking seriously and countering with facts. I find it amazing that one of PTC’s main arguments is that he was “there,” and by “there” he means in deep discussions about Title IX costing wrestling programs when he was in a wrestling program that was never cut. So he was “there” for what, exactly?
After the Grove City decision the federal government stopped any actions against any university or college. Stooped them cold. It was only after the legislation in 1987 that such actions resumed, and those actions never called for the closing of a single program. Repeat: Title IX has never called for the closing of a single program and in fact discourages doing so.
Finally, we have some misrepresentation on the three criteria that Title IX imposes. Some would have you believe that if a school is not adhering to one of them, they face punishment. This is categorically untrue. In fact the opposite holds. All a school ha to do to be in accordance wit the law is show progress toward any one of the three areas. Thus the argument about quotas is barren — equalizing athletic programs via the percentage of students at a given body is but one path to adhering to Title IX.
Here is the fact: If nonrevenue men’s sports teamed up with women’s sports and demanded shaving money from football and basketball budgets, and if universities agreed, universities could be in compliance with Title IX and no sports programs would be cut. It’s a simple as that. Oh: and how about adding women’s wrestling? Because by adding programs schools can avery bit as much address equity issues as they can by cutting sports. Schools choose not to do so. It’s a shame, but that’s their fault, not a law that has done wonders to enable millions of girls and women to compete at sports from grade school up.
dcat
rory says:
@Derek: i committed an error of a lack of clarity. One side won’t listen (see medic’s comments about me and ptc’s lines about you). My excuse: we’re out of coffee and I had to drink tea instead this morning (delicious tea, but still…)
Derek says:
Rory –
I have a very funny relationship with tea. I spend considerable time in South Africa, the UK, and to a lesser extent Ireland. And when I am there I fully embrace the concept of tea and tea time. And when I return to the US I always promise myself that i am going to appropriate that little slice of imperial majesty into my daily life. I buy good tea. I bring some back from South Africa or London. And then within weeks or usually days I end up going back to tea being a rarity. Fortunately in a few weeks I’ll be in South Africa fort much of the summer (or their winter) and will thus resume the cycle of breakfast and afternoon tea.
I managed to make it through college, grad school, and my first few years as a professor without getting the coffee habit. Then I became one of those irredeemable folks whom Starbucks created. I still do not have to have daily morning coffee, but 3-4-5 times a week I’m going to Starbucks for a venti drink.
dcat
Dick Swart says:
@Derek:
By a lucky turn of events. I am married to a tea-drinking product of Olde England.
We start our mornings in bed with tea, the Today show between our feet, and a snow-capped Mt Adams in the distance.
Trader Joe’s Irish Breakfast (how appropriate this morning) moving to an Earl Grey in the afternoon.
Jr. Mom says:
My grandmother always served afternoon tea. It is a lovely tradition. However, in the morning, I want strong coffee. I really enjoy it.
What a funny turn to this thread, From a meaty, almost entirely male discussion (Bless JG) to afternoon tea. I quite like the visual of all of you continuing the debate over a cozied English teapot and delicate shortbreads. Or those little tiny sandwiches, which my husband adores, albeit many more than one or two.
Dick Swart says:
@Jr. Mom:
March 17th, 2010 at 2:37 pmYes, and continuing on this slightly fey note, for the past five years when my daughter &co were living in London, I would have my annual Ladies Lunch (mostly her book group) composed of tea, Pimms, and my very own home-made sarmies in usually six varieties including watercress and cucumber, My great discovery at Sainsbury’s the last two years, were white and wholewheat loaves with the crusts already removed!
rory says:
@Derek: I enjoy tea immensely, but the green tea that was the only option in my house was no match for a well brewed pot of cafe bustelo. Traditionally an espresso, it’s super-cheap (4 dollars for 10 ozs), available in CVS (say WORD!) and brews a delicious pot of traditional drip-coffee. As an espresso, it’s awful.
I discovered it via a new york times article about it being a cheap staple of the cuban community in miami. Considering how much pride the cubans i know have in their coffee, i had to try it. I was very sad when I brewed my first espresso with it (no crema, bitter, weak). So I never tried that again. I was out of the expensive illy i used to buy one day and had the bustelo left over and I discovered the magic.
