Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

SuperHornet, don't get your Winnie the Pooh undies in a twist, I doubt it would happen.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/09/so ... ?hpt=hp_t3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mo Isom already has been quite a presence at Louisiana State. The first LSU athlete to be voted homecoming queen, she was one of the top goalkeepers in the Southeastern Conference for four years, displaying not only useful shot-stopping skills but also the type of powerful kicks that score goals from the other end of the soccer field.

Now she’s trying to show her kicking power translates to that, ahem, other kind of football. The one on the gridiron, where LSU fields one of the best programs in the country.

Isom, a 21-year-old whose collegiate soccer career wrapped up last fall, is one of a few students trying out for placekicker on LSU's football team – last year's national championship runners-up – this month.

She faces gigantic odds. LSU is returning its starting field goal kicker – Drew Alleman, who tied for the nation’s best field goal percentage at 88.9% last year – and kickoff specialist James Hairston.

But she made some long field goals and deep kickoffs in tryouts this week, and she says she’d be ready to take some big hits in one of the nation’s premier football conferences, the SEC.

She could probably kick somewhere in D-2 or D-3 right now, but if she's intent to stay at LSU, I doubt Les Miles makes a roster spot for her.

It will only be a storyline if something happens in the locker room.....well....I guess she'll have her own locker room.

Legally, they have to at least let her try out. The results of that tryout, well, that's another story. Most FBS teams have multiple kickers, whether on schollie or walk-on. UOP I know for a fact had four. Of course, there was only one punter on the roster, and he was a combo kicker who went down early in the season. We had to burn a quarterback's red shirt to take his place. (The replacement punter transferred to Weber after UOP dropped the program, played two more years at QB and moved to WR his senior year. He is now the Specal Teams Coordinator for the Rams after doing the same job with the Raiders for the last four years.)

Back on point. If LSU holds to form and has more kickers, it would stand to reason that it would be her against the others. At best, the only way she beats out their all-star kicker is an injury. But with a leg as described, they'd BETTER have her on the roster as insurance. They'd probably have their legal ducks in a row if they cut her following a staged tryout, but they'd be dumb to do so.

Heck, if they're worried about her getting creamed on a KO, there's precedent for covering with 10 guys and having the kicker immediately leave the field. Rolf Benirschke did that with the Chargers on doctor's orders following surgery.

meh, she can't be any wimpier than normal male kickers. ;op

JayJ79 wrote:meh, she can't be any wimpier than normal male kickers. ;op

Have you ever been kicked in the nuts by a kicker?

grizzaholic wrote:

JayJ79 wrote:meh, she can't be any wimpier than normal male kickers. ;op

Have you ever been kicked in the nuts by a kicker?

Welcome to foot, ball!

[youtube][/youtube]

SuperHornet wrote:Legally, they have to at least let her try out.

How do you figure?

Under Title IX, if there is no equivalent sports team (in this case, a girls football team) at a school that receives federal funding (research, etc.), she HAS to be allowed to at least try out. If she's cut, it's up to her to prove that the tryout was rigged if she wants recourse. Typically, a practice video of a bunch of missed FGs would be enough to establish a fair tryout. If she made everything in sight and was STILL cut, the school might have a problem.

Of course, the whole thing would be fixed by establishing a girls football team. But that costs $$ most schools aren't willing to shell out.

Guaranteed she won't get a shot at LSU.

SuperHornet wrote:Under Title IX, if there is no equivalent sports team (in this case, a girls football team) at a school that receives federal funding (research, etc.), she HAS to be allowed to at least try out. If she's cut, it's up to her to prove that the tryout was rigged if she wants recourse. Typically, a practice video of a bunch of missed FGs would be enough to establish a fair tryout. If she made everything in sight and was STILL cut, the school might have a problem.

Of course, the whole thing would be fixed by establishing a girls football team. But that costs $$ most schools aren't willing to shell out.

No one here is saying she shouldn't play. Besides, nobody wants to watch College chicks play football. It won't be the hot ones, it'll be the 5'11", 195 lb ball busters out on the field.

That's already been proven wrong at least TWICE, Mark. You might be thinking of female linemen. The kickers at Jax State and Colorado/New Mexico were VERY hot. BTW, New Mexico's Katie Hnida has played minor league pro football.

