<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>College Rugby State of the Union: Part Deux</title>
		<description>Discuss College Rugby State of the Union: Part Deux</description>
		<link>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/2303-college-rugby-state-of-the-union-part-deux.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 05:19:55 --500</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://rugbymag.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/2303/10.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Title IX says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/2303-college-rugby-state-of-the-union-part-deux.html#comment-7532</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Regardless, something for you naysayers to think about - the worldwide development of WOMEN'S rugby was what got 7s into the Olympics, as the IOC won't consider a sport without a reasonable level of gender parity in a sport. Those are the mainstream values that world sport holds, and it's about time more Americans got on board. Especially those who want us to be a part of world RUGBY.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Title IX</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:29:32 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/2303-college-rugby-state-of-the-union-part-deux.html#comment-7532</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Title IX says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/2303-college-rugby-state-of-the-union-part-deux.html#comment-7531</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Lord some of these comments are depressing. I'm thankful that most of the male rugby players I know don't think the way that many of you do. "Sorry, but" - did you watch the women's world cup at all? It was exhilarating play, by any standard. And just so you know - "women's sports don't entertain me the way men's do" is a sexist statement. While you don't mean to be deliberately sexist, your comment reveals deep down beliefs that are ("men's sports are superior to women's"). Tyler Dixon, you say that Title IX ignores that football has no female counterpart. You've got it upside down - in many cases it is BECAUSE there's no women's counterpart that Title IX is necessary. Why should collegiate men's athletics be glorified to the point of worship, while women's are marginalized? What kind of values are those? Personally I think colleges should get out of the "business" of sports anyway.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Title IX</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:27:50 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/2303-college-rugby-state-of-the-union-part-deux.html#comment-7531</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>kkr1 says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/2303-college-rugby-state-of-the-union-part-deux.html#comment-7477</link>
			<description><![CDATA[on the subject of title IX, I'd be curious to know the experience of others in this area. My alma mater pools alumni donations from both men and women alums sucb that it is impossible to directly support either the men's or women's team. I'm not sure of the current breakdown, but men alums outgive the women something like 2:1. The AD then splits the $ betw. the men's and women's teams, usually something like 55/45 in favor of the men's team (which usually fields about 1.5 - 2x the number of players as the women and generally has higher costs b/c of better performance in regional and national play). Needless to say, there is always some griping about the degree to which the men subsidize the women, but the administration insists that Title IX is the driving force behind the policy. Anyone else have a similar experience?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>kkr1</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:11:06 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/2303-college-rugby-state-of-the-union-part-deux.html#comment-7477</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>TAHI says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/2303-college-rugby-state-of-the-union-part-deux.html#comment-7473</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@No one of importance - But i think that with Varsity status, and with tuition wavers, or scholarships would change the stability of any program.. i think any university that invested into their rugby program is going to solidify that team.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>TAHI</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 07:58:05 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/2303-college-rugby-state-of-the-union-part-deux.html#comment-7473</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>rja1 says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/2303-college-rugby-state-of-the-union-part-deux.html#comment-7427</link>
			<description><![CDATA["You're missing the point altogether. Varsity rugby is profitable if done correctly. Football, on the other hand, is extremely expensive." If this were the case major universities would be shutting down their football programs and would be starting varsity rugby programs as a substitute. They're not. Football is instead driving the entire conversation in college sports and everything else will always be secondary to it. All due respect to Lindenwood, but I have no idea where they are and they have no fanbase. Even in comparison to basketball which next to football is incredibly cheap and next to rugby has an incredibly large fanbase, the University of Kentucky which is #1 basketball, football is secondary and they sell out a 20000-seat arena every time the basketball team has a home game, the football team brings the university double the income of their basketball team (source: Bill Simmons' podcast with Scott Van Pelt less than a month ago).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>rja1</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:54:31 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/2303-college-rugby-state-of-the-union-part-deux.html#comment-7427</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Tyler Dixon says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/2303-college-rugby-state-of-the-union-part-deux.html#comment-7419</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The issue is not "womans sports" but the absurdity of Title IX. Its gender based affirmative action. Are to expect that athletic scholarships must be balanced within the races next? As a father of two high school daughters I'm thrilled with the fact that they're almost guaranteed a scholarship as as long as they're willing pick up a sport at a school that needs them. But intellectually it silly. There are rugby programs in some of the most prestigious schools in the country where the men's "club" teams have been discouraged, even prohibited from raising money from alumni because it will overshadow the "varsity" woman's rugby program. American football is an institution with no female counterpart. Title IX simply pretends that not so and punishes everyone else, especially those college sports that are more "sport" than business. Title IX should simply exclude football or grant a random allotment of womans scholarships for extra-curricular purposes, since that the goal.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Tyler Dixon</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 04:49:30 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/2303-college-rugby-state-of-the-union-part-deux.html#comment-7419</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>No One of Importance says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/2303-college-rugby-state-of-the-union-part-deux.html#comment-7416</link>
			<description><![CDATA[There is exactly one large university in Utah with no football program => Utah Valley University. They should for sure make Men's and Women's rugby varsity sports there. However, anyone with a pulse can get in to the school. Thus, many drop in for a semester, find it not to their liking, and drop out. It's not a recipe for a stable program. Still, they should go for it. It's a nice campus, a former tech school/junior college that's grown up to a University and is in search of an identity. They have more than 20,000 students.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>No One of Importance</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 22:41:52 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/2303-college-rugby-state-of-the-union-part-deux.html#comment-7416</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>patrickeclifton says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/2303-college-rugby-state-of-the-union-part-deux.html#comment-7414</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I said tens, if not hundreds. Over a hundred is certainly possible, but tens is definite.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>patrickeclifton</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 22:15:57 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/2303-college-rugby-state-of-the-union-part-deux.html#comment-7414</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sorry, but... says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/2303-college-rugby-state-of-the-union-part-deux.html#comment-7406</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The fact is, some people do not find women's rugby as exciting as men's rugby. Personally, I am in that group. I'm not a sexist, I'm not against women's sports, but it just does not entertain me the same way men's rugby does. The final for the women's rugby world cup drew 13,253 people, which was a record for a test match. A man's New Zealand-Australia match in 2000 drew 109,847]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sorry, but...</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:52:12 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/2303-college-rugby-state-of-the-union-part-deux.html#comment-7406</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jimm says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/2303-college-rugby-state-of-the-union-part-deux.html#comment-7399</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Your mom spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for you and your brother to play soccer?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jimm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:43:42 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/2303-college-rugby-state-of-the-union-part-deux.html#comment-7399</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
