Why doesn't Penn State have a girl's team?

[AnklePicker]

I've been pleasantly surprised by the rapid growth of girl's high school wrestling here in NJ.  I just read it's the fastest growing sport in America for both boys and girls.  It's grown fivefold in the last decade.  Why wouldn't a program like Penn State jump on board with starting a girl's program?  It doesn't seem like them to not have the foresight or resources to develop a team.  Iowa has a major advantage here going forward as they've basically monopolized most of the high end talent that's available.  It's not as if it will take anything away from the boy's team as they would have a completely independent coach.  And this isn't only a question for PSU.  I'm not sure why any of the power programs aren't getting ahead of this.  

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

Iowa is just too dominant; there's no point in competing.

[jchapman]

When PSU gets a boys team, they will most likely need a girls team to balance out opportunities. 

[ionel]

3 minutes ago, jchapman said:

When PSU gets a boys team, they will most likely need a girls team to balance out opportunities. 

^^^ this ^^^

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

1 hour ago, AnklePicker said:

I've been pleasantly surprised by the rapid growth of girl's high school wrestling here in NJ.  I just read it's the fastest growing sport in America for both boys and girls.  It's grown fivefold in the last decade.  Why wouldn't a program like Penn State jump on board with starting a girl's program?  It doesn't seem like them to not have the foresight or resources to develop a team.  Iowa has a major advantage here going forward as they've basically monopolized most of the high end talent that's available.  It's not as if it will take anything away from the boy's team as they would have a completely independent coach.  And this isn't only a question for PSU.  I'm not sure why any of the power programs aren't getting ahead of this.  

Almost no school is looking to spend more money than they have to.  Iowa was pretty much forced into it by a lawsuit, and it likely could take the same thing to do so at other P4 schools.  

Further complicating things are all of the crazy factors in college sports today: realignments, NIL, etc.  

I would imagine few P4 schools are going to be adding more athletic programs until stuff gets a bit more settled.

[Hammerlock3]

Cael, and most college coaches, don't do much for the sport as a whole thats not associated with elevating their program.

[manatree]

2 hours ago, AnklePicker said:

Why wouldn't a program like Penn State jump on board with starting a girl's program?  It doesn't seem like them to not have the foresight or resources to develop a team.  Iowa has a major advantage here going forward as they've basically monopolized most of the high end talent that's available.  

The only reason Iowa has a women's program is because they got sued for cutting other women's sports. It was a purely financial decision just as it is for colleges who have not added women's wrestling.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

23 minutes ago, manatree said:

The only reason Iowa has a women's program is because they got sued for cutting other women's sports. It was a purely financial decision just as it is for colleges who have not added women's wrestling.

Yes, just like I said, and PSU has some of the worst discrepancies between male and female athletes in the B10.  Seems a good lawsuit would be able to force their hand without much difficulty.

[jchapman]

5 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

Yes, just like I said, and PSU has some of the worst discrepancies between male and female athletes in the B10.  Seems a good lawsuit would be able to force their hand without much difficulty.

PSU is working their way down the Title IX violation priority list, they will get to participation discrepancies sometime next decade.

[manatree]

7 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

Yes, just like I said, and PSU has some of the worst discrepancies between male and female athletes in the B10.  Seems a good lawsuit would be able to force their hand without much difficulty.

The only B1G school that sponsors more women's sports than Penn State is Ohio State. 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

22 minutes ago, manatree said:

The only B1G school that sponsors more women's sports than Penn State is Ohio State. 

True, but they look very very bad otherwise.

https://www.statecollege.com/articles/psu-sports/how-penn-state-and-its-number-of-womens-athletes-adds-up/

This is shameful.  You think they win a lawsuit?

Rebuttal?  

WHERE PENN STATE STANDS

So, how does Penn State — led by VP for intercollegiate athletics Sandy Barbour — fare in total participation by sex, when benchmarked with the other 13 universities in the Big Ten? Not great.

Here is an overview of where PSU stands in the Big Ten Conference regarding athlete participation by sex, based on each school’s 2019-20 EADA report:

Number of women’s teams: Penn State has 15, second in the Big Ten (Ohio State has 19).