Medic5392 says:
@rory:
Too funny, comparing Title IX arguments to Affrimative Action ones? Wow! That is a reach and the one I expected you to take, although I thought you would go deeper and go on a “justice” rant. Good to see you are not afraid to pull out the race card Rory! As for the numbers in the the study that I linked to, it was just a nice to read, the reality of Title IX is that it is used to shut down non-revenue producing sports for men in order to comply with it. You can ignore the numbers for teams dropped since it bacame law all you want, they are available for you to see. Your arguments are always the same, once you get onto a point you will not concede anything to any counter-argument, like talking to a child in many ways.
Medic5392 says:
@Derek:
Derek, the Law does not call for it but the “facts” that you throw around are also that Colleges drop programs in order to meet one of the prongs of Title IX. I have been saying this all along, the law is a classic case of good intentions gone wrong. U-Mass@Lowell, Clemson, Cal-State SYSTEM, etc..etc..all cited these. It is cheaper to do that than add a women’s sport. Great, the law does not say it but the law is used that way and if you think it is not you are not keeping up.
rory says:
@Medic5392: Look, dude, you don’t know me. You’re not in a place to make judgements of my character or how I argue. Ad hominem attacks are entirely unnecessary and distasteful. You’d be wise to actually counter my points (of which I’ve made really, only one: the numbers you presented pose an incomplete picture of the overall reality) or consider the analogy (the arguments about wrestling ARE similar to the arguments about affirmative action. In both cases, a charge of reverse discrimination is used to bemoan the loss of something whites/men used to have disproportionate access to. In both cases, such a charge is absolutely silly and, were the laws to be changed would not result in the return of wrestling nor the sudden acceptance of more white applicants).
If you think so little of my additions to ephblog, i’d request that you just don’t bother responding to them. Calling me a child degrades you and irritates me.
rory says:
@rory: further, you said the numbers are “on” and now you move away from them. what point of mine, exactly, have i clung to so fervently in the face of conflicting evidence?
nevermind, i shouldn’t have asked.
Medic5392 says:
@Derek:@Derek:
Derek,
That case did not stop the Colleges from dropping programs, a simple look up in the NCAA will show you that, please, enlighten me how all the programs were still dropped despite your “magic” case? All the Grove City case did was say that you cannot get Federal Funds and not abide by Federal Law, a lot like the recent Salomon Case in regard to DADT. Not many schools can exist without Fed Funds, so, honestly, if that is your stnad that Title IX is not used the way it is then you are totally clueless and your arguments border on being a joke. How did this stop the programs from being dropped again? Please, enlighten me. Should be great to hear!;)
Oh, and if that is your “research”, go back and do it again.
D.V. Dalrymple says:
Dear Mr. Swart,
You continue to surprise me. Not only have you recently exhibited the kindest and most thoughtful of behavior regarding our mutual friend, but here you are waxing eloquent on the subject of afternoon tea? And, to top it all off, you construct your own sarmies?! Will wonders never cease?
Indeed, here is a [second} subject on which we might find common ground. In the words of Henry James, “There are few hours in life more agreeable than the hour dedicated to the ceremony known as tea.”
And, with that, Mr. Swart, I must run. For my new friend, Lucia has just arrived, and something tells me that she will be an almost perfect tea companion. One which might inspire more than than my usual two pours.
Until next time, then. And please, feel free to call me…
~L
Dowager Viscountess Dalrymple
D.V. Dalrymple says:
Oh, dear. I find myself in the middle of something other than a discussion of tea. I am wondering if one of you with the skills needed, could move our tea chat to, perhaps, the green, but safe harbor of Mr. Swart’s ode to the Irish?
Parent '12 says:
@D.V. Dalrymple:
Dear D. V. Dalrymple,
If you’ve met Lucia, do you know Elizabeth Mapp?
By the by, Henry James reminds me of his last home, Lamb House, where E. F. Benson later lived. Have you been there?
Kindest Regards,
Parent ’12
Derek says:
Medic –
Look, no one is denying that colleges dropped wrestling programs. But that the universities claimed Title IX was an excuse does not make it so. Title IX has never required any school to drop any sport, period.
Furthermore, it is not my”magic” case. My magic case stopped all pursuit of Title IX violations, alleged or real, in their tracks in the period from 1984 to 1988. You denied that to be the case, now you are changing terms and trying to push the implications of that case beyond what I explicitly stated that they were.
Meanwhile, yes, it should be great to hear how Grove City worked, because you quite clearly do not understand it. You assert that its implications were “All the Grove City case did was say that you cannot get Federal Funds and not abide by Federal Law.” Except this is incomplete, and is either a willful misrepresentation or simply reveals that you really don;t grasp the case. neither of which reflect well on you. The case is a pretty standard Supreme Court ploy in that it acted against Grove City by asserting that if it received aid it had to comply with federal law, but then it limited the implications of federal law by asserting that “Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 covers only the particular education “program or activity” receiving
Federal financial assistance, not institutions as a whole” therefore seriously limiting the scope of Title IX, which is why the United States Congress had to pass a law in 1987 to expand (or re-expand, depending on your perspective) the scope of Title IX. Reagan vetoed the act, believing (as you do) that it took the interpretation too far. But there was no doubting that the legislation was intended to address the narrowing of the interpretation based on Grove City. Your sarcasm notwithstanding, Grove is essential to understanding much of how Title IX has played out. It is part of the larger basis not only of my research, but on the work on Title IX pro and con, that you are blithely unaware of, preferring anecdote to trying to examine a complex issue. I don’t need to go back and so any research again, you need to develop something beyond an undergraduate’s grasp of Supreme Court cases and legislation.
Seriously, I’m being nice to you at this stage, unlike you with Rory. Rory is much, much, much smarter than you are. And he can manage to string together a sentence. You might want to stop acting like a jackass if you want to be able to sit at the grownup table. You love to impugn the credentials of others and yet no one here knows anything about why we should take you seriously here. You cannot even grasp the rudimentary implications of a Supreme Court case vital to the issue you are prattling on about, sentence structure be damned.
Yes, colleges drop programs to deal with the first prong of Title IX. I have never denied it and indeed have brought more factually to the table on that issue than you have despite it seemingly being problematic to my argument. That’s because I’m not a dishonest hack. But that they drop programs does not make it Title IX’s fault nor does it make their justifications accurate. It makes it those university’s faults. That Syracuse dropped wrestling is irrefutable. That they claim it was Title IX’s fault is irrefutable, but it is also wrong. Syracuse could have taken one percent from its shitty, shitty football team and not only saved wrestling, but fully funded it. They maybe could have drawn a tiny slice from the pool of its men’s basketball team without doing that program any harm. To blame Title IX is absurd on its face in light of the resources Syracuse devotes to athletics.
dcat
Medic5392 says:
@Medic5392:
Derek, actually, my tone was out of line on that but your post was way off. Grove did nothing to stop Title IX being implemented the way it was and continues to be.
Derek says:
Medic –
Look, you’re just wrong on Grove City. There is a literature on this. It is a fairly substantial one. Because no athletic programs received funding from the federal government, Grove City effectively established that athletic departments were not covered by the law. The idea was that Title IX covered only an educational institution’s specific “program or activity” and not the university as a whole. As a result the Office for Civil Rights called off its investigations into athletic programs. That was the whole import of the case — it so limited what Title IX supposedly covered that it made it meaningless. As a result Title IX was gutted. That is the reason for the Congress taking up the Civil Rights Restoration Act. It was the sole purpose. After 1988 the “broad coverage” of Title IX was restored.
dcat
Medic5392 says:
@Derek:
Grove did not do a thing to stop Title IX being implemented and it was always due to finance and many times it was womens groups on campus who took it up, nothing could be farther from the truth then that Grove stopped it from going on. The only thing Grove did is say that if you do not take any federal funds then you do not have to abide by Title IX. If schools threatened to drop a female sport, like at Brown for instance, groups would band together and fight it based on Title IX Compliance and what would get dropped? A male sport. Those are the facts and reality of how Title IX has been used, Grove City did not stop that and never will. Bush even attempted to tweak it a bit and got heavy resistance from Cantu and NOW, AAUW, etc…etc…
As for the “Grown Up Table”, at times I get a bit passionate but really, it is due to some arguments that have been made, like our previous talks on the Geneva Convention and the conflict in Afghanistan, while I will admit to being a bit cross with you I am not sure that means I cannot string sentences together.
