Women's Golf
Women's Golf
I know it's "just women's golf." It's also a sport in which we were nationally competitive just 2 years ago (and for the previous 5).
But this is ridiculous.
Fall
S Alabama* 1/1 +10
Northwester 15/15 -66
UNC 15/18 -58
San Jose 13/14 -56
Spring
Sugar Bowl 17/17 -69
UCF 16/16 -48
Clemson 14/15 -64
Oregon 17/17 -28
*A bunch of southland and SWAC opponents; the other tournaments were major universities and nationally competitive programs.
Where are the standards at this University?
Are you watching, Troy Dannen?
But this is ridiculous.
Fall
S Alabama* 1/1 +10
Northwester 15/15 -66
UNC 15/18 -58
San Jose 13/14 -56
Spring
Sugar Bowl 17/17 -69
UCF 16/16 -48
Clemson 14/15 -64
Oregon 17/17 -28
*A bunch of southland and SWAC opponents; the other tournaments were major universities and nationally competitive programs.
Where are the standards at this University?
Are you watching, Troy Dannen?
- PeteRasche
- Cornerstone
- Posts: 30925
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
- Location: Cincinnati, OH
Re: Women's Golf
So what changed? New coach? Poor recruiting and graduations?
You said it yourself, it's "only". The question is, what matters? And everyone here has different answers. Some love only football. Some like all sports. Some (disproportionately many) here love baseball. Some only care about what will get us to a power conference when the next realignment occurs.
Personally - and this is just my opinion, not claiming it's the "right" one - I believe the latter is all that matters. Eventually there will be another realignment and we need to have our (stuff) straight and our resume sharpened up when it happens, especially because it could be "the big one", the long-discussed secession from the NCAA (and if that happens, if we're not in, we might as well go D3). And if and when anything happens, they're going to look at football success*** at about 75%-85%, MBB success*** at about 13%-23%, and everything else (including VB, WBB, and, yes, baseball) at about 2%.
Not that I don't want Tulane to succeed in every sport, but if Dannen can build a winning football program by channeling funds there at the expense of being bad in those other sports, I'd live with it. The jury is very much out on whether that's working at this point.
*** if the success of one is really great, the other could be less important, i.e., if you play in a New Years Day bowl in football, your MBB could get a pass, and vice-versa if your MBB team regularly goes to the Sweet 16, your football team would only need to be in the "5-7 to 8-4, small bowls 3 of every five years" range.
You said it yourself, it's "only". The question is, what matters? And everyone here has different answers. Some love only football. Some like all sports. Some (disproportionately many) here love baseball. Some only care about what will get us to a power conference when the next realignment occurs.
Personally - and this is just my opinion, not claiming it's the "right" one - I believe the latter is all that matters. Eventually there will be another realignment and we need to have our (stuff) straight and our resume sharpened up when it happens, especially because it could be "the big one", the long-discussed secession from the NCAA (and if that happens, if we're not in, we might as well go D3). And if and when anything happens, they're going to look at football success*** at about 75%-85%, MBB success*** at about 13%-23%, and everything else (including VB, WBB, and, yes, baseball) at about 2%.
Not that I don't want Tulane to succeed in every sport, but if Dannen can build a winning football program by channeling funds there at the expense of being bad in those other sports, I'd live with it. The jury is very much out on whether that's working at this point.
*** if the success of one is really great, the other could be less important, i.e., if you play in a New Years Day bowl in football, your MBB could get a pass, and vice-versa if your MBB team regularly goes to the Sweet 16, your football team would only need to be in the "5-7 to 8-4, small bowls 3 of every five years" range.
Re: Women's Golf
I'm with you GSx. This cratering is totally on Dannen's watch. All sports need to win or be at least competitive. These results are simply unacceptable.GSx wrote:I know it's "just women's golf." It's also a sport in which we were nationally competitive just 2 years ago (and for the previous 5).
But this is ridiculous.
Fall
S Alabama* 1/1 +10
Northwester 15/15 -66
UNC 15/18 -58
San Jose 13/14 -56
Spring
Sugar Bowl 17/17 -69
UCF 16/16 -48
Clemson 14/15 -64
Oregon 17/17 -28
*A bunch of southland and SWAC opponents; the other tournaments were major universities and nationally competitive programs.
Where are the standards at this University?
Are you watching, Troy Dannen?
Re: Women's Golf
Women's golf exists to be Title IX compliant for football scholarships. If they are on scholarship they are doing their job. Post season play in golf sucks up funds that could be spent on football.
Using big words is not a personal attack
#cousins don't count
#cousins don't count
Re: Women's Golf
By that logic I guess women's basketball and volleyball should be glad they have scholarships too and the AD not spend any money on them either? Those women work just as hard as the football players and deserve to be given the resources needed to compete at the highest level.windywave wrote:Women's golf exists to be Title IX compliant for football scholarships. If they are on scholarship they are doing their job. Post season play in golf sucks up funds that could be spent on football.
Re: Women's Golf
Pretty much yeah. Do you disagree with my premise?double d wrote:By that logic I guess women's basketball and volleyball should be glad they have scholarships too and the AD not spend any money on them either?windywave wrote:Women's golf exists to be Title IX compliant for football scholarships. If they are on scholarship they are doing their job. Post season play in golf sucks up funds that could be spent on football.
Using big words is not a personal attack
#cousins don't count
#cousins don't count
Re: Women's Golf
What resources are they being denied? Who said anything about denying them resources?double d wrote:windywave wrote: Those women work just as hard as the football players and deserve to be given the resources needed to compete at the highest level.
Using big words is not a personal attack
#cousins don't count
#cousins don't count
Re: Women's Golf
Garbage men work just as hard as attorneys. The should get paid as much. Giving people what they deserve is pretty precarious. There are athletes that don't deserve to be at Tulane because of their mediocre academic credentials. However, the university is a better place for having those athletes represent the school on the field. "Work just as hard;" how many Golfers, male or female, get concussions, blow out knees and shoulders, and otherwise get injuries that will affect their ability to live a normal functional life 30-40 years down the road. It's not a fair comparison and its probably the case that title IX gets golfers on scholarship a better deal than they deserve.double d wrote:Those women work just as hard as the football players and deserve to be given the resources needed to compete at the highest level.windywave wrote:Women's golf exists to be Title IX compliant for football scholarships. If they are on scholarship they are doing their job. Post season play in golf sucks up funds that could be spent on football.
Quote:The Good - TULANE
The Bad - LSU
THe Ugly - USM
Honorable mention - Navy
The Bad - LSU
THe Ugly - USM
Honorable mention - Navy
Re: Women's Golf
This is incredibly short-sighted thinking. What could we possibly spend on the margin to make the postseason in golf, 20k (most probably way less)? Golfers tend to come from money, that 20k could wind up being a very wise investment down the road. Not to mention, unless it's your contention that we are intentionally bad in golf, there's no reason to tolerate this level of performance.windywave wrote:Women's golf exists to be Title IX compliant for football scholarships. If they are on scholarship they are doing their job. Post season play in golf sucks up funds that could be spent on football.
Re: Women's Golf
How is it short sighted? Not caring if they don't make the post season doesn't mean rich kids won't still be on the team. I invite you to read what I wroteml wave wrote:This is incredibly short-sighted thinking. What could we possibly spend on the margin to make the postseason in golf, 20k (most probably way less)? Golfers tend to come from money, that 20k could wind up being a very wise investment down the road. Not to mention, unless it's your contention that we are intentionally bad in golf, there's no reason to tolerate this level of performance.windywave wrote:Women's golf exists to be Title IX compliant for football scholarships. If they are on scholarship they are doing their job. Post season play in golf sucks up funds that could be spent on football.
Using big words is not a personal attack
#cousins don't count
#cousins don't count
Re: Women's Golf
If you provide them with a positive experience while playing at your school they/their families will be more likely to donate money. If instead, you treat them like 3rd class citizens only there to check off a Title 9 box then...good luck.windywave wrote:How is it short sighted? Not caring if they don't make the post season doesn't mean rich kids won't still be on the team. I invite you to read what I wroteml wave wrote:This is incredibly short-sighted thinking. What could we possibly spend on the margin to make the postseason in golf, 20k (most probably way less)? Golfers tend to come from money, that 20k could wind up being a very wise investment down the road. Not to mention, unless it's your contention that we are intentionally bad in golf, there's no reason to tolerate this level of performance.windywave wrote:Women's golf exists to be Title IX compliant for football scholarships. If they are on scholarship they are doing their job. Post season play in golf sucks up funds that could be spent on football.
