cheer isn't a sport

[']['ear]

Well, Lolli wants cheer to be varsity. Club ain't good enough, though there are sports that have been club sports for generations. Doubtlessly inferior sports, those. Not like cheer.

[littlelolligagged]

What the fuck is this "club" shit you keep running on about?

Intramurals? Pick-up games? Playing frisbee on any patch of green space? The way colleges allow the people who suck to play a "sport" while not dragging down the actual teams?

Let them organize into a bloody league if they want to already? Your "varsity" comparison is pretty meaningless to me.

If a sport is competing against another university/college, give them the exact same funding as any other team. If they are just playing shirts vs. skins in the middle of the campus, screw them - bring your own equipment.

[']['ear]

You're not familiar with club sports? Most universities have more than actual varsity sports, and since they get no Uni money they are not constrained by Title IX. They have organizations and play other universities in organized competitions. Examples of club sports when I was in college:

Ultimate (m and w)
Rugby (m and w)
Lacrosse (m and w)
Hockey (m)
Many others, including fencing and a couple of others you'd be familiar with. They had university club status, but received no funding. They all ran tryouts. Some were softball, and some were more selective than many varsity teams. The mens and womens ultimate teams were among the best in the country, and both ran A and B teams, while still cutting people. In fact, it wasn't unusual for athletes to be pulled from varsity teams, including track, football, basketball and myself for soccer). So quality isn't capped at all. I know the hockey team couldn't play real varsity teams except in friendlies (varsity is NCAA, clubs are just a uni-sanctioned club), but they would play several varsity teams each year (usually getting their asses kicked, since they were only from a small college playing bigger universities.) Mostly they played club teams from other colleges.

The point is that one can have the competitive sports experience in college without being varsity. I'm kind of surprised you don't know the distinction, and plenty surprised that you would act all militant without knowing the options.


edit: NOT intramurals. Clubs train 5 times per week and played exclusively other schools, also had some special access to facilities. At my school intramurals had two levels: soft core was generally dorm floors or other associations, hard core was collectives of more advanced athletes. In my time I won two hardcore broomball, one hardcore soccer and a hardcore and softcore ultimate IM championship. No softcore team was allowed more than two varsity or club athletes for that sport on the same team. Hardcore teams were not numerous, so usually had several varsity/club athletes (obviously no club/varsity for broomball, which is like hockey with no skates, a ball instead of a puck, and a paddle instead of a hockey stick.) Intramurals are just considered activities. Clubs generally had the respect levels of varsities. At my school, with some of the best ultimate programs in the country, we would get as many spectators as even football, when we happened to host a tournament. I played in front of FAR more fans in ultimate than I did soccer. Our soccer team was mediocre, our ultimate team a yearly contender at the national tournament.

[littlelolligagged]

I'm not being militant.

My objection is to them saying that competitive cheer isn't a sport, or that it is somehow less worthy than rugby or volleyball.

It's not gymnastics, or dance, or anything else.

And plenty of colleges have all those "club" sports as regular sports teams. What you are describing sounds like an excuse for a college not to fund teams, nothing more.

[']['ear]

See my edit.

Yes, that's exactly what it is. Colleges have no obligation to fund ANY sports, and those sports they don't fund can be clubs. They are educational institutions, after all, not some sort of sports service.

Cheer is ideal for club, since they only need some gym space and mats. As clubs we could easily get facilities space when I was an undergrad, and I know that was true at UW and Berkeley. We played gym ultimate bi-weekly all winter (key in a very northern state). I'm sure cheer could get space year round as well. And what else do they need? You need some sort of special recognition?

And I beg to differ. Cheer is clearly a form of gymnastics. There's not really much justification for it being its own, distinct sport. What else would you call it? Doesn't every cheer player of any quality have a strong gymnastics background? What the hell ELSE could you call it? If seen the competitions: it's cooperative gymnastics rather than solo gymnastics. Like synchronized vs. solo diving. They sure didn't make synchronized diving a separate sport!

[littlelolligagged]

For competitive cheer they'd need a spring floor, not just some mats Dangerous, otherwise. Presumably they could actually share that with the gymnastics team if the school has one - but then it would be reasonable to expect them to help fund maintaining that equipment.

At our gym cheer is separate from gymnastics (as in completely different coaches and unshared space/equipment) - and plenty of the cheer people have never taken a gymnastics class before - they learn the tumbling that they need. When I see older kids coming in who moved from another gym that can be painfully obvious. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that is where a lot of the injuries from competitive cheer come from - not learning the more basic things first and becoming more limber gradually.

Of course, it's also exceptionally dangerous in its own right - the college should want to maintain some control so they can get the people on the team signing waivers saying the college won't be held liable for death and serious injury occurring on the campus as a result of this activity.

[']['ear]

Perchance is your child doing cheer? I smell a hefty bias.

And I'm very skeptical that the majority don't have gymnastics backgrounds. It's pretty obvious that anybody with some serious gymnastics skills would kick the crap out of anybody without.

Also, if cheer is expensive and requires special facilities, all the more reason for universities NOT to support cheer. {a special floor? Are you kidding me?!?! How much is that, a hundred thousand?) Universities are under serious pressure to save money, and they're not looking for expensive sports. I'd guess the Uni in question already has this gear for gymnastics.

[littlelolligagged]

No, my child is not doing cheer. My background is music, theater, and dance. We've already been over this once, and I'd appreciate it if you would quit trying to drag my daughter into this to make it seem like this is personal to me some how and I therefore can't have a rational point of view. The only bias here is yours.

Some may have some gymnastics in their past, while some may not. They learn the tumbling they need. Hopefully they will actually learn it in safe environment from an experienced coach - and that experienced coach should be around to correct things before they have a chance to become habit. Even at a college level there could still be the sort of sloppiness that could lead to paralysis or death if not quickly caught and stopped. In that regard it is like gymnastics more than any other sport - but unlike gymnastics you are often relying not only on your own abilities but also trusting that someone else will also do what they are meant to correctly.

[']['ear]

Sorry, I must have missed your previous answer.

And no, it's not my bias. I see a fair amount of agreement that cheer is an actual sport, but I don't see people agreeing that it should be a varsity sport and displace something more conventional like volleyball. I posited a personal bias on your part because your strident advocacy actually seems irrational.

As for the danger, what does relying on another rather than yourself have to do with it? That's the nature of team vs. solo sports. Heck, I think it should be called "team gymnastics" and added as an event if it weren't for the fact that a cumulative score is already tallied for squads to award the best overall. But it could still be fit into that rubric.

[littlelolligagged]

I don't think it should replace volleyball, I think it should be available in addition to volleyball without anyone saying that Title IX prevents them from having both. I think Title IX only provides the appearance of equality in college athletics.

[']['ear]

Then maybe you need to articulate your gripe better. Because certainly I think that you're on about cheer, and I'm guessing most of the other forum members thought the same thing. You don't like Title IX? Why? How does it only provide the appearance? What would the real thing be? Why the hell have cheer in the title that isn't what you wanted to be discussed?