Also, I think you are attempting to imply that I want Title IX abolished, I want it tweaked so that it is not used in it’s current form as basically a quota system.
I would like to say I am sorry to you for my tone though, it was out of line and you have been pretty polite on this topic.
As for Rory, even on that GC argument page he would repeat things and would not let go no matter what is presented, that does not make one smart, that makes one stubborn. He then made a loose association with fighting affirmative action to fighting Title IX, hmm…yeah..sorry, again, stubborn and bomb throwing do not combine to make one smart. Really, if anyone takes that much time to make sure their posts are using the gram check, Chicago or other method, spell check, etc..then you have way to much free time on your hands, this is a blog not “The Atlantic”.
Medic5392 says:
@Derek:
That is the point, it did not actually do that, nor has it been used in that way at all. Title IX has not been gutted and has in fact only gotten a little bloder by those who want to use to in fact impose strict quotas like Cantu. Look, I wish it were so, I really do but the Grove case only allowed an opening, it did not gut Title IX like many had hoped. If you do not take Fed Funds of ANY kind you can tell the NCAA and the Title IX folks to pack sand, otherwise it is used in that manner and usually by special interest groups. The entire Cal-State System is currently doing that with the wrestling programs, they were offered to have them fully paid for by an endowment and were told that unless they had the same deal for the women’s sports being dropped then it was a no go since they would then have more female vs male sprots and could be sued. NOW has already sued Cal-State Bakersfield in the past for just such a thing. Look, I know you do not like the way it has been used either but Grove did not put a stop to it, I wish it did but it did not, one of the prongs is the proportionality one and it is used most often.
rory says:
@Medic5392: How about this: you keep my name out of your typing, i’ll stay away from responding more than once to any new point you make?
now you’re questioning whether or not I’m smart and accuse me of “bomb throwing” (let’s just look at some of the characterizations you’ve made of me and generally of those who disagree with you and then see who is really throwing “bombs”)? Really? Stay classy…and only one sentence after apologizing for your tone…LMAO. (oh, and as i can attest to with conversation with my quite brilliant but excruciatingly stubborn brother: stubborn and smart aren’t antithetical as you seem to imply).
Derek, thanks for the support…but the less i’m involved at this point, i think, the better.
Stubborn rory OUT!
rory says:
@Medic5392: that actually sounds entirely reasonable of cal-state: if private money is going to X and that will have a discriminatory effect (only going to a male sport + male scholarships), then cal-state would have to make sure it would have a non-discriminatory effect (make sure a female sport also thrives).
Seems like, to me, the proper end result for cal state and those donors in that case was to find more donors who would help fund a female sport so wrestling + whatever else was getting cut could both be saved.
Is that unreasonable? Why wouldn’t that be proposed? Was it? Who shot it down?
Medic5392 says:
@rory:
Rory,
The point is that even though the sports would be taken of by private money under the Cal-State System said no since the people raising the funds were only doing it for wrestling and not the women sports and hence would be in violation of Title IX’s proportion prong and you think that is fair or even right? It also goes to my point that Title IX is still being used in the wrong manner, all about quotas/numbers, despite the Grove Case Ruling. Do you really think that is fair and the right thing to do? Somehow, to save a program I love I have to get money for another program whose supporters are not doing a thing?
Derek says:
Medic –
Actually, even if you don’t take federal money of any kind you cannot tell the NCAA to pound sand. Not if you are part of the NCAA. And if your students take any kind of financial aid from the government, which qualifies as indirect aid, you cannot tell them to pound sand. That was half the point of Grove City.
Are you being willfully obtuse about the case? How many times do I have to say that its implications only lasted until 1988? But from 1984 to 1988 it effectively shut down Title IX enforcement. This is not an interpretation. It is a fact. Why are you using present tense cases to try to refute the implications of Grove City in the time that Grove City mattered? The Civil Rights Restoration Act addressed Grove City. How many times do I have to write the same thing? This is rudimentary historical chronology. Please try to keep up.