Re: Women's Golf
Your post is beyond stupid. Read what I wrote and it become clear why your post is imbecilicml wave wrote:If you provide them with a positive experience while playing at your school they/their families will be more likely to donate money. If instead, you treat them like 3rd class citizens only there to check off a Title 9 box then...good luck.windywave wrote:How is it short sighted? Not caring if they don't make the post season doesn't mean rich kids won't still be on the team. I invite you to read what I wroteml wave wrote:This is incredibly short-sighted thinking. What could we possibly spend on the margin to make the postseason in golf, 20k (most probably way less)? Golfers tend to come from money, that 20k could wind up being a very wise investment down the road. Not to mention, unless it's your contention that we are intentionally bad in golf, there's no reason to tolerate this level of performance.windywave wrote:Women's golf exists to be Title IX compliant for football scholarships. If they are on scholarship they are doing their job. Post season play in golf sucks up funds that could be spent on football.
Using big words is not a personal attack
#cousins don't count
#cousins don't count
Re: Women's Golf
Why do you constantly insult people who are trying to engage in conversation with you? You are the stupid one for talking down to some very nice people. The way you converse with people sucks.
Re: Women's Golf
Getting defensive and making ad hominem attacks is a sure indicator someone is losing an argument. You're both with your post.tjtlja wrote:Why do you constantly insult people who are trying to engage in conversation with you? You are the stupid one for talking down to some very nice people. The way you converse with people sucks.
Using big words is not a personal attack
#cousins don't count
#cousins don't count
Re: Women's Golf
If by "Post season play in golf sucks up funds that could be spent on football" you mean something other than "it's good that we're not good in golf" then your writing is not nearly as clear as you imagine it to be. If you just don't care about the golf team, that's fine but not a reason to tolerate the current performance. Dannen is in charge of the entire athletic department, not just the football team. If we're going to do something, we should strive to do it well. Not caring is a loser mentality that I doubt Dannen shares.windywave wrote:Your post is beyond stupid. Read what I wrote and it become clear why your post is imbecilicml wave wrote:If you provide them with a positive experience while playing at your school they/their families will be more likely to donate money. If instead, you treat them like 3rd class citizens only there to check off a Title 9 box then...good luck.windywave wrote:How is it short sighted? Not caring if they don't make the post season doesn't mean rich kids won't still be on the team. I invite you to read what I wroteml wave wrote:This is incredibly short-sighted thinking. What could we possibly spend on the margin to make the postseason in golf, 20k (most probably way less)? Golfers tend to come from money, that 20k could wind up being a very wise investment down the road. Not to mention, unless it's your contention that we are intentionally bad in golf, there's no reason to tolerate this level of performance.windywave wrote:Women's golf exists to be Title IX compliant for football scholarships. If they are on scholarship they are doing their job. Post season play in golf sucks up funds that could be spent on football.
Re: Women's Golf
See, you read it an all was revealed (although indifference is more accurate than thinking it is good). Now do you see why Ibtook exception to you putting words in my mouth?ml wave wrote:If by "Post season play in golf sucks up funds that could be spent on football" you mean something other than "it's good that we're not good in golf" then your writing is not nearly as clear as you imagine it to be.windywave wrote:Your post is beyond stupid. Read what I wrote and it become clear why your post is imbecilicml wave wrote:If you provide them with a positive experience while playing at your school they/their families will be more likely to donate money. If instead, you treat them like 3rd class citizens only there to check off a Title 9 box then...good luck.windywave wrote:How is it short sighted? Not caring if they don't make the post season doesn't mean rich kids won't still be on the team. I invite you to read what I wroteml wave wrote:This is incredibly short-sighted thinking. What could we possibly spend on the margin to make the postseason in golf, 20k (most probably way less)? Golfers tend to come from money, that 20k could wind up being a very wise investment down the road. Not to mention, unless it's your contention that we are intentionally bad in golf, there's no reason to tolerate this level of performance.windywave wrote:Women's golf exists to be Title IX compliant for football scholarships. If they are on scholarship they are doing their job. Post season play in golf sucks up funds that could be spent on football.
