Lacrosse

[NYC Duke Fan]

I see that only 4 schools in the ACC play lacrosse, Duke, Virginia, UNC and Maryland. Is there any reason why the others do not ?

Is there any sport that is played by other ACC schools that Duke does not participate in ?

[rtnorthrup]

Women's softball comes to mind.

[TillyGalore]

Is there any sport that is played by other ACC schools that Duke does not participate in ?

Boston College recently won the NCAA championship in hockey. The hockey team is a member of Hockey East and has been since the mid to late 80's, long before BC joined the ACC.

I think Duke has a club hockey team, not a varsity team.

[pratt '04]

I see that only 4 schools in the ACC play lacrosse, Duke, Virginia, UNC and Maryland. Is there any reason why the others do not ?

There are only 56 Division I men's lacrosse teams, so most schools in general don't have one. And the ACC is the only BCS conference to have men's lacrosse. There are a few other BCS conference schools that join other conferences for men's lax, though (for example, Ohio State is in the "Lacrosse America" conference).

[Bluedog]

The only ACC sports that Duke doesn't have are women's softball and men's volleyball (and as has been mentioned, the ACC doesn't have any hockey teams). Here's the breakdown by sport of how many schools field varsity teams:

Baseball - 12
Men's basketball - 12
Women's basketball - 12
Cross country - 12
Field hockey - 6
Football - 12
Men's golf - 11
Women's golf - 9
Men's LAX - 4
Women's LAX - 6
Rowing (women's) - 6
Men's soccer - 9
Women's soccer - 11
Softball - 8
Swimming and diving - 11
Men's tennis - 12
Women's tennis - 12
Track and field - 12
W Volleyball - 12
Wrestling - 6

I guess it has to do with cost, demand, facilities, balancing men's and women's sports, etc.

[Dukie4Life]

I believe that UNC, NCST and Maryland all have womens gymnastics programs at least.

[gvtucker]

The only ACC sports that Duke doesn't have are women's softball and men's volleyball (and as has been mentioned, the ACC doesn't have any hockey teams).

Of note, there is an ACC Hockey League. This league plays in Division II of the American Collegiate Hockey Association, so it's not even at the upper level of club hockey. Duke is pretty competitive at this level. The teams in the ACCHL are Duke, UNC, NC State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Georgetown, and George Mason.

Boston College competes at the D 1 NCAA level, a whole 'nuther world apart from ACC Hockey. The difference in ability between BC and Duke in hockey is about the same as the difference between Duke and a Division III team in basketball.

[blazindw]

And, as previously stated, BC is the only ACC school that competes in hockey, though they compete in the Eastern Collegiate Hockey Association (ECHA)

[BD80]

I see that only 4 schools in the ACC play lacrosse, Duke, Virginia, UNC and Maryland. Is there any reason why the others do not ?

Actually two other ACC schools play lacrosse, women's lacrosse.

Why only four men's lacrosse teams? Title IX.

Try to find men's volleyball, men's gymnastics, men's wrestling, even much of men's track is gone from high school and collegiate sports.

Title IX is an awful law made worse by idiot judges who have interpretted it to require absolute equality between the sexes even though there is a significantly higher percentage of men interested in team sports than women. Any fair-minded person recognizes the problem, but no politician would be caught dead appearing to curtail "women's rights" by amending the law to reasonably promote equal opportunities in sports.

Sore spot? Yep, I have watched scholarship opportunities for my teenage sons disappear in wrestling and gymnastics as schools like Michigan State have discontinued the programs. My son cannot play high school volleyball, because the school discontinued that program due to Title IX and he must now drive 45 minutes each way just to practice with a club team. It was a nasty bloodbath watching the community fight over which boys sports programs had to be cut to allow for an equal number of girls teams. The bitterness still lasts.

Even though girls have been allowed to play on boys teams, boys are not allowed to play on girls teams. Many boys volleyball players have tried this, arguing that it is the only school sponsored volleyball team and they are entitled to equal opportunity to play volleyball. I guess equal doesn't always mean the same thing.

Sorry to go so far off topic. But it relates to the question asked.

[TillyGalore]

And, as previously stated, BC is the only ACC school that competes in hockey, though they compete in the Eastern Collegiate Hockey Association (ECHA)

Don't you mean Maryland is in the ECHA? http://www.echahockey.com/teams.asp

BC is in Hockey East, http://www.hockeyeastonline.com/men/teams.php.

[LetItBD08]

Wikipedia to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_hockey

Check out the map of D-1 teams/conferences.

[Bluedog]

I believe that UNC, NCST and Maryland all have womens gymnastics programs at least.

I have no reason to doubt this fact. I was just going off of sports officially recognized by theACC.com, and gymnastics isn't on the list.

[bludev03]

Actually two other ACC schools play lacrosse, women's lacrosse.

Why only four men's lacrosse teams? Title IX.

Try to find men's volleyball, men's gymnastics, men's wrestling, even much of men's track is gone from high school and collegiate sports.

Title IX is an awful law made worse by idiot judges who have interpretted it to require absolute equality between the sexes even though there is a significantly higher percentage of men interested in team sports than women. Any fair-minded person recognizes the problem, but no politician would be caught dead appearing to curtail "women's rights" by amending the law to reasonably promote equal opportunities in sports.

Sore spot? Yep, I have watched scholarship opportunities for my teenage sons disappear in wrestling and gymnastics as schools like Michigan State have discontinued the programs. My son cannot play high school volleyball, because the school discontinued that program due to Title IX and he must now drive 45 minutes each way just to practice with a club team. It was a nasty bloodbath watching the community fight over which boys sports programs had to be cut to allow for an equal number of girls teams. The bitterness still lasts.

Even though girls have been allowed to play on boys teams, boys are not allowed to play on girls teams. Many boys volleyball players have tried this, arguing that it is the only school sponsored volleyball team and they are entitled to equal opportunity to play volleyball. I guess equal doesn't always mean the same thing.

Sorry to go so far off topic. But it relates to the question asked.

I am totally floatin in ur boat! If girls can be on the boys' wrestling and football teams , then boys should be allowed to play on the girls' field hockey, gymnastics, and volleyball teams.

What position does ur son play in vb?

[bludev03]

On a seperate note, why does Duke have a "rowing" team?? Why is the girls sport called "rowing", but the guys sport is called "crew" ? I hope the new AD gets rid of this team, and add other sports (ie softball, etc)

[gvtucker]

Actually two other ACC schools play lacrosse, women's lacrosse.

Why only four men's lacrosse teams? Title IX.

Try to find men's volleyball, men's gymnastics, men's wrestling, even much of men's track is gone from high school and collegiate sports.

Title IX is an awful law made worse by idiot judges who have interpretted it to require absolute equality between the sexes even though there is a significantly higher percentage of men interested in team sports than women. Any fair-minded person recognizes the problem, but no politician would be caught dead appearing to curtail "women's rights" by amending the law to reasonably promote equal opportunities in sports.

I consider myself "fair-minded", and I disagree with your contention that Title IX is an awful law. I think it is perfectly reasonable to argue that the sole reason that a higher percentage of men have played team sports in the past is because of the greater availability of team sports for men in years past. And I think that it is perfectly reasonable to demand that men and women be granted an equal chance to play team sports.

I fully realize that this makes things much more difficult for your sons, and I can understand your anger. Hopefully, though, you can also at least see that things were grossly unfair to women prior to 1972.

[blazindw]

Don't you mean Maryland is in the ECHA? http://www.echahockey.com/teams.asp

BC is in Hockey East, http://www.hockeyeastonline.com/men/teams.php.

Yes, I meant Hockey East

[Duvall]

On a seperate note, why does Duke have a "rowing" team?? Why is the girls sport called "rowing", but the guys sport is called "crew" ? I hope the new AD gets rid of this team, and add other sports (ie softball, etc)

That's certainly a thoughtful and well-reasoned argument for eliminating an entire team sport. You do realize that there are slight differences in the cost of running different sports, do you not?