Men’s vs. women’s teams: In the Big Ten, only Penn State has more men’s teams (16) than women’s teams.

Number of female participants, counting male practice players as women: Penn State is ninth in the Big Ten, with 426. The leader board: Michigan (573), Ohio State (555), Wisconsin (465), Minnesota (452), Rutgers (443), Michigan State (438), Iowa (432) and Nebraska (430).

Number of female participants, NOT counting male practice players: Penn State is tied for ninth in the Big Ten, with 398. The leader board: Michigan (530), Ohio State (522), Wisconsin (465), Michigan State (438), Minnesota (435), Iowa (417), Rutgers (414), Nebraska (405) and then both Penn State and Indiana, at 398.

Discrepancy between male athletes and women athletes, counting male practice players: Penn State ranks 14th in the Big Ten, with the widest gap between male participants and female participants, at 114 — 540 male and 426 female (28 of whom are male practice players).

Discrepancy between male athletes and female athletes, NOT counting male practice players: Penn State ranks 14th in the Big Ten, with the widest gap between male participants and female participants, at 142 — 540 male and 398 female.

Discrepancy between the proportion of women undergraduate students and the proportion of women athletes (per #1 of the three-pronged Title IX compliance test), NOT counting male practice players — which I think is the fairest metric, because I do not believe the math that 1 male practice player = 1 female undergraduate student: Penn State ranks 14th in the Big Ten, with a 5.9% difference between female athletes (41.2%) and female students on the Penn State University Park campus (47.1%). Michigan ranks a close 13th, at a 4.8% difference.

Even when Penn State counted male practice players as females, it still has the biggest gap in the Big Ten (3.1%) between female students and female athletes (28 of whom were really men).

 

Edited October 2 by Interviewed_at_Weehawken

[Camel Wrestling Fan]

Colleges traditionally found the easiest and most cost effective way to regain compliance is to drop mens teams. This has caused D1 wrestling to shink dramatically over the years. With more money than ever needed to stay competitive in football, I see more schools dropping men's teams than adding women's teams. Hopefully sanity returns at some point and we see more athletic teams to add to the college experience, which was suppose to be the point.

[Bigbrog]

1 hour ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

True, but they look very very bad otherwise.

https://www.statecollege.com/articles/psu-sports/how-penn-state-and-its-number-of-womens-athletes-adds-up/

This is shameful.  You think they win a lawsuit?

Rebuttal?  

WHERE PENN STATE STANDS

So, how does Penn State — led by VP for intercollegiate athletics Sandy Barbour — fare in total participation by sex, when benchmarked with the other 13 universities in the Big Ten? Not great.

Here is an overview of where PSU stands in the Big Ten Conference regarding athlete participation by sex, based on each school’s 2019-20 EADA report:

Number of women’s teams: Penn State has 15, second in the Big Ten (Ohio State has 19).

Men’s vs. women’s teams: In the Big Ten, only Penn State has more men’s teams (16) than women’s teams.

Number of female participants, counting male practice players as women: Penn State is ninth in the Big Ten, with 426. The leader board: Michigan (573), Ohio State (555), Wisconsin (465), Minnesota (452), Rutgers (443), Michigan State (438), Iowa (432) and Nebraska (430).

Number of female participants, NOT counting male practice players: Penn State is tied for ninth in the Big Ten, with 398. The leader board: Michigan (530), Ohio State (522), Wisconsin (465), Michigan State (438), Minnesota (435), Iowa (417), Rutgers (414), Nebraska (405) and then both Penn State and Indiana, at 398.

Discrepancy between male athletes and women athletes, counting male practice players: Penn State ranks 14th in the Big Ten, with the widest gap between male participants and female participants, at 114 — 540 male and 426 female (28 of whom are male practice players).

Discrepancy between male athletes and female athletes, NOT counting male practice players: Penn State ranks 14th in the Big Ten, with the widest gap between male participants and female participants, at 142 — 540 male and 398 female.

Discrepancy between the proportion of women undergraduate students and the proportion of women athletes (per #1 of the three-pronged Title IX compliance test), NOT counting male practice players — which I think is the fairest metric, because I do not believe the math that 1 male practice player = 1 female undergraduate student: Penn State ranks 14th in the Big Ten, with a 5.9% difference between female athletes (41.2%) and female students on the Penn State University Park campus (47.1%). Michigan ranks a close 13th, at a 4.8% difference.