Finding private funding to support a women’s program alongside a men’s would almost certainly be ok. In fact, it tends to be the preferred approach. But the critics of Title IX secretly don’t want that to happen — when 1% from the football or basketball budget could restore wrestling and people insist the problem is Title IX they have an ax to grind that transcends their so-called love for their sport. Seriously: There are numerous college football teams that stay at hotels the night before HOME games. Yeah: it’s Title IX that’s the problem.
dcat
Derek says:
Riddle me this: When Cal-State Bakersfield cut wrestling, was that the only sport the university cut?
Answer coming . . .
…soon . . .
NO!
Cal State also cut men’s golf. And it cut: Women’s golf. And women’s tennis. And why did they do this? Surely the answer could not be more complicated than “Because of Title IX” could it?
Wait — yes it could. It could be more complicated. You see, in addition to cutting two men’s sports they cut two women’s sports, and they did so why? Let’s let a news report tell us: “The cuts stemmed from a projected $700,000 budget shortage for athletics in the 2010-11 academic year.” Was NOW mentioned? No it was not. But CSU-B’s desire to be a DI athletic program and to join the Big West conference was. And yes, so was gender equity, but not as the driving force, otherwise two women’s sports would not have been cut.
I find it interesting that this most dire example of the evils of Title IX falls apart after even rudimentary scrutiny. It is sad when someone’s argument only holds up as long as someone else does not do a google search. I am not denying that gander had anything to do with this. I am arguing what I have all along: That these monocausal blasts against Title IX do not hold up under scrutiny.
dcat
Medic5392 says:
@Derek:
No, my point is that Grove DID NOT stop it, that was an intent of the ruling but in reality it did not do it, after 88′ it only got worse but it never stopped. Now stop stooping to my level with the Obtuse comment! I am the only one who will use names ;)
As for the private funding, I wish that were true, that it was just Football or BBall and that some kind of conspiracy was going on but that is not the case, it is just easier is all, lazy and easy to do, nothing more. If an administration has the choice between dropping a mans non-revenue sport or getting sued they will always go with the easy route. Football, even though it does not make money via bowls at most schools, still brings in a lot of cash via alumni so I get that but it is not the only problem. BU dropped Football, the year prior they came in 2nd in the NCAA for the SubDivision, they still have problems with Title IX compliance.
wrestling fan says:
Just a diversion from the current discussion on Title IX.
Coach DiCenzo told the wrestlers and parents yesterday that he is leaving Williams at the end of April to take an Associate Head Football Coach/Defensive Coordinator position at Wesleyan. He will not have any role on their wrestling coaching staff.
In Coach DiCenzo’s typical professional way, he committed to a successful transition including participating in the search for a new wrestling coach, arranging a challenging national schedule and fully briefing the new coach.
We know that this was a very very difficult decision for Coach DiCenzo to make and we wish him nothing but the best.
Medic5392 says:
Cheers to Coach, wish him the best of luck!
Medic5392 says:
@Derek:
It is not just about wrestling, it is about all mens minor sports Derek, also, that is great, they were going to cut womens’ sports too but I said that when I made the point in my post about how private funding for wrestling was turned down unless they got it for women’s sports that were dropped as well or else they would be in violation of Title IX. Sooo…what is your point again on that one? ;)
Medic5392 says:
@Derek:
Also Derek, NOW sued Cal-State Bakersfield already, that was a past case and no, it was not mentioned in the news release, why would it be? I find it “interesting” that you only do a casual search and not read all the posts and link them together but hey, if it does not fit your premise why do it? ;)
Medic5392 says:
Oh, on the Cal-State thing, the womens’ cuts are now, the Cal-State Bakersfield case was a while ago, already done and over with, NOW won the case even after the student body, over 60% female, voted to allow for more people on the team, NOW sued again and won. If you are going to attempt to tie cases or news releases into Title IX, want my advice? Wait for it….do some research! ;)
Here is a case you should tie into it, this one is still in play and causes the most heartache-Franklin vs Gwinnett County in 1992.
Cheers!
