From: sjlt@leland.Stanford.EDU (Sean Lev-Tov)
Subject: Re: NCCA - Let's Fix It
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 21:35:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.021959.2119@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> webel@guvax.georgetown.edu writes:
>In article <16B5F9A1C.97994779@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu>, 97994779@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu  
>writes:
>>  
>> Hmm let's see here. You say that it is quite logical for the men's and women's
>> teams to compete together for a combined title. Well, please tell me in what
>> other sport this occurs.  In what sport do the men and women fight for a
>> combined trohpy but never actually compete at the same time in the same
>> arean!
>I guess perhaps there are no other sports where this occurs, and maybe 
>this is not such a good thing.  why can't we have a sport that is 
>unique in this respect?  there are certainly sports where teammates never actually 
>compete on the same field at the same time

I don't see anything wrong with keeping the scoring a combined total of
men`s and women's teams.  I agreee it's unique, but so what?

Baird's right that sometimes players never compete on the field at
the same time.  Consider the most popular sport around (or one of them).
Football has defined offensive and defensive teams that rarely have
players on both teams.  Let's not even worry about the special teams
here.  Now these teams practice together but don't compete together
really.  Their efforts are combined for an overall victory.  Should
we separate football teams into offensive teams and defensive teams
and have double games where the defense plays the other's offense
and vice versa?  Then we'd have a champion defensive team and a
champion offensive team, right?

>> I think maybe a solution to this problem is to have a Men's National
>> Champion, a Women's National Champion and am Overall National Champion.
>> (I am speaking of team not individual here.)
>This would be a compromise, as I don't see a particular problem with 
>the current situation, I wouldn't see it as necessary.

I think that having 3 champions would be a bad idea.  It would be a
hollow victory to be the overall champion (unless that champ were the
men's and/or women's champ as well).  I think that to try to be the
best, a team would concentrate on its stronger team (men vs. women) and
that would have the same result as separating the sexes for scoring.

>>>The biggest practical reason I can see for the current situation is
>>>that it provides an incentive for men to recruit women into the sport,
>>>and vice versa.  Cycling is a very elitist sport, with a lot of
>>>knowledge to be passed from experienced to inexperienced riders and I
>>>think one of the good things about collegiate cycling is that it gives
>>>a powerful incentive for this transfer to occur.
>>>I get the feeling that some think that it is unfair, that a group of
>>>good male riders, or a group of good female riders, is held back from
>>>nationals due to their lack of more members of the opposite sex.  If
>>>this is one team, however, this doesn't make any sense.  In any team sport
>>>there are plenty of great athletes who may never get to compete for a
>>>championship because the rest of their team is not up to the task.
>>>Collegiate cycling is a team sport, so there will be good riders who
>>>don't make it because of the rest of the team, but I don't understand
>>>why the rules should be changed to accomodate this.
>>  
>> We are not talking about a great running back on the football team that
>> sucks. We are talking about the Women's Basketball team being denied
>> a championship based on the results of the Men's team. It is the
>> exact same thing!! If we want to have a combined title let's have
>> combined races!!!
>we do have combined races, every collegiate race weekend I ever went 
>to had both men's and women's races.  It is not the same as 
>basketball.  Show me basketball programs where  the men and women are 
>training together nearly all the time and have their games at the same 
>times.
>what we are talking about is a good part of a team being denied a 
>championship because of the rest of the team not being so good.  An 
>offensive player in football will probably never set foot on the 
>defensive side of the ball, but they still depend on that defense to 
>win the game.  I don't see any big difference just because in this 
>case one side of the equation is male and one side female, this may be 
>idealistic, but I can see worse sins.  And besides, there is still the 
>practical question of bringing more people into the sport.

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.  I think it would result in the recruitment of less
men or women (depending on the strong team's sex) than having the
coed team's recruiting both sexes.  Having both sexes combined here
at Stanford is great for having a larger number of people on the team.
This means more people to help raise funds, do other work for the team,
and (of course!) with which to train.

I guess if we put it to a vote, people would at first thought vote
the way that best benefits their own team.  Strong men's and women's
teams would want things the way they are while schools with strong
men's OR women's teams would want proposed change.  But we'd also
have to consider what's more important to them:  winning a national
champoinship (men's or women's), or keeping collegiate cycling as strong
as possible by encouraging both sexes to participate as much as possible.

I'm for bringing more people in and leaving things the way they are
now.  If you take away the combined scoring, you take away any incentive
for the men and women to work together (incentive from both sides, that
is; obviously the weaker team will always be helped by the stronger
team).

Sean
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing