The Time is Nigh
For two years I've offered my opinions about this sport. I've been honest, consistent, and willing to admit when I've been wrong. I've never censored your comments. I've said uncomfortable things that have needed to be said and I've made enemies of many people who wish no one would challenge their actions or their opinions. I've written all of my posts with a smile on my face because, let's face it, this is just a blog.
Now, as promised, my time is up. Those of you who have your own opinions about women's lightweight rowing - the floor is yours.
But remember, it's just a game.
FITD - R.I.P.
[Update: New Georgetown coach: "We're going to be just like Bucknell." Has Bucknell doomed women's lightweight rowing for the sake of a coach's resume?]
128 comments:
Glory be to the father, the son an the holy JW Burke. Is she back???? Could we be so lucky? Lwt rowing almost disappeared this summer. But, thankfully, the savior has returned. Don't need to watch Jerry Springer anymore.
Thank you for coming back! I was on the fence about the Bucknell thing until Georgetown happened! It is like I have found religion. How terrible for the girls in that program and the lw coach who btw had started contacted talented "light" rowers before he left. What is he going to tell them now? Go to Wisco, Dayton, UCF? Better yet Stetson who is STARTING a lw program not burying one. How sad. Dark days.
JW!!!! REALLY!!!! CAN IT BE????? Speak! Say something! Give us a sign! Tell us what to do! Are you really alive??? Glory Be! Are you hiding behind the curtain? Waiting for us to yell "encore"? You can't go on without the attention, eh?
Encore Encore
Encore! Encore!
Unfortunately, coaching changes are risk points for every lw women's program. The optimal time to manage this is before a new coach is hired. Many coaching prospects will have come from programs that never fielded a lw women's boat.
Why is Georgetown dropping their accomplished lw women's program?
Are they dropping the men's lw program?
the GT lightweight coach isn't leaving. they just got a new head coach for women and coach o'connor will still be there. the new guy wants one big team. he says he'll still row lightweight boats, but the girls on the team don't know what that means. will they have a full schedule like last year? will they row against the best light boats? will he require them to row openweight? will this affect them at Sprints and IRA's?
Again what would happen if Georgetown showed up at the IRA next year and won it, using the same "method" that Bucknell use? And then the next year Lehigh showed up and won it. What would happen? Would lightweight rowing disappear? Would the AD's from Princeton, Wisconsin, Radcliffe, MIT and Stanford all of a sudden say "scrap the lwt program. We obviously don't need it to go fast at the IRA!"?? I'm interested to hear an answer.
Copied from my reply to this very same question on another thread.
"Would the AD's from Princeton, Wisconsin, Radcliffe, MIT and Stanford all of a sudden say "scrap the lwt program! "
Once again, you are attempting to win one debate by creating another. Many of these programs have solid alumni connections who would fight or otherwise help support the teams. However other schools that do not have said alumni connections would just never create a team. The question isn't about maintaining the status quo, it is about expanding it. What impetus does Bucknell have to create a lightweight team now? For that matter, how about Alabama? And frankly, who's to say that another team won't follow Georgetown's path? Take a look at Rutgers on the men's side. Lots of alumni and multiple Olympians (I believe the most for the entire school). What has all this done for them? Nada.
I think Bucknell has much more impetus to continue supporting the lwt effort now more than ever. Depends on how you look at it. As for another crew, like Alabama as you point out, it is very dependent on the coach. But, more importantly... I think someone like Humbolt, or Fairfield, or someone else, who doesn't have many resources, might put a lwt boat together for the IRA, thinking hey, Bucknell did it, maybe we will try it, and maybe that crew will do well. And maybe the result is that more lwt high school students will now have Humbolt or Fairfield on their radar. Now, more lwts apply and go to those schools, enabling them to have a full lwt boat or two, maybe even for the entire year, and there you go.... a new lwt program. If having separate coaches and equipment is a prerequisite for lwt boats to sprout up, it isn't going to happen. Crews need to see that a lwt boat is not an impossible thing to do. Having an unknown program win the IRA is just the thing that can help that along. Although I doubt that is/was Bucknell's goal, I believe their finish is going to have a positive impact on lwt rowing, regardless of what is going on at Georgetown. I think the jury is still out as to how Gtown will change, if at all.
http://rowinggirl.com/Home_Page.html
Thought this site needed some publicity. At least it is kept up-to date by someone who cares
This isn't a game Julie, come back!
What should I think about Georgetown?
How have the summer races been for lightweights (USRowing nationals, Henley, etc.)?
Who are the teams to watch for this year?
Where does Wisco go from here? can they make a comeback?
Are there any other new lightweight teams? Setson?
Is Tulsa going to try to bring back their injured team from last year?
Any other coaching changes besides Dayton and Georgetown?
So many questions!
Come Back!
Yes, Please come back!
let's see how GTW'N ltws develop in07-08. will the new HC promote or dismantle the work of the beastmaster?
Letter from America
November 1998
(AND STILL TIMELY!!)
My sympathies for lightweight rowing are well-enough known. I would not call this a bias towards lightweights, merely a fondness for what is essentially the common thread in my feelings for the sport: the opportunity for everyone to participate in our great sport.
Lightweights can certainly compete with heavyweights. Individual lightweights can win seats in heavyweight crews, and lightweight crews can defeat heavyweight counterparts. There is certainly a legitimate argument for saying that the little people should suck it up and play with the big boys. I think that argument misses the point.
Lightweights often get lost in the heavyweight world. Many potential rowers are turned away before they ever get going because of their size. In the wrong conditions, lightweight crews are more likely to get smooshed. There is something nice about having a level playing field. Lightweight rowing has a different character to heavyweight rowing as a result of these two factors: because lightweights are smaller, they have to be craftier with their oars and make the most of what they have, and because they are all roughly the same size, they can row differently both technically and mentally. Lightweight rowing has an entirely different mental outlook than heavyweight rowing, something more spontaneous and, in many ways, fun.
There are also far more small athletic people than there are large athletic people. Having a separate lightweight category opens the sport up to the smaller people. And, as my regular readers will know, the more people who row the better for the sport. Some lightweights will indeed push their way into heavy crews, and some lightweight crews will challenge heavyweight crews. In programs I have known which have completely separate heavyweight and lightweight squads, rather than weakening the program by diluting talent they foster a greater amount of talent to the program through increased numbers.
With that introduction, I must add that men’s lightweight rowing, although still the often-neglected younger brother to men’s heavyweight rowing, is nevertheless in pretty reasonable health. Women’s lightweight rowing, the focus of this month’s letter, lives the life of an abandoned orphan. Indeed, rowing is often simply classified as "heavyweight," "lightweight," and "women." I do not think this is a slight of women’s rowing that men’s rowing does not have "men’s" appended in front of its categories. What this tells me instead is that people see no need to put the possessive "men’s" before the two categories, because it is obvious that those two categories refer to men, since the women have but one category.
Where are all the lightweight women? Merely looking around, just about anyone could surmise that there are more 135-pound athletically inclined women than there are 165-pound athletically inclined women. Seems to me like a natural market for the sport. So why aren’t they rowing?
Well, women’s lightweight rowing was born fourth of the four categories, so it is only natural that it would take some time to develop. What scares me, however, is that the trend to expand the sport has gone into reverse in this one area. The international culprit is FISA, which has made some inexplicable decisions in recent years. In the United States, we will have the NCAA to blame (surprise, surprise!).
First, briefly, let me discuss FISA. In recent years, FISA has become a bit loopy in its decisions. Historically (at least in recent history), the organization has supported any and all ways to expand rowing into countries which do not traditionally row. Many of these countries which have received support from FISA have been in Asia and Latin America, which have relatively smaller men and women. As a result, FISA’s initiative in those countries has helped lightweight rowing more than heavyweight. The chances of, say, Japan challenging in the heavy eight are slim, but increase in the lightweight eight. Rowing has actually become quite popular in Japan. Men’s lightweight events at worlds are now generally fully-subscribed.
The lag in women’s athletics has played out detrimentally in rowing. Not only have women trailed men historically, but those countries which encouraged women’s athletics often placed a premium on large athletic women, purpose-built, and not simply athletic women in general. This has resulted in the under-subscription of lightweight women’s events internationally. FISA has spent much of the 1990s consolidating its events, in part because of pressure from the International Olympic Committee (I suppose that will have to be a future topic). Since FISA never gave women’s lightweight rowing a chance to grow to maturity, consolidation at this point has meant scrapping most events for lightweight women. All sweep events have been axed, on the logic that no country could field enough lightweight women to justify having both a sweep and a sculling squad, and that forcing all lightweight women to scull would result in stronger competition. All the decision is doing, though, is limiting opportunities for women’s lightweight rowing and stifling growth in that area which had been imminent. Just when FISA should have been pushing to have as an ultimate goal a women’s lightweight eight event to match the big crew in the other three categories (no, we aren’t ready for such an event yet, but it should be an objective), we now see fewer lightweight women on the international stage.
Messages like this one from FISA trickle down to each country in different ways. In the United States, women’s lightweight rowing had been a growth area. Just when it looked like it might take off, it now finds itself in danger. Enter the evil NCAA, which has recently taken over collegiate women’s rowing.
One of the many problems with the NCAA take-over of women's rowing is its refusal to recognize the potential of women's lightweight rowing. There are far more athletically-minded lightweight women than heavyweight. Since most rowers come to the sport in college anyway, that means there should be a natural pool of women who can be attracted into the sport who otherwise might be scared away. Indeed, this past Summer I was looking through some old scrapbooks in Harvard’s Newell Boathouse. Reading newspaper clippings from the 1970s, when women’s rowing first properly took off at American colleges, many lightweight women flocked to the new opportunity. The top women’s programs raced two or more women’s lightweight eights in addition to the heavyweight squads.
Something happened in the 1980s - I have no idea what. But by the time I got to college, most places had scrapped their women’s lightweight programs. When I was an undergrad, the only Div I women's lightweight program in the country was at Radcliffe. Unable to find much in the way of competition, Radcliffe’s lightweight squad itself became subsumed into the heavyweight program in a rather bizarre fashion which is not worth going into here. But, come springtime, Radcliffe alone of the Div I programs turned out lightweight crews.
Rather predictably, Radcliffe has won the national championship every year since I can remember, with two exceptions: once in the late 1980s in dreadful weather conditions, and then not again until this past season, when Villanova (Div III in rowing, but races a mostly Div I schedule) came away with an upset win. Indeed, Villanova’s win in the pre-season at San Diego a few years ago in and of itself was a shock, since no one had challenged Radcliffe’s sovereignty in so long. Indeed, I clearly remember one year when I was an undergrad, when Radcliffe went to the nationals and captured first, second, and third, with fourth place about thirty seconds back of third.
This predicament was not one Radcliffe was particularly happy with. For many years, Radcliffe has taken the lead in encouraging women’s lightweight rowing. In recent years, this has resulted in several places finally adding the weight class. Sorry as I was to see Radcliffe lose this year, I am glad that several programs are finally offering competitive programs, with more on the way. But the NCAA wants to stifle this new trend.
That said, I do not have any hang-ups about lightweights rowing in heavy crews. I myself usually weight-adjust erg tests - even if I don't have time to do all the calculations, I still take weight into account and let everyone know I am taking weight into account. I chose not to have any lightweight crews at William and Mary last year, in fact, for men or women, simply because it made more sense at this point in the development of our program not to. We did not have a sufficiently large number of people on the squad to make the split practical. This year, my men have raced the Fall in a split squad and are likely to remain split in the Spring (although I am reserving a final decision until the Spring so I can decide what will result in the most competitive crews overall). By 1999-2000, this team should be able to have the numbers and talent to fully support lightweight rowing.
This underlines the simple fact that although combined programs were officially "openweight" not "heavyweight," lightweight women were not making the grade. The big programs which could have supported separate lightweight squads as Radcliffe did, were not so much lumping lightweights into heavyweight programs as they were excluding lightweights from the sport.
It also underscores why women’s lightweight rowing did not die out at the Div III level. Programs such as Villanova could attract only a certain number of women, and if they happened to be smaller in size it made sense to push for lightweight events. Villanova’s lightweights remain to this day faster than its heavyweights.
Besides the emergence of reasonably strong women’s lightweight crews at the Div II and Div III levels, several Div I programs have added separate lightweight squads, notably Princeton, Wisconsin, Georgetown, and UVA (more on UVA in a minute). This has not hindered the success of the heavyweight squads, it has opened up more athletic opportunities to women, and more opportunities for people to come to this sport who otherwise might not be here.
Into this climate came the NCAA. The NCAA expressed concern about the image of women making weight. These are athletes we are talking about, but what would the NCAA know? Lightweight women rowers are not a bunch of anorexics and bulemics. They do not present a negative image of women to society. They are highly motivated athletes with great appreciation for their bodies. The NCAA’s concern is misguided, especially when contrasted with its unconcerned approach to men’s wrestling and what many grapplers do to make weight. In part as a result of this (there were other issues, too, of course), the NCAA failed to sponsor a national championship for women’s lightweight crews.
One is not strictly necessary, of course, since a national championship already exists for women’s lightweight rowing, currently at the IRA regatta. But the lack of NCAA sanction has its drawbacks.
The problem is that the NCAA has officially taken over "women's rowing" not "women's heavyweight rowing." There is a big difference there - it means that women's lightweight rowing is now governed by the NCAA just as heavyweight rowing is, but the NCAA doesn't accord the events full recognition. That makes women's lightweight rowing second-class. It also means that athletic directors with limited budgets and no understanding of rowing will begin to question the use of supporting women's lightweight rowing, and that means fewer opportunites for women's athletes down the road - not more. As a corollary, it means that even sensible rowing coaches such as Kevin Sauer, Head Women’s Coach at UVA, have been forced to cut out their women’s lightweight squads as not making any sense under the NCAA-governed sport. So UVA, a Div I program which did recently add lightweights, will now lose them as of next Fall.
Now think about that. How many lightweight-sized women will be rowing for programs such as UVA within a few years? A handful, no doubt. But will it be proportionate to the number of athletic women at the college as a whole who weigh under 140 pounds? If other Div I programs without lightweight squads are anything to go by, I doubt it. So, that implies that the door has either been shut on all lightweight women who might wish to try the sport at, or that the program will give the impression that the door is shut. That's sad, because I am sure there are a lot of women out there who would love the sport and the opportunity to take part in intercollegiate sports who may even become great rowers if given the opportunity.
The prophecy becomes self-fulfilling. With fewer opportunities for lightweight rowing, fewer women will turn out. The overall standard will remain low, which in itself is a justification for governing bodies to restrict events in the class, which in turns makes programs interested in excellence less likely to push the class, and so forth. That's why it was so frustrating for Radcliffe for all those years.
More colleges should be adding lightweight women's rowing. Indeed, one hot topic in the US is the issue of "gender equity" (unfortunate word-choice, but since when could politically correct people speak English?). Considering this issue, it seems odd that so many places have only three separate programs (men's heavies, men's lights, women) and not four. Even some of the places which have instituted lightweight rowing for women have done so under the auspices of the overall women's program (not at Princeton, but certainly at Villanova, GW, UVA, Wisco, and many other places). It seems to me like an overdue idea to give women's lightweights equal billing. That would be an easy way to increase funding for women’s athletics, something athletics departments are eager to do (and the law arguably mandates).
So ends another rant.
Several years ago I coached a crew with an average weight of 120 pounds. They were pretty novicy, and they also were not particularly athletic previously, beyond wanting to be reasonably fit. I have no idea why they decided to row in the first place. One day they were leaving their boathouse together. As they passed another boathouse, they were approached by some guy from another college. His crew’s coxswain had failed to turn up, and he needed a cox. He looked at them, told them he assumed that they were just coming back from a coxswain’s meeting, and asked if one of them would cox his practice. They got offended and told him to bugger off. They told me the story the next time they saw me, demanding that I harden them into women readily identifiable as rowers. I know some programs which would have told them to go away or become coxswains, and who would benefit then? The women would not, the program would not (other than getting a potentially good cox or two for the men), and the sport would not. One of these women was perhaps the most natural rower I have ever coached. She came to the sport rather late in College, and her employment after graduation was not conducive to rowing. Had she gotten into the sport sooner, or had she gotten a job which was better-suited to rowing, she might have gone far. As a sport, we need to find ways to get people like this involved and to keep them involved.
Keep open the door. Women’s lightweight rowing is the future for growth in this sport.
Back to Charles Ehrlich's Letter from America.
Any news? How is the fall shaping up? I'm hungry for information!
Jw-
so, you are angry about WHATEVER. Lightweight rowing rowers and fans need your voice. It is time to come back, comment about the season, teams, coaches, rowers. You are important. Let the water flow off your back.
Please
Yes, PLEASE COME BACK!
JW: Did you ever imagine that people would be having withdrawals without you?! hahaha
I must say, your site was an almost daily visit for me.
jb
Jw-
Please come back. Everyday, I check to see if you have posted. Please for my daughter, and everyone's daughters; come back.
please come back. the lightweights at UCF miss you!!!
the lightweights everywhere miss you!
Openweight vs. Lightweight competitiveness:
Milwaukee River Challenge
Wisco lightweights beat Purdue Openweights, last year's Dad Vail Champion in Women's Open 8+.
It is really disappointing to have no discussions! How are things at Georgetown? Please come back JW!
First, please come back! I'm new to the sport (my daughter was a runner in high school) and you have given me a great insight into the sport, and all it can be.
Second, don't prejudge the new coach at Georgetown. I think he meant that he wanted the lightweight program to be strong enough to compete with Bucknell, not that he wanted to streatch the definition of "lightweight" as Bucknell has. Coach O'Conner is still on board and working with the young ladies (can't call them girls any more).
I'm optimistic that the GU program will be faithful to the ethos of lightweight rowing.
From CSTV website,
10) Will ODU (Old Dominion University)boat a Lightweight Team?
Our initial focus will be NCAA events which are all Open weight. However, rowing is a unique sport in many ways. One way is that it provides even racing competition among women at their healthy weight. Lightweight rowing is not part of the NCAA Championships, although there are provisions for a National Championship race in this category. It includes women under 135 pounds. We strongly encourage Lightweight women to come out as soon as September 2008, our first season. There will be great racing opportunities for both open and lightweight women and within the first five years we will look to expand the team to formally include a Lightweight program.
http://www.standard-journal.com/articles/2007/09/26/sports/sports04.txt
Didn't take long for that to hit, huh? Judge not.
What will that do to recruiting?
four in the hospital?
It will undoubtedly just make them faster this year...watch out for Bucknell
if they can't race it won't matter how fast they are
note the charge is under investigation and their season isn't definitely canceled it's just temporarily suspended until a decision is reached so let's not jump to conclusions just yet
Three freshman boys and one freshman girl were taken to the hospital for intoxication.
Intoxication is a far cry different from hazing...I challenge you to find a single college rowing team that has not had an athlete taken to the hospital or cited for underage drinking. It would be really nice if the rowing world could support this team as it went through this, it's really unfortunate to see how quickly everyone will judge them, and assume they are wrong.
Whatever. I really isn't that big a deal. And, honestly, if you actually take this blog seriously, you are probably a parent, a third-boater, or a high schooler with a 9:15 for a 2K.
What a nasty shot.
Actually, this has been a highly informative blog for college rowers, coaches as well as hs rowers and parents.
SUCKKKKKKKKKKS. Too bad Bucknell won't have a shot at IRA's this year. What a bunch of dumbasses. You have one good season and think that it's ok to do that to your new rowers? All of you should be ashamed of your actions. You don't deserve to race.
You don't know the facts. That is why it's under investigation. According to some of the "new" rowers, absolutely nothing happened that could be considered hazing and three of the four were men, not women. Sometimes the press isn't always giving you the whole story.
Classy.
What's classy? ????
Copied From Rower's World site:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone needs to gain some perspective here. According to the dictionary; Hazing is forcing people to participate in an act that is meant to demean them by humiliation. This is not what happened at Bucknell.
Having spoke with people "in the know" what happened was a scavenger hunt that was in line with university sponsored initiation events, followed by a party that was approved by the university social committee. For the Scavenger hunt the frosh ran around and found stuff. Not anything illegal, and not anything different than what the entire frosh class, athletes and non athletes alike, were forced to do at the start of the school year.
Following the conclusion of the scavenger hunt the teams had a party. Like most college parties there was drinking, and there was underage drinking. Not unlike a lot of college parties many people drank to excess. What is lost in the shuffle, and jumping to conclusions that have occurred here, is that the party was a purely optional event attended by Varsity, and frosh alike, and that attendance of this party didn't require anyone to drink. There were frosh and varsity that chose not to attend, without any consequences for not going to the party. There were also frosh and varsity members who did attend the party, and chose not to drink. These members were not cast out for not drinking.
Simply put, this was a case of a party that got out of hand, and some college freshmen drank too much. No one was forcing them to drink, or do anything they didn't willingly choose to do on their own.
"What a bunch of dumbasses." That's what's classy. Classy.
Enough of that malarkey. Tell it to the judge. Let's talk about what's happenning on the water:
From http://media.www.pittnews.com/media/storage/paper879/news/2007/10/09/Sports/Pitt-Crew.Launches.Season.At.Head.Of.Ohio-3019790.shtml
"The Head of the Ohio proved to be a massive event, with a seemingly endless array of tents scattered outside Heinz Field. The thousands competing and in attendance had to deal with the sweltering heat, which was almost 90 degrees throughout the afternoon.
On Saturday, the women were more successful than their male teammates. Pitt won gold medals for their first-place times in the four- and eight-rower women's open lightweight."
The lineups for the Head of the Charles:
http://www.hocr.org//competitors/07BowWLight8.asp
http://www.hocr.org//competitors/07BowWLight4.asp
Anybody want to handicap the collegiate field?
the only people who would defend the actions of the bucknell teams are their moms and the rowers themselves. after going to hazing informative lectures scavenger hunts are considered hazing. and after going on one at my last school i can whole-heartedly attest to this.
Well, who better than one of the rowers would know what went on? Yes, scavenger hunts COULD be considered hazing IF they meet certain criteria, BUT, if you weren't there, how would you know? From what I heard, it was completely voluntary with no consequences and was just pure, simple fun. No alcohol was involved and one had nothing to do with the other.
Where do we draw the line?!
Last I heard, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts and many kindergarten classes and day camps still have scavenger hunts! Shame on them!!!
Why do I think that no matter what Bucknell does, some people will condemn them?
'ray Bucknell!!
We're behind you all of the way!
It doesn't matter what actually happened or did not happen, the point is that Bucknell got itself in the news in a negative sense. And yes it may have been a normal college party that the kids got drunk at, but since the team was associated with it rowing, Bucknell Crew will take a PR hit. Student athletes are held to a higher standard and must be careful not to let their teammates or themselves do stupid things.
Well, I do agree with you; however, it does matter in that the team's spring season may hinge on the results of this investigation. I think the school should work hard to pull this wonderful team out of the negative spotlight and back into the positive one by perhaps admitting that they went too far with this investigation and certainly by allowing the team to shine again in the spring.
Fall '07 Racing Update:
UCF has opened up their season at the Head of the Oklahoma with two eights racing in the Women’s Open 8+ category (perhaps with lightweights in these boats?).
Georgetown’s raced at the Head of the Potomac and Navy Day regattas, both in Open and Lightweight events.
Despite rumors of suspension, Bucknell has raced with positive results at the Head of the Genesee and Navy Day Regatta.
Wisconsin appears to have had a successful start to the season, racing at the Milwaukee River Challenge, “Class Day Races,” and the Head of the Rock Regatta.
MIT’s racing season has started at the New Hampshire Championship on October 14, 2007, where they’ve raced several boats in the Open Women’s categories.
It looks like Stanford has been doing some early season scrimmaging, racing three lightweight 4+’s at the Wine Country Rowing Classic on October 7th.
The Princeton and Radcliffe websites have yet to be updated for the ’07-’08 season, though we’ll surely be seeing them next week at the Charles – let’s look forward to next weekend, when we’ll hope to see quite a few of these schools racing each other!
Glad to see some attention paid to what's happening on the water this fall. But I think you erred on Bucknell by taking last year's results from the website re the Head of the Genesee and the Philadelphia Navy Day Regatta. Bucknell was not participating in either 2007 regatta, and remains under suspension pending the results of the investigation, according to the last news I saw. Thanks for the update, though!
At the Philadelphia Navy Day Regatta, the Georgetown light eights edged Lehigh by less than 7 seconds over the 2.4 mile course. The Georgetown open eights apparently had four lightweights in the boat, and took second in a field of eleven, losing to the US Naval Academy by about 12 seconds and beating Penn by 3 seconds. The Georgetown lw four took first in a field including Lehigh, the Georgetown B lw four, and a couple of Lafayette boats.
A great regatta!
The Georgetown LW 4's winning margin was over 40 seconds. The LW program at Georgetown is solid and young.
JW...by keeping this site up on the web, you are leading us to believe that you are eventually coming back. Can you just let us know.. Yes, you'll be back next spring. Or no, you are definitely done with running the blog. I imagine it took a lot of time and effort. If people know that you are definitely not coming back, perhaps someone will pick up the torch and continue forward with a lwt women's blog. Please advise.
Looks like the Georgetown lights are skipping the Head of the Charles this year. Wonder why?
Ask the folks that run the lottery
Why the good folks at the HOCR don't reserve some spots for petitions is beyond my comprehension. Many fine boats are unable to compete where some incapable boats are allowed to row. I appreciate the work the committee performs, but I also think that they should rethink their lottery system.
Remember, though, that it's not completely random - Georgetown had the opportunity to guarantee their entry last year by finishing in the top half of the field.
anyone know what lightweight teams are entered to race at the chase?
Looked like all the collegiate LWT women were pretty slow in the eight. In pretty fast conditions, (Canada one second off the course record)the college teams were slower than collegiate winning times from years past. Looks like the field is getting closser, but not really faster.
can this blog please come back.. or someone take over?! i need this in my life!
For all interested, Bucknell's back! 'ray Bucknell!!
No they are not. Found this on row2k.
http://www.dailyitem.com/0200_sports/local_story_311234758.html
No they are not. Found this on row2k.
http://www.dailyitem.com/0200_sports/local_story_311234758.html
Yes they are. The womens team was suspended for the fall season. Competition can resume on Jan. 1.
They senior and junior men are out for the year.
'ray Bucknell!
*The senior...
Glad to hear the women can compete this spring. Sorry it took the school officials to make their determination.
took so long......for
In my opinion, there is no excuse for the time it took to come up with this "decision".
I also find it very hard to believe that no other teams or clubs have parties, drinking, etc. Boy, things must have changed since my college days!
Things have changed since you went to college, kids are drinking themselves into the hospital on a regular basis. As some of you may try to make me believe, there is no excuse for their behavior. This whole "that's what happens in college" is why kids are doing it to this level. They have no awareness of the possible consequences. I hope other college coaches have this article posted in their boathouse to teach there kids how quickly things get taken away if you screw up. The women may be able to race starting January 1st, but their reputation will take a significant hit. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking everything is going to just be OK. The men are really in a hole and those seniors have lost their last opportunity to compete in college rowing. The juniors will have to wear the shame for the rest of this year. All you can hope is that the sophomores and freshman have learned to keep their s*!$ in order.
Don't excuse them. This is not a case of a couple of college athletes having a beer or two. The bottom line is if you choose to get out of control and act stupid, there are consequences. Luckily for them their only punishment is that they cannot row around in boats.
My daughter's best friend is an upperclassmen on the team. I don't know if this is true, but she said the one girl who went to the hospital drank before the event. And the President was so concerned about the PR (and Bucknell trying to fight the image of a party school), the whole thing was blow out of proportion. Can anyone confirm this?
You have GOT to have something better to do than beat this into the ground. A parent no less.
To the parent who asked the question about the girl's drinking: I heard the same thing from a member of the team who was also there. Apparently little or no drinking went on at the girls' party. I also heard that the girl made it very clear to the admin. that that was the case.
???? Who knows?
My concern is that the girls are on "probation". That would basically preclude them from doing anything as a team lest someone exhibits some indiscretion and stupidity. Also, is the university holding all the teams and clubs to the same standards?
To the person who asked whether we HAVE something better to do, the answer is basically a matter of priorities. First priority, our children, all else comes next.
Most teams go dry in season anyways. So as long as all of the girls are committed they shouldn't have a problem.
Are you worried that your child may be drinking recklessly or that they may not be able to row? I can't tell.
Actually, my concern was about the team not being able to row. I do believe my daughter is quite responsible as is the rest of the team.
That would explain the suspension then.
??? Not sure what is meant by "that would explain the suspension"?
Was that suppose to be a joke? There is no legitimate explanation for the suspension
Of course there is an legitimate explanation. Some college kids let their drinking get out of hand. So out of hand in fact that a few of them went to the hospital and subsequently have embarrassed the rowing program. Would you prefer the school hold no standards for the behavior of their students/student-athletes? Bucknell has taken the standpoint that ridiculous behavior beyond the scope of normal college activities will not be tolerated. I hope more schools do this.
The fact that you are more worried about them not being able to race than the fact that a couple of kids might have died says a lot.
Apparently you have not talked to any other current college kids who say that alcohol poisoning is a fairly common occurance. As unfortunate as it is, and I do not put rowing above safety, it appears that the standards are not being evenly applied.
Do you really believe that the football, basketball, lacrosse, etc. teams and the frats do not drink in excess? I'm not aware of their season being cancelled.
Please let me know if you know anything different.
I truly hope that more schools take the stand that Bucknell did too, but it should be even-handed.
I agree that it is possible that the punishments maybe being handed out un-uniformly and I agree that it is unfair. However, if the crew team is the example this time, it does put the school in an odd position if another team does the same thing and they do not receive the same punishment. Don't miss the point though. On this occasion they made a bad decision and ultimately must accept the consequences. If the school makes a habit out of not punishing the other teams the same way, then someone should expose that fact. Otherwise, just complaining that your children were punished unfairly in comparison to others is not a good idea. It sends the wrong message to the athletes. If as a parent you find their behavior reprehensible then you should be happier that there are consequences and that your child is not given a free pass as other athletes may be. The crew kids have the opportunity to live up to expectations, while other may have not expectations which ultimately is much, much worse then unfair distribution of punishment.
I believe that the report said that there was "competition drinking", and I believe that it said that some of the juniors and seniors played a role in it. "Competition drinking", involving juniors and seniors, and the hospitalization of four kids distinguishes this incident from your garden-variety frat party. The hospitalized kids were just beginning their college experiences, and were likely vulnerable at that time in that environment. The university had no alternative but to respond as they did.
But I do feel for the kids who had nothing to do with it who lost a season.
let's take a moment to step away from Bucknell..
now it is time to move indoors and get ready for spring.
the fall season was nice and proved well for some teams
georgetown? wisco? any others worth mentioning?
perhaps we should start thinking of post-fall/pre-spring rankings. much less controversial and more entertaining.
Its a little early, but wisco is going to be blazing this spring that is for sure. I also have a good feeling about MIT, maybe they'll break into the top five?
does anybody know whatever happened with Georgetown? Did they race mixed boats all fall? Will they still enter lights this spring? Is O'Connor still involved? It would be great if we didn't have to worry about them. They always raced tougher than we expected...
Georgetown raced a novice light eight at the Belly of the Carnegie. But there was no weigh-in...
I heard Georgetown lightweights are taking the winter off because O'Connor left....is there any truth to this???
yeah, I heard the same thing. That seems pretty crazy though. Maybe they are practicing with the open weight team??
i heard they're replacing erging with the sideways bear crawl
auggie that is a CREWMOR and you know it.
My daughter is on the Georgetown lightweight team. O'Connor is still there.
http://bucknellbison.cstv.com/sports/c-rowing/sched/buck-c-rowing-sched.html
I feel bad that the Bucknell ligthweight's only get to race once before the IRA. All of that hard work for 2 races. Thats disappointing.
Oh, I don't think they will only race in two events. Two major "lightweight only" events, but that isn't all they'll do. Many of them are too good to be "side-lined".
Don't lightweight squads have to compete in a certain number of lightweight events to qualify to compete in the IRA? I think after last year's 'upset,' they're changing the rules.
Bloggers of the FITD - Happy, Healthy New Year!!
Other than Jimmy leaving Georgetown are there any other surprises come Springtime?
good question...does anybody know ANYTHING about GU this year???
Who cares??? They won't be a factor. What's the word on Radcliffe? How are their super sophs doing?
Can someone please take the place of JW with this blog? Once the spring season starts we need a leader instead of this ridiculous commenting on theories and rumors.
i heard stanford has some fast freshmen phenoms this year..team to watch perhaps?
If someone would like to pick up FITD, I'd be happy to facilitate that. I've been turned down with this offer a few times and I need to be a bit picky about who might follow on (e.g. no current collegiate rowers). Anyway, if you're interested, let me know. The season approaches.
By the way, Joseph W. Burk, RIP.
I hope someone picks this up!!! The season will be here soon and it would be great to have information!!!
has anyone been keeping up with indoor rowing results for fast lightweights?
Well since the area that had a big erg sprint when you posted is DC...let me guess, you are from Georgetown and want people to check out times from Mid Atlantics?
Sorry, couldn't resist pointing fingers, but it was too obvious what school you were with. Still very impressive. Any time you have someone under 7:20, let alone a freshman, it's a good sign.
Still haven't seen an indoor rowing machine win a race on open water. Let's not forget that an oar in the hand is a much less forgiving piece of equipment than a piece of wood attached to a cord. Experience,technique, and stamina on the water usually separates low erg scores and medal winners.
Bravo!!! As we like to say, "ergs don't float".
It saddens me that soooo much weight is put on erg scores rather than one's ability to move a boat. Some have it; some don't.
http://www.ergsprints.com/2008/documents/2008_maes_results.XLS
looks like georgetown has it.
"Experience,technique, and stamina on the water usually separates low erg scores and medal winners."
"It saddens me that soooo much weight is put on erg scores..."
--sounds like someone doesn't have a very low erg score. Lighten up, congratulate a peer who does well, and go workout on an erg and lower your own score.
I agree that experience, technique and stamina certainly separate the haves from the have-nots, but do you really think the low erg score is a sure-thing indicator?
As a more-or-less novice master, I do not see that the technique is very similar. The arms are different and except the fact that the seat is on a slide, the movement is very different too; no balance required.
Is there any other sport where a machine (ie treadmill & track) is almost as important as performance?
Why not a stationary bike?
There is no "sure-thing" indicator of winning races. An erg score is a standardized measurement of fitness, power and aerobic endurance and strength which, when adjusted for weight, helps quantify the potential contribution to boat speed by a given rower.
Factors that win races include technique, strategy and execution of that plan, coordination of rowers, and drive and passion to excel and win. A low erg score and these winning attributes are not mutually exclusive. In fact, one could argue that a low erg score is indicative of the passion to excel and win because it takes a lot of sweat and hard work to train to a low erg score. The necessary training is not glamorous, it can be lonely and tedious, but the job gets done.
Given the nature o