T1B

Steve Patterson was on an Austin Radio station discussing the possibility of the series being moved from home and home to two neutral site games at Azteca in Mexico City.

Why would either season ticket holder base go for that? Take away a marquee home game for a game in Mexico City were most of the fans that traveled there would require security 24/7.

Heck yeah. At Texas it is no longer "we are the Joneses", but "we are the Jerry Joneses" What a stupid idea.

They could just show up at a US v Mexico MNT match at the LA Coliseum. It'll be a sea of green.

If Mexico was kicking out hot recruits, I'd say "Well played, good Sirs."

I don't think that's the case.

schmick wrote:USC runs the Coliseum now, soccer is a ucla sport, USC doesnt even bother with a team

The US National team has not played at the Coliseum, vs anyone, in over 8 years. They play at the home deport center or the rose bowl, not the Coliseum.




As for playing in mexico, I see no reason why USC would want to cater or pander to UC students who are getting instate tuition even if they are illegally in the country and deserve nothing but handcuffs, a tattoo on their forearm and a bus ride back across the border

Marcus Schmick,
No surprise you don't recognize the women's program.
Shocker.
BTW, breaking news out of Carson. Home Depot didn't reup for the naming rights to Stub Hub Center.
If'n SC found a 5 star recruit in Jalisco, you'd be singing a different mariachi tune, hombre.

Title IX and recent claims against USC also likely play a roll there Schmick.

schmick wrote:Fuck title ix, USC is a private school, title ix can suck a dick

Being public or private has jack squat to do with it. If the school takes a single dollar from the Feds then they have to comply. Plenty of research projects are funded in part by the Feds.

So there is no try to comply.

SunCoastSooner wrote:Steve Patterson was on an Austin Radio station discussing the possibility of the series being moved from home and home to two neutral site games at Azteca in Mexico City.

What the fuck does that even mean? Was he discussing it or advocating it?

Godforbid Schmuck ever has a daughter or grand daughter that wants to play sports.

schmick wrote:Fuck title ix, USC is a private school, title ix can suck a dick



USC has no softball, no gymnastics, no field hockey. Soccer just started recently. The only odd sports they made to try to comply with title ix is women's rowing and women's beach volleyball

I knew you weren't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I figured you at least knew how to use google.

www.usctrojans.com

Put your mouse over the "Sports" and you see that USC sponsors the following women's sports teams:

Basketball
Cross Country
Golf
Lacrosse
Rowing
Sand Volleyball
Soccer
Swimming & Diving
Tennis
Track & Field
Volleyball
Water Polo

Laxplayer wrote:Godforbid Schmuck ever has a daughter or grand daughter that wants to play sports.

And with Title IX, said daughter could scissorkick pops in the nuts, err, cuntpunch him with panache.

schmick wrote: The lacrosse team was just added in 2013, I wasnt even aware of it. Odd that they would add lacrosse when lacrosse is not a varsity sport for girls or boys in California and not add softball when Southern California has the best softball talent in the world

One of the issues with the implementation of Title IX. Sometimes schools will add a program that many of their geographical neighbors don't participate in just to raise the travel costs. This then helps even out male vs female expenditures.

Wisky should start up a women's surfing team, so we could bring back baseball.

And there is the other main issue. Schools dropping men's programs instead of adding programs for females.

Considering the fact that Wisconsin is one of the few major college athletic departments that is totally self-funded, I can't argue with the decisions they made. Better to get rid of a sport or two than ask the tax-payers to foot the bill.

schmick wrote:The lacrosse team was just added in 2013, I wasnt even aware of it. Odd that they would add lacrosse when lacrosse is not a varsity sport for girls or boys in California

Anecdotal information, perhaps, but Will Yeatman played lacrosse in high school in California, as did all of his siblings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Yeatman So somebody in California has to be sponsoring it as a varsity sport.

Left Seater wrote:One of the issues with the implementation of Title IX. Sometimes schools will add a program that many of their geographical neighbors don't participate in just to raise the travel costs. This then helps even out male vs female expenditures.

Another issue that particularly impacts upon lacrosse with Title IX is that most college lacrosse programs carry relatively large rosters, generally around 50 players to a team. For my money, only football has larger rosters, although it might be possible that certain schools might field larger rosters for their track and field teams.

Interesting stat: only 14 schools carry both Division 1-A football and Division I men's lacrosse. That includes the three service academies, whose men's programs aren't terribly adversely affected by Title IX. By contrast, if my count is correct there are 26 schools that sponsor Division 1-A football and Division I women's lacrosse. http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/lacrosse-w ... crosse-rpi I think there might be an incentive for many of those schools to carry women's lacrosse as something of a counterweight to the number of men playing football.

Travel for USC in women's lacrosse doesn't appear to be as onerous as one would think. Fresno State, San Diego State, Cal, Stanford and Oregon all field women's lacrosse programs.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:... Oregon all field women's lacrosse programs.

RACK the return of Baseball.

I meant that I think women's lacrosse was put in to bring back baseball to Eugene. They took a couple of decades or so off.

Michigan State beat #1 Oregon State a few days ago. Hopefully they can get back to the CWS...to promptly get knocked out of the first round.

schmick wrote:I raced motocross in High School, does that mean that my high school had a motocross racing team?
My buddies kid played lacrosse in HS up in No Cal, it was a club sport and had students from 2 or 3 different schools.

Some relevant points from Yeatman's Wikipedia page:

In lacrosse he was team captain in his senior year, was a four-time all-conference and all-city selection, and was named to the US Lacrosse All-American team as a junior and senior and to the Under Armour All-American team as a senior.[2] Yeatman is Rancho Bernardo's leading career and season points leader in lacrosse. He was also the 2005-2006 Rancho Bernardo High School Male Athlete of the Year.

. . .

Following high school, Yeatman attended the University of Notre Dame, where he played both lacrosse (named All American) and football.

I suppose I could be wrong about this, but that definitely doesn't sound like he was playing lacrosse as a club level sport at the high school level.

And I suppose I could also be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure that your motocross example was a classic red herring. I don't know of a single high school that has a varsity motocross team. Obviously there are any number of high schools that play lacrosse as a varsity level sport.