SH...bikini pics or STFU.

grizzaholic wrote:SH...bikini pics or STFU.

Title IX.

Vidav wrote:Title IX.

You don't have a daughter, do you?

89Hen wrote:

Vidav wrote:Title IX.

You don't have a daughter, do you?

I remember being against Title IX once. I've done a complete 180^.

89Hen wrote:

Vidav wrote:Title IX.

You don't have a daughter, do you?

Yes, I do.

andy7171 wrote:

89Hen wrote: You don't have a daughter, do you?

I remember being against Title IX once. I've done a complete 180^.

I don't like it because it isn't being used like it should be. I stole these quotes from wikipedia but they pretty much sum it up.

Title IX has been a source of controversy in part due to claims that the OCR's current interpretation of Title IX, and specifically its three-prong test of compliance, is no longer faithful to the anti-discrimination language in Title IX's text, and instead discriminates against men and has contributed to the reduction of programs for male athletes

Critics of the three-prong test contend that it operates as a "quota" in that it places undue emphasis on the first prong (known as the "proportionality" prong), which fails to take into account any differences in the genders' respective levels of interest in participating in athletics. Instead it requires that the genders' athletic participation be substantially proportionate to their enrollment, without regard to interest. Prong two is viewed as only a temporary fix for universities, as universities may only point to past expansion of opportunities for female students for a limited time before compliance with another prong is necessary. Prong three likewise fails to consider male athletic interest, as it requires that the university fully and effectively accommodate the athletic interests of the "underrepresented sex," despite the fact that ED regulations expressly require that the OCR consider whether the institution "effectively accommodate[s] the interests and abilities of members of both sexes." As such, with a focus on increasing female athletic opportunities without any counterbalance to take male athletic interest into consideration, critics maintain that the OCR's three-prong test actually operates to discriminate against men

SuperHornet wrote:That's already been proven wrong at least TWICE, Mark. You might be thinking of female linemen. The kickers at Jax State and Colorado/New Mexico were VERY hot. BTW, New Mexico's Katie Hnida has played minor league pro football.

Enough Breaking Bad for you, SH.

andy7171 wrote:

89Hen wrote: You don't have a daughter, do you?

I remember being against Title IX once. I've done a complete 180^.

I always thought Title IX was the rules about women, kitchens, sammies, and beer?

andy7171 wrote:

89Hen wrote: You don't have a daughter, do you?

I remember being against Title IX once. I've done a complete 180^.

Me, too.....almost. We need the football exception.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

andy7171 wrote: I remember being against Title IX once. I've done a complete 180^.

Me, too.....almost. We need the football exception.

Yeah I did too. But I have three athletic daughters now. So fuck that shit!

andy7171 wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:


Me, too.....almost. We need the football exception.

Yeah I did too. But I have three athletic daughters now. So **** that ****!

My boys do not care if your daughters are athletic. They only care about the size of the trust fund.
How's that coming by the way?

It's not Title IX per se. It's the same old thing involving interpreting "equal opportunity" to mean "equal results."

Let's say I say that any person who can run 100 meters in 10.3 or less can be on my track team. That is an objective, measurable standard and everyone has an equal opportunity to try to meet it. Anybody who can do it can be on my track team.

But if that is the standard my track team isn't going to have any women on it. The womens world record in the 100 meters is 10.49 seconds.

So the distorted way in which we determine equal opportunity would say women don't have an equal opportunity. We have to create a different realm...with a different set of standards...for women.

As I've stated before true equal opportunity in athletics would be eliminating the distinction between mens and womens athletics and just letting everyone compete for positions regardless of sex. But that would not generate equal or remotely close to equal results. So we set up separate athletic programs for women then demand that schools spend money on them.

JohnStOnge wrote:As I've stated before true equal opportunity in athletics would be eliminating the distinction between mens and womens athletics and just letting everyone compete for positions regardless of sex. But that would not generate equal or remotely close to equal results. So we set up separate athletic programs for women then demand that schools spend money on them.

By that logic, would you eliminate weight classes in wrestling/boxing/etc.?