Even when Penn State counted male practice players as females, it still has the biggest gap in the Big Ten (3.1%) between female students and female athletes (28 of whom were really men).

 

This is interesting information...wonder what some of the reasons/root causes are that the participation numbers are so low in comparison to the number of female sports they offer.  What if for reasons other than in the control of Penn St., females just aren't signing up to play sports at Penn St.?

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

17 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

This is interesting information...wonder what some of the reasons/root causes are that the participation numbers are so low in comparison to the number of female sports they offer.  What if for reasons other than in the control of Penn St., females just aren't signing up to play sports at Penn St.?

This is possible, but I don't think it matters when it comes to legality.

[WrestlingRash]

try posting this question here: https://intermatwrestle.com/forums/forum/8-womens-wrestling/

 

you might get better info. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

48 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

This is possible, but I don't think it matters when it comes to legality.

What is it you think PSU is doing illegal?

[manatree]

2 hours ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

This is possible, but I don't think it matters when it comes to legality.

 

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

What is it you think PSU is doing illegal?

First off, Title IX compliance has nothing to do with comparisons to other schools. Secondly, Weehawken is cherry picking around just one of the three points of Title IX compliance and he does not understand the one he is focusing on.

There are three points of Title IX compliance.

1. Showing that the number of female athletes is in proportion to overall female enrollment

2. Demonstrating a history of expanding opportunities for women

3. Proving that a school is meeting the athletic interests and abilities of its female students

 

So, let's look at the three points.

1. Showing that the number of female athletes is in proportion to overall female enrollment

According to the linked article, Penn State has a 5.9% difference between female athletes (41.2%) and female students on the Penn State University Park campus (47.1%). If you count the male practice players on women's teams, which is the way they are tallied for Title IX, the difference would be slightly less. Either way, that is well within the definition of "in proportion to." Proportional and equal are not synonymous. For example, as a Penn State fan, I could say that Carter Starocci's head is proportional to the rest of his body. That does not mean that I actually think that his head is of equal size as the rest of his body.

2. Demonstrating a history of expanding opportunities for women

Since my time at Penn State, I believe that they have added three new varsity sports. Women's Soccer (1994), Women's Ice Hockey (2012), & Men's Ice Hockey (2012). I have heard that the women's club soccer team filed a Title IX complaint in 1980 when PSU denied their request to become a varsity program. I do not know what the outcome of that complaint was, but I doubt that the Feds would let PSU wait that long if they were found to be in violation of Title IX. While Pegula paid for the new ice arena and endowed the men's program, the PSU Athletics is paying for the women's hockey program.

3. Proving that a school is meeting the athletic interests and abilities of its female students

I haven't a clue how one goes about proving or disproving this point. 

 

 

Edited October 2 by manatree

[AnklePicker]

Somehow I forgot that it’s all about the money. I should have known.  If any coaches do truly care about the health of the sport, and I’m not overly optimistic, they should help start a women’s team.  If girls wrestling were a fledgling thing at the HS level I might understand, but it’s not and when given the opportunity it’s booming. Seems like a no brainer. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

2 minutes ago, manatree said:

 

First off, Title IX compliance has nothing to do with comparisons to other schools. Secondly, Weehawken is cherry picking around just one of the three point of Title IX compliance and he does not understand the one he is focusing on.

There are three points of Title IX compliance, and I believe that a university only has to prove that they are meeting one of the three, not all of the three.

1. Showing that the number of female athletes is in proportion to overall female enrollment

2. Demonstrating a history of expanding opportunities for women

3. Proving that a school is meeting the athletic interests and abilities of its female students

 

So, let's look at the three points.

1. Showing that the number of female athletes is in proportion to overall female enrollment

According to the linked article, Penn State has a 5.9% difference between female athletes (41.2%) and female students on the Penn State University Park campus (47.1%). If you count the male practice players on women's teams, which is the way they are tallied for Title IX, the difference would be slightly less. Either way, that is well within the definition of "in proportion to." Proportional and equal are not synonymous. For example, as a Penn State fan, I could say that Carter Starocci's head is proportional to the rest of his body. That does not mean that I actually think that his head is of equal size as the rest of his body.