Derek says:
Medic –
What are you talking about? I am not denying anything related to my premise. I am adding new evidence that you have elided.
I already mentioned the 1992 case, so I’m way ahead of you, which you’d know if you were actually paying attention. Look — comment 97. That’s the one that allows for lawsuits and damages. The difference is that I’m not just learning about this stuff now like you clearly are.
My point on women’s sports at CSU is that you have continued to mention that case and have never once mentioned that they are cutting two women’s sports at the same time that they are cutting wrestling. YOU have indicated that the loss of wrestling was solely attributable to Title IX. You keep shifting the goalposts. I know that NOW sued in the past, yet that lawsuit did not bring about the end of wrestling at CSU, as you have implied. Instead the end of wrestling was announced in february of this year along with the elimination of three other sports, two of them for women.
But I see the deal now – I know more than you and have laid out a lot more actual facts than you have, and so naturally the burden is on me to do even more. because after all you FEEL as if you are right, evidence be damned. So you don’t understand the cases, yet you insist that those who do actually don’t and that the US Congress did not either. Then you imply that Big Bad NOW destroyed wrestling at CSU and I show that to be absurd and fallacious and now you’re pretending that it’s my fault for not writing a thesis with footnotes to fill in the gaps where you are misleading folks here.
Look, if I wanted to, I could bury you here. There is a vast literature on this that you don’t know, pro, con, and nuanced. You are the one coming in with a cartoonish and demonstrably wrong argument. And then you accuse those ripping holes in your argument of having an agenda even though I am the one who has tried on numerous occasions to make the conversation more complex both in support of Title IX but also with my own criticisms.
You wear your ignorance like a badge and then whine when people who actually know about the subject point out that it’s made of tin and comes from a cracker jack box. You continued to mention this nefarious NOW case, and yet NOW had nothing to do with wrestling being dropped at CSU. I pointed that out and somehow you get to try to pretend to be researcher nonpariel because I don’t string together the stories you never bothered to mention. And I’d bet dollars to donuts that you didn’t bother to mention them because you did not know about them just as you thought you were clever with your newfound discovery of Franklin, a case I would bet you could not have placed within ten years or articulated even vaguely coherently until the past four hours, else why would you not have brought it up earlier? It’s a much better case for your argument than Grove (even your misunderstood version of Grove). But the fact is, you can barely articulate your argument because you don’t know the details other than those that come from the aggrieved wrestler talking points blog.
dcat
Medic5392 says:
@Derek:
Sigh, Derek, no, the Cal-State Case I talked about at first with regard to NOW was Cal-State Bakersfield, all by itself. As for the rest of the Cal-State System, that is a recent move and I made the point that they would have to do the same for the womens teams via the private funding in earlier posts.
As for Title IX, your main contention has been that the Grove case gutted it, but all it did was slow it down but programs were still dropped during that time frame, you also try to imply that it is a good law in it’s current form and that “secretly” it is football and basketball that is killing non-revenue sports. You cannot admit that the law as it is used now is terrible and that it is a quota system, nothing more.
The three prongs can all be used, meet one but not another, get sued and it is the OCR that is the biggest threat.
Any of these three can be used as a club-
A. Athletic Financial Assistance (Scholarships)
B. Equivalence in Other Athletic Benefits and Opportunities
C. Effective Accommodation of Student Interests and Abilities
More than 2200 Mens Athletic Teams have been eliminated since 1981, a lot of Court Rulings(Cohen v. Brown University; Roberts v. Colorado State University; Favia v. Indiana University of Pennsylvania) have basically held that the third prong, accommodation, is the heaviest weighted one and it is basically a quota system. In other words, if a school is 54% female, then about 54% of its athletes should be female. Gymnastics is so low that it does not have enough teams to even have an NCAA Title under their rules (212 Teams Dropped). Men’s Wrestling over 355 Teams Dropped,etc…
I may in fact be a jerk to you on this at times but when you continue to defend a law that has been nothing but reverse discrimination and it is obvious that you bite everytime and are a wee bit thin skinned and pompous it is well deserved. I am not sure how I am ignorant though, if ones argues points that you do not agree with they are ingnorant? Hmm….please see my comment about pompous above ;)
PS-I want you to know that I enjoy our little talks :)
Medic5392 says:
@Medic5392:
Oh, one last thing, I never said Cal-State Bakersfield was dropped due to NOW, they were just limited in how many guys they could have on the team due to the accomadation prong of Title IX, but you confused that case with the whole entire case of the Cal-State System that is going on now. Cat-State System is more than one school, just something you might not know. But please, continue to stick to that point about NOW and the current situation, it is just a threat now if the private groups do get an endowment but the NOW lawsuit was against Cal-State Bakersfield a while back, (had to say that again, not sure you are getting it), so again, cheers! ;)
PTC says:
Sorry to hear about Coach leaving. This could be a tough break for Williams Wrestling. He was good, and my guess is that he was there because of what he got paid for Football, and did Wrestling for the passion. I wonder if they will be able to find another good coach without paying more money, because he was dual hat?