[prefan21]

On a seperate note, why does Duke have a "rowing" team?? Why is the girls sport called "rowing", but the guys sport is called "crew" ? I hope the new AD gets rid of this team, and add other sports (ie softball, etc)

As a former member of Duke men's crew/rowing (same difference), I strongly disagree. The women qualify for nationals virtually every year, and have done exquisitely well. It's a sport popular at many of the prep schools and colleges with which Duke wants to be competitive academically (particularly the Ivy League), so like lacrosse, it's a nice sport to offer. And though the men's team isn't varsity, the women have shared their boathouse on Lake Michie with us, among other perks.

[Johnboy]

As a former member of Duke men's crew/rowing (same difference), I strongly disagree. The women qualify for nationals virtually every year, and have done exquisitely well. It's a sport popular at many of the prep schools and colleges with which Duke wants to be competitive academically (particularly the Ivy League), so like lacrosse, it's a nice sport to offer. And though the men's team isn't varsity, the women have shared their boathouse on Lake Michie with us, among other perks.

nudge, nudge, wink wink, say no more, Sire!

[BD80]

I am totally floatin in ur boat! If girls can be on the boys' wrestling and football teams , then boys should be allowed to play on the girls' field hockey, gymnastics, and volleyball teams.

What position does ur son play in vb?

My son is a libero, you don't see many ex-gymnasts as outsider hitters

I consider myself "fair-minded", and I disagree with your contention that Title IX is an awful law. I think it is perfectly reasonable to argue that the sole reason that a higher percentage of men have played team sports in the past is because of the greater availability of team sports for men in years past. And I think that it is perfectly reasonable to demand that men and women be granted an equal chance to play team sports.

I fully realize that this makes things much more difficult for your sons, and I can understand your anger. Hopefully, though, you can also at least see that things were grossly unfair to women prior to 1972.

Herein lies the problem. The evidence indicates that a higher percentage of males are more interested in participating in sports than females, and generally that the interest level is higher (there is a quantitative and qualitative higher interest level). There is much anecdotal evidence and I have seen references to at least several studies. This evidence is not generally challenged.

Supporters of Title IX as currently interpreted argue, like you, that things would be different, that the same percentage of females would want to participate if opportunities were equal over some period of time. In other words, the legislation is supposed to CHANGE the current preferences. The legislation is to socially engineer our children to create an equal preference toward sports. You argue that it is OK that some males will now be discouraged from sports due to the lack of opportunity because some unnumbered females felt discouraged sometime in the past.

I do not oppose Title IX to the extent it is interpreted to provide equal opportunity to sports. I vigorously object that it has been interpreted to so disproportionately disadvantage a discreet group: male athletes. There are simply WAY less opportunities for male athletes who wish to compete compared to female athletes who wish to compete.

I do believe you said it best:

I think that it is perfectly reasonable to demand that men and women be granted an equal chance to play team sports.

I agree. This should mean that males be granted the same relative opportunity as women, not that the exact same number of spots be created. Do you know that in Michigan, many high schools have canceled men's lacrosse because they cannot find enough girls to field a women's lacrosse team to "balance" the programs for Title IX. That is OK? For there to be a 20 person men's lacrosse team, there must be a 20 person women's team, even if there are 50 boys but only 5 girls that are interested in playing lacrosse?

The source of the problem is having separate men's and women's programs. If we were to pretend that men and women are truly equal, there would be single coed teams in each sport. But women generally wouldn't be competitive, and there would be far less women in sports. So, we need to admit that men and women are not the same. Can we admit that perhaps more men are interested in sports and stop trying to engineer society to the detriment of MANY young men?

It is not just scholarship opportunities, entire men's teams are being defunded. There is no more men's gymnastics program at all at MSU, many schools have cut wrestling. Men's programs are being CUT to "equalize" the opportunities! Title IX was not intended to reduce opportunites for men.

Retribution for perceived past inequality is not just, it is mean.