Using big words is not a personal attack
#cousins don't count
#cousins don't count
Re: Women's Golf
So, back to my original point that this is incredibly short-sighted thinking. And to answer your question, no for several reasons, not the least of which is because I don't see what words I put in your mouth.windywave wrote:See, you read it an all was revealed (although indifference is more accurate than thinking it is good). Now do you see why Ibtook exception to you putting words in my mouth?ml wave wrote:If by "Post season play in golf sucks up funds that could be spent on football" you mean something other than "it's good that we're not good in golf" then your writing is not nearly as clear as you imagine it to be.windywave wrote:Your post is beyond stupid. Read what I wrote and it become clear why your post is imbecilicml wave wrote:If you provide them with a positive experience while playing at your school they/their families will be more likely to donate money. If instead, you treat them like 3rd class citizens only there to check off a Title 9 box then...good luck.windywave wrote:How is it short sighted? Not caring if they don't make the post season doesn't mean rich kids won't still be on the team. I invite you to read what I wroteml wave wrote:This is incredibly short-sighted thinking. What could we possibly spend on the margin to make the postseason in golf, 20k (most probably way less)? Golfers tend to come from money, that 20k could wind up being a very wise investment down the road. Not to mention, unless it's your contention that we are intentionally bad in golf, there's no reason to tolerate this level of performance.windywave wrote:Women's golf exists to be Title IX compliant for football scholarships. If they are on scholarship they are doing their job. Post season play in golf sucks up funds that could be spent on football.
Re: Women's Golf
What is short sighted? There are rich mediocre golfers too.ml wave wrote:So, back to my original point that this is incredibly short-sighted thinking. And to answer your question, no for several reasons, not the least of which is because I don't see what words I put in your mouth.windywave wrote:See, you read it an all was revealed (although indifference is more accurate than thinking it is good). Now do you see why Ibtook exception to you putting words in my mouth?ml wave wrote:If by "Post season play in golf sucks up funds that could be spent on football" you mean something other than "it's good that we're not good in golf" then your writing is not nearly as clear as you imagine it to be.windywave wrote:Your post is beyond stupid. Read what I wrote and it become clear why your post is imbecilicml wave wrote:If you provide them with a positive experience while playing at your school they/their families will be more likely to donate money. If instead, you treat them like 3rd class citizens only there to check off a Title 9 box then...good luck.windywave wrote:How is it short sighted? Not caring if they don't make the post season doesn't mean rich kids won't still be on the team. I invite you to read what I wroteml wave wrote:This is incredibly short-sighted thinking. What could we possibly spend on the margin to make the postseason in golf, 20k (most probably way less)? Golfers tend to come from money, that 20k could wind up being a very wise investment down the road. Not to mention, unless it's your contention that we are intentionally bad in golf, there's no reason to tolerate this level of performance.windywave wrote:Women's golf exists to be Title IX compliant for football scholarships. If they are on scholarship they are doing their job. Post season play in golf sucks up funds that could be spent on football.
Using big words is not a personal attack
#cousins don't count
#cousins don't count
Re: Women's Golf
Well, I guess we've gone full circle with this one!windywave wrote:What is short sighted? There are rich mediocre golfers too.ml wave wrote:So, back to my original point that this is incredibly short-sighted thinking. And to answer your question, no for several reasons, not the least of which is because I don't see what words I put in your mouth.windywave wrote:See, you read it an all was revealed (although indifference is more accurate than thinking it is good). Now do you see why Ibtook exception to you putting words in my mouth?ml wave wrote:If by "Post season play in golf sucks up funds that could be spent on football" you mean something other than "it's good that we're not good in golf" then your writing is not nearly as clear as you imagine it to be.windywave wrote:Your post is beyond stupid. Read what I wrote and it become clear why your post is imbecilicml wave wrote:If you provide them with a positive experience while playing at your school they/their families will be more likely to donate money. If instead, you treat them like 3rd class citizens only there to check off a Title 9 box then...good luck.windywave wrote:How is it short sighted? Not caring if they don't make the post season doesn't mean rich kids won't still be on the team. I invite you to read what I wroteml wave wrote:This is incredibly short-sighted thinking. What could we possibly spend on the margin to make the postseason in golf, 20k (most probably way less)? Golfers tend to come from money, that 20k could wind up being a very wise investment down the road. Not to mention, unless it's your contention that we are intentionally bad in golf, there's no reason to tolerate this level of performance.windywave wrote:Women's golf exists to be Title IX compliant for football scholarships. If they are on scholarship they are doing their job. Post season play in golf sucks up funds that could be spent on football.
Re: Women's Golf
Finished tied for 3rd to last (or 7th) in AAC tournament.
Title IX has nothing to do with this sad state; neither does football.
Title IX has nothing to do with this sad state; neither does football.