Medic- Good argument. It is pretty clear to me that we could spend an eternity arguing each individaul application of Title. Title IX hurt male athletics, no way around that premise. Each individual case where teams have been axed, schools have been sued, programs have been dropped- as a direct result of Title IX- we can argue about that all day long…
We know for a fact it hurt College Wrestling. Just having one team lost to title IX, a team like Syracuse- one of the very best programs in the Nation, hurt the sport- but there are scores of examples. Title IX also hurt other mens programs… as well as doing its job to increase female scholarships. It hurt male athletes to help female athletes. That is what is wrong with the law. While it may be true that legally you could keep a program- how many Schools are going to want to fight the press, fight womens groups, spend all kinds of money on lawsuits… to keep a Wrestling team?
I would say Medic has held his won in this debate, as well as in the debate about GC. “Who is smarter” well- “who cares.” Well done Medic.
rory says:
@PTC: Well great, PTC believes the guy who he agreed with form the beginning “has held his won” and doesn’t care who is “smarter.” does that mean this is settled and i can stop reading people rehashing the same points over and over and over again?!?
(btw, medic: you used two of the key affirmative action codewords in this debate. “Quota” tem times and “reverse discrimination” in your latest missive. Now, remind me again how your argument isn’t analogous to the argument against affirmative action!)
wresd says:
I’m amazed at where this blog has gone… from an initial posting about a coaching change that would affect the football and wrestling team, to passionate (sometimes less than Marcus of Queeensbury) sparring about Title IX, to affirmative action, to civilized discussions about tea…..Wow! how we transgress!
Back to the original start of this post……as has recently been mentioned, Coach DiCenzo did send an email to the wrestling parents saying “the administration has made it clear that I am not a serious candidate for the head football position” He repeated this quote twice for emphasis. I can understand that he might not ultimately get the job, but to tell him he would not be a serious candidate from the get go is amazing to me. For a proven winner as a coach (in two sports), a Williams alum, and top athletic award winner for his participation in football and wrestling while an Eph, it’s amazing that he would not be a “serious candidate”. I guess need to acknowledge that we don’t know all the insider personalities, and who gets along with who etc….Maybe coach DiCenzo has rubbed some people the wrong way in his pursuit of excellence. Or maybe they just think he is too young…..Timing is everything in life….If coach Whalen left 3 years from now, maybe we are having a different conversation.
So, what is done is done……Looking ahead, the inside scoop on the wrestling job is that it will come down to two candidates……Coach Hasenfus, who ironically for this blog, is the longtime coach of the Norwich team who has had their program cut and then reinstated on a year to year basis (I don’t know what their current status is?). But obviously you can see why the coach would want to leave and come to Williams. How can you recruit and maintain a strong program when the threat of “foreclosure” looms over your head. From what I have heard, Hasenfus is a great guy, tremendous tactician, who is very respected in the coaching community (a key component come tournament time when the NEWA gets a certain number of wildcard entries into the NCAA tournament beyond the 1st place winners at each weight). He would have experience and clout when the coaches vote on those things. People who have been weighing in on the demise of wrestling programs should have a good time with the Norwich situation. How can a military school (who has had some admissions challenges in recent years), with a rich tradition of wrestling, cut the sport? You would think the kinda of guy you would want to attract to your school, would be the wrestler type…..disciplined, mentally tough, physically fit, fight to the death etc….sounds like a soldier to me!!
