PiPress: Gophers target of federal gender equity complaint due to new facility

Donate To GopherHole

Read closer and remember the ways Teague's initial "goal" has changed. Remember the Bierman tear-down that is no longer. Remember the other sports getting A+ upgrades along with football and basketball.

Remember the $190M.

I'm a fan of putting money into football and basketball - but can understand how issues could arise because of the lack of vision, planning and how the plan has been scaled back and changed.

They need to be smart about this and haven't been thus far.
 


Good Gosh

Gopher Warrior said:
Read closer and remember the ways Teague's initial "goal" has changed. Remember the Bierman tear-down that is no longer. Remember the other sports getting A+ upgrades along with football and basketball.

Remember the $190M.

I'm a fan of putting money into football and basketball - but can understand how issues could arise because of the lack of vision, planning and how the plan has been scaled back and changed.

They need to be smart about this and haven't been thus far.
Click to expand...

I think I agree with you but that surprises me. I'm really tired right now, so I might change my mind because something doesn't feel right about that. :cool:
 

die hard gopher said:
I don't really get involved in the political discussions on GH ever but I'd be shocked if they weren't.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you know how ultra political 18-22 year olds are. :rolleyes:

The football team should've filed a complaint in 1981.
 


Wasn't this track in such a bad state that we couldn't host meets? Should we also build a 50000 seat softball stadium because the football team has one? Title IX should mean that teams are treated based on their profitability and NOT based on gender. It takes some real idiots to twist the language to mean that gender is the main consideration.
 

Rickman55 said:
Prove it's the liberals and feminists behind this. Take your politics somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Rickman, it seems to me that this is as political as it gets. A complaint of gender discrimination to the US Dept of Ed Civil Rights office b/c the women's (and men's) track team is being displaced. Asking me to prove it's Liberals is like asking me to prove the National Organization of Women has a problem with Republicans. It's pretty obvious.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
Read closer and remember the ways Teague's initial "goal" has changed. Remember the Bierman tear-down that is no longer. Remember the other sports getting A+ upgrades along with football and basketball.

Remember the $190M.

I'm a fan of putting money into football and basketball - but can understand how issues could arise because of the lack of vision, planning and how the plan has been scaled back and changed.

They need to be smart about this and haven't been thus far.
Click to expand...

Your constant crap is getting old.

Very disappointed in the admin for not banning you.

Please go away.
 




Doesn't the football program help pay for men and womens track? If you look at it that way building an athletic facility will benefit the track programs in the long run.
 


The equitable thing to do would be to cut both the men's and women's track teams. If this is the first that Norwood heard of this, it is a cowardly move.
 

KillerGopherFan said:
Rickman, it seems to me that this is as political as it gets. A complaint of gender discrimination to the US Dept of Ed Civil Rights office b/c the women's (and men's) track team is being displaced. Asking me to prove it's Liberals is like asking me to prove the National Organization of Women has a problem with Republicans. It's pretty obvious.
Click to expand...

Seems to me a small group of people only care about themselves and not what's good for the entire group. Sounds like a right winger's wet dream.
 





It does seem short-sighted to not build a new track as a priority in St. Paul. This shows that Teague's job is to grow the revenue sports at the U at the expense of the non-revenue sports. Most of us already knew that, but this just proves the point. What they could sell to the track team is that once they build a new track, it will be the finest in the Big Ten complete with whatever track folks need (permanent stands, locker rooms, etc).
 

Maximus said:
Seems to me a small group of people only care about themselves and not what's good for the entire group. Sounds like a right winger's wet dream.
Click to expand...

Maximus, not to devolve this thread into politics, but your resorting to abstract insults of Conservative values instead of facing the obvious that gender equity is the Liberal cause and justification for this conflict suggests that you are conflicted in this situation. So, to get back on the subject, what is it that you favor? Letting revenue sports guide the decision or protecting the equality of the women's (and men's) track team to not be relocated? I'm not sure I can tell from your sarcastic statement above. Or you just want to deny your conflict.
 

KillerGopherFan said:
This is the fundamental problem of Liberals, maybe some feminist rights folks in this case, thinking that success is a zero-sum situation. They take the short view of, if you take the track from us, you will gain at our expense. Instead of figuring out that if the biggest revenue sport succeeds that $ucce$$ will be shared with all of our sports programs, women's programs included. God that is dumb!
Click to expand...

So is blaming Liberals or any other group of individuals with some sort of collective thought process. Since you don't know who this person or people are how about you leave it at "they seem to be taking a short view".
 



This isn't really about track and field. Yes, those folks may be complaining loudly, but the displacement of their stuff is not the real issue from a Title IX perspective.