2. Demonstrating a history of expanding opportunities for women

Since my time at Penn State, I believe that they have added three new varsity sports. Women's Soccer (1994), Women's Ice Hockey (2012), & Men's Ice Hockey (2012). I have heard that the women's club soccer team filed a Title IX complaint in 1980 when PSU denied their request to become a varsity program. I do not know what the outcome of that complaint was, but I doubt that the Feds would let PSU wait that long if they were found to be in violation of Title IX. While Pegula paid for the new ice arena and endowed the men's program, the PSU Athletics is paying for the women's hockey program.

3. Proving that a school is meeting the athletic interests and abilities of its female students

I haven't a clue how one goes about proving or disproving this point.

 

 

Using just the analysis from the article, PSU meets point 2. They stated that there were 10 women's athletes added in 6 years.

What I am especially curious about is the male practice partners for female athletes.

• Why do they exist?
  • Are they there because they cannot find enough female practice partners?
  • Are they there because they need tougher practice partners than a female who would be that far down the roster?
• Are these spots held for men, or are women allowed to occupy them?
  • If women are allowed to occupy them, why don't they?
  • Are coaches complicit by soft blackballing women from the spots?

[manatree]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Using just the analysis from the article, PSU meets point 2. They stated that there were 10 women's athletes added in 6 years.

What I am especially curious about is the male practice partners for female athletes.

• Why do they exist?
  • Are they there because they cannot find enough female practice partners?
  • Are they there because they need tougher practice partners than a female who would be that far down the roster?
• Are these spots held for men, or are women allowed to occupy them?
  • If women are allowed to occupy them, why don't they?
  • Are coaches complicit by soft blackballing women from the spots?

 

They use men because they are physically stronger and faster and provide a higher level of competition than any other women on campus. Purely anecdotal, but back in the 90s, I knew a guy who was a practice player for the PSU Women's basketball team. He was recruited by several DIII schools, but he wanted to go to a big school, so he came to Penn State. According to him, the rest of the practice players were the same level as him. If the male practice players were to go 100% in scrimmages, they would dominate on a regular basis. There was one guy who was not DIII talent, but he was 6'6" and while he couldn't shoot to save his life, he made for a great defensive practice player to match up against the scholarship 4s & 5s.

Back then, the coach at the time didn't even use the full 15 scholarships allowed because they had trouble keeping that many players happy with playing time. 

One thing that I thought was interesting was that the practice players had to follow the same eligibility rules as the actual players. Academic progress, study halls, random drug tests, etc. I don't remember if that was an NCAA rule or a PSU policy.

 

[billyhoyle]

10 hours ago, AnklePicker said:

Somehow I forgot that it’s all about the money. I should have known.  If any coaches do truly care about the health of the sport, and I’m not overly optimistic, they should help start a women’s team.  If girls wrestling were a fledgling thing at the HS level I might understand, but it’s not and when given the opportunity it’s booming. Seems like a no brainer. 

If the coaches cared about the health of the sport, there would be a national dual championship. They care about winning, that's it. 

[AnklePicker]

4 hours ago, billyhoyle said:

If the coaches cared about the health of the sport, there would be a national dual championship. They care about winning, that's it. 

Well it’s not fair to lump all coaches in that category. Some coaches have been big proponents for national duals. 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

15 hours ago, manatree said:

 

First off, Title IX compliance has nothing to do with comparisons to other schools. Secondly, Weehawken is cherry picking around just one of the three points of Title IX compliance and he does not understand the one he is focusing on.

 

 

 

I didn't cherry pick anything.  The article is from "statecollege.com" and I even included the point that you brought up.

[JeanGuy]

8 hours ago, billyhoyle said:

If the coaches cared about the health of the sport, there would be a national dual championship. They care about winning, that's it. 

If the people in charge of the sport don't have an interest in a National Dual Championship, why is it needed? The Stewards of the sport are saying it isn't a big deal or necessary.

They have always decided the team championship based upon the individual championships and most seem to be satisfied with that fact.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

19 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

What is it you think PSU is doing illegal?

They are not complying with Title IX.