The second candidate would be Tom Prarie, a former All American Eph (I think 2005?)who has been the head coach of the Plymouth St. team for the last couple of years. He has the Williams pedigree, and some head coaching experience under his belt…..but is he too young to be the head guy at Williams? (no offense to Plymouth St, but it is not the program and doesn’t have the expectations that Williams has). At 27, would he have the clout you would want with the other coaches.
For my two sense…..Hasenfus should get the nod. You have an experienced, talented squad returning (7 of 10 starters and some good wrestlers in the wings). They expect and deserve a certain level of experienced coaching….not waiting for someone to grow up into the job. The administration on the other hand may go with Prarie because he is a Williams guy, and he most likely will come cheaper at his age and experience level. Has anyone else heard about any other possibilities out there?? I’m hoping the administration moves quickly on a decision.
jeffz says:
Wresd, thanks for the inside scoop on the coaching possibilities. I am also very curious about who the external football candidates might be, but have heard nothing on that front. One thing is for sure — both new coaches will be inheriting programs that are loaded with talent (especially rising senior talent), a great opportunity, but also a lot of pressure to succeed from the get-go.
As for the twists and turns this thread has taken, clearly you are new to Ephblog readership :) … fairly par for the course here!
nuts says:
@wresd: If Sheehy had his reasons he didn’t share them with us. Clear and direct communication with the candidate is a good thing, especially if Sheehy gave DiCenzo specific reasons for his conclusion, not a serious candidate, which means not being considered.
Derek says:
I had a whole long response to PTC and Medic. But then I realized: Why bother? and deleted it. I’ve seen all I need to see here in terms of shoddy arguments and grand pronouncements born of nothing more than self regard from the two of them. Anyone who holds to the argument that Syracuse lost wrestling because of Title IX rather than because of its unwillingness to draw funds from the football and basketball programs clearly operates in an ideologically blinkered world I don’t want to spend more than passing time in. The constantly shifting goalposts, the incoherence, the intellectual dishonesty, the shoddy reliance on sources, the inability to grasp the basics of defining Supreme Court cases, the “I just Googled this” pseudo-mastery — it’s their stock in trade. I should have known better than to have given them a more fair hearing than they deserved and to have pretended they wanted discussion and not ax grinding. But when after all of this one of them comes in and simply pronounces their side the winner despite the fact that their side clearly did not grasp the other side’s arguments, and when the other of them, again, after all of this, simply asserts that Title IX is “reverse discrimination,” well, what more can I do?
dcat
dave says:
The following is text of a plaque presented to Coach Dicenzo:
The wrestlers, alumni and parents of the Williams College wrestling community present this plaque to COACH DANIEL DICENZO in grateful recognition of his exceptional accomplishments as WILLIAMS COLLEGE HEAD WRESTLING COACH from 2007-2010 and assistant coach from 2004-2007. His skill, dedication, and leadership vaulted Williams Wrestling to unprecedented national prominence and two New England titles. Highlights of his career at Williams include:
A DUAL MEET RECORD of 50-16-1 as HEAD COACH.
CONSECUTIVE NEWA TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS IN 2009 & 2010.
2010 NEWA DUALS CHAMPIONSHIP.
THREE NATIONAL TEAM GPA CHAMPIONSHIPS.
FOUR NEWA TEAM GPA CHAMPIONSHIPS.
SEVEN INDIVIDUAL ALL AMERICANS.
FORTY INDIVIDUAL ALL NEWA WRESTLERS.
FIFTEEN SCHOLAR ALL AMERICANS.
2009 NEW ENGLAND HEAD COACH OF THE YEAR.
2006 NEW ENGLAND ASSISTANT COACH OF THE YEAR.
2008 NWCA BOB BUBB COACHING EXCELLENCE AWARD.
Ultimately, it is the friendship, support and mentoring he gave to every one of his wrestlers that is the crowning achievement of his coaching career at Williams. Both on the mat and in our hearts Coach Dicenzo will always be irreplaceable. Our loss will be the gain of every athlete he coaches in the future. April 25, 2010.