The issue is providing what may be seen as unjustified or over-the-top better treatment of the football program under the ever-changing U's plans.

The arguments get trickier when you go from, "hey we're going to knock down Bierman.. even the Olympic sports folks are going to get great new upgrades!"... to what may appear to be a football Taj Mahal to some and putting most other sports on the backburner.

"Yes, football is getting great new facilities.. but so are a ton of different sports!"... now has turned into something different.

It'll be interesting to see how the U maneuvers through this one. The lack of vision, planning (from a priority and game plan perspective) and reasonableness ($190M, private funding) displayed so far is worrisome.

I'd like to see revenues allocated to building new football and basketball facilities pronto. That's a personal view.

I see how the way the U's plan has changed can be problematic from several perspectives.
 

This is the kind of wacko maneuver thàt gives the left/democrats liberals a bad name. Similar to the nut jobs on the extreme right, they are best kept muzzled and caged by the more responsible and mature members of their parties, to the extent possible. Laughing at democrat or republicans feels good, but arguing with either is clinically insane and will leave one frustrated.
 

mngolf said:
So is blaming Liberals or any other group of individuals with some sort of collective thought process. Since you don't know who this person or people are how about you leave it at "they seem to be taking a short view".
Click to expand...

It is not dumb to point out the misguided cause of any "group of individuals with some sort of collective thought process", Liberal or otherwise, IF it results in something that the vast majority of people do not want. It seems to me that the liberal-minded folks on this forum are a little sensitive about how this "gender equity" complaint is conflicting with their common sense and support of the football program. You can try to muddy the water as much as you want, but this "gender" case is about politics and political correctness, and is consistent with Liberal views.
 


Gopher Warrior said:
This isn't really about track and field. Yes, those folks may be complaining loudly, but the displacement of their stuff is not the real issue from a Title IX perspective.

The issue is providing what may be seen as unjustified or over-the-top better treatment of the football program under the ever-changing U's plans.

The arguments get trickier when you go from, "hey we're going to knock down Bierman.. even the Olympic sports folks are going to get great new upgrades!"... to what may appear to be a football Taj Mahal to some and putting most other sports on the backburner.

"Yes, football is getting great new facilities.. but so are a ton of different sports!"... now has turned into something different.

It'll be interesting to see how the U maneuvers through this one. The lack of vision, planning (from a priority and game plan perspective) and reasonableness ($190M, private funding) displayed so far is worrisome.

I'd like to see revenues allocated to building new football and basketball facilities pronto. That's a personal view.

I see how the way the U's plan has changed can be problematic from several perspectives.
Click to expand...

You seem to believe that you have more vision than everyone at the U, yet you can't seem to see that everyone here is sick of hearing you're same **** over and over and over.....
 

Won't the women's team be able to use the basketball facilities?
 

Gopher Warrior said:
This isn't really about track and field. Yes, those folks may be complaining loudly, but the displacement of their stuff is not the real issue from a Title IX perspective.

The issue is providing what may be seen as unjustified or over-the-top better treatment of the football program under the ever-changing U's plans.

The arguments get trickier when you go from, "hey we're going to knock down Bierman.. even the Olympic sports folks are going to get great new upgrades!"... to what may appear to be a football Taj Mahal to some and putting most other sports on the backburner.

"Yes, football is getting great new facilities.. but so are a ton of different sports!"... now has turned into something different.

It'll be interesting to see how the U maneuvers through this one. The lack of vision, planning (from a priority and game plan perspective) and reasonableness ($190M, private funding) displayed so far is worrisome.

I'd like to see revenues allocated to building new football and basketball facilities pronto. That's a personal view.

I see how the way the U's plan has changed can be problematic from several perspectives.
Click to expand...

Take your crap somewhere else.
 



Unfortunately, in order to build the facilities in an urban environment they need space for construction equipment staging and logistics in order to meet the construction datelines.

The only logical place available if you look at the map is the adjacent track and field.

The right thing to do is for the U to lease practice facility time from nearby high schools or colleges, and to provide adequate transportation to and from practice for student athletes and coaches.

Then, when they rebuild the U's track and field make them state of the art worth waiting for.

Maybe, as part of the U's final phases they ought to consider a huge parking ramp construction on nearby existing ground level parking lots in later phases.

You run into another nightmare of where those with contract parking are going to park while construction is ongoing.

The U is in bad need of more substantial parking ramps within the vicinity.

Also, you don't venture into tailgating lot spaces.

Someone is always going to be unhappy.

The outcome worth waiting for if done right for the athletes, the university, for recruiting, and bring pride to our flagship university and the entire state.

If we want to compete with other B1G schools and nationally, we have to ante up.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom