From: sjlt@leland.Stanford.EDU (Sean Lev-Tov)
Subject: Re: NCCA - Let's Fix It
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 01:39:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.011217.4179@netcom.com> marquis@netcom.com (Roger Marquis) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.213559.22121@leland.Stanford.EDU> sjlt@leland.Stanford.EDU (Sean Lev-Tov) writes:
>>Football has defined offensive and defensive teams that rarely have
>>players on both teams.  
>
>Hmmm, are you proposing that men's and women's football teams should
>have points divided between them for an overall championships?  I'm
>not sure that offensive and defensive football squads are analogous.

Let me try to explain this arguement again.  The offensive and defensive
football squads train together; they compete on the same field, but not
at the same time; and they have their points (and efforts in general)
combined for the overall outcome of the competition.  The men's and
women's cycling squads/teams train together; they compete on the same
course, but not at the same time; and they have their points combined
for the overall outcome of the competition.  Granted that the 2 football
squads take turns while the cycling teams start and finish in just one
turn (on the course/playing-field) each.  I wasn't saying anything about
any women's football teams.  Are there any collegiate women's football
teams at all?

>Agreed.  I think that, for National championships at least, a team
>_should_ concentrate on its strongest riders.  After all, they are the
>ones who have put in the most effort.  Why shouldn't a championships
>reflect this fact?  Teams that send under-qualified riders do those
>riders a disservice.  Not only do these riders get dropped but they
>lose their self-esteem because of it.  I know I have always felt bad
>when given sponsorship which I couldn't earn, especially when there
>are others who did earn the right and didn't go (to nationals, Coors,
>whatever).

Are you saying that nationals should be a competition of individuals
and not of teams?  I don't think you mean that, but I'm not sure what
else you could mean.  Please explain if you're still thinking that
teams should compete.

>>Ah!  Bringing more people into the sport.  If we look at what will 
>>happen by separating the sexes for scoring, I think it's obvious that
>>the team that is weak (men's or women's) will wither away since the
>>stronger team will concentrate on itself and not care at all about
>>the other team.  
>
>This seems to be the strongest argument for keeping the championships
>together, that it will help develop the women's ranks.  But there is
>no proof that this is in fact what is occurring.  A case can also be
>made that the combined championships deters women from participating.
>Placing an inordinate amount of responsibility on inexperienced and
>unprepared women riders many will simply choose not to participate for
>fear of letting the team down.  In short, there is no indication that
>a combined championships helps women's cycling.

You're right:  there's no proof.  I said that because it's just what
I think based on my observations at Stanford.  I think you're missing
the point about the concept of a team here.  Either the team wins or
it loses.  You don't blame individuals for a loss.  Sure the women's
squad may lose and without their points the team may lose, but it's
not the women's fault; it's the fault of the team.  The members of the
team are responsible for recruiting new members and preparing them for
racing.  If these members (men or women) screw up because they're not
prepared, it's not their fault.  It's the team's fault as a whole.  If
you have a team of experienced men and unexperienced and/or unprepared
women, it's the men's responsibility to help the women and the women's
responsibility to accept help from the men.  Everyone does his part 
for the team.

>I'm not so sure Sean.  I think we need to try it the other way before we
>can determine if this is in fact true.  There are many reasons for the
>lack of female participation in our sport (but that's another topic).
>The question is whether the combined championships addresses this
>problem.  We have no way of determining this without trying it both
>ways.

Maybe you're right.  I guess the surest way to know what's best is to
try all of the alternatives.  We can discuss this to death, but a vote
will be the best thing in terms of pleasing the most people with respect
to which alternative to pursue.

Sean