Title IX: Good, Good, but..., or Bad

Started by Mr. Ypsi, December 27, 2011, 12:32:51 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DGPugh

The 'girl' i dated in highschool (not woman) played softball and was a cheeleader up until we finished a rural west Ga high school in 1971. That girl i dated (now wife for 37 yrs- i dare you to call her anything else or there will be a can of whup butt opend by her) and i have 2 girls  ( one ran cross coutry and did karate & the other played basket ball and did karate ( they are women now...but were 'girls when they did such) :)

the younger of the 2 still calls herself a girl, and refers to her daughter as a girl, and balances the business she owns with teaching karate (4th degree karate, 1sth degree TKD and blue belt JJ..... and dad-me- is scared to call her anything but 'a girl' on fear of getting a whipping) being a mom and a wife.  8-)

keep the faith
"Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes." 
Ephesians 6:11

AO

Quote from: smedindy on January 12, 2012, 10:54:33 AM
Women (not girls) had much different societal norms to follow back then - and it took 'radical feminists' to change it. I'd contend it was society as a whole that curtailed opportunity, not interest. When you have TV shows, movies, radio, churches, newspapers, etc. contending that women stay home and cook, clean and host cotillions, then there will be no 'interest' in sports because they're weren't allowed to have any interests.

And yes I realize there were some girls sports teams around but they were looked at as curiosities or time-fillers. Only a brazen few had athletics careers.
Not "allowed" to have any interest in sports?  How did we move from that to requiring that they have equal interest?

Here is what I think we can all agree on so far:
1. Men have greater interest in sports. 
2. Getting rid of Title IX would not result in the elimination of many women's teams as the NCAA and its conferences will still require a certain number of sports be sponsored and a large majority of schools value their women's programs highly.
3. Getting rid of Title IX would result in a higher number of opportunities in sports like baseball and wrestling for men.   

smedindy

The law requires equal opportunity, not interest. I was pointing out why there was a perceived lack of your precious 'interest'.

1. So? That's not germaine.
2. Wrong. It would because of budgets because women's sports would be 'low hanging fruit' and many minor sports programs would be decimated.
3. Wrong. It would not because of budgets.

ExTartanPlayer

Quote from: AO on January 12, 2012, 11:41:33 AM
Here is what I think we can all agree on so far:
1. Men have greater interest in sports. 
2. Getting rid of Title IX would not result in the elimination of many women's teams as the NCAA and its conferences will still require a certain number of sports be sponsored and a large majority of schools value their women's programs highly.
3. Getting rid of Title IX would result in a higher number of opportunities in sports like baseball and wrestling for men.

1) Agreed, although I think that gap has closed substantially since the passage of Title IX.

2) Are you certain of this?  I'm not.  Can you point me to the NCAA/conference rules that require sponsorships of a certain number of women's sports?  Even if they do exist, what makes you think that those rules will remain in place if Title IX is revoked? 

Your whole premise during this entire argument is that there is more interest in men's sports than women's sports - so why are you now saying that the revocation of Title IX would barely impact women's sports?  Are you that naive?  How are schools going to magically increase opportunities for men's sports WITHOUT cutting women's sports?

3) As I just said, if this did occur, it would happen at the expense of women's sports. 

I wrestled in high school and to this day I am a huge wrestling fan, but I've never agreed with people that blame the slow death of wrestling on Title IX.  High school wrestling is dying because kids just aren't that interested in it any more.  It used to be cool to be on the high school wrestling team in the 1970's and 80's - now it isn't.  I wrestled for a moderately successful small-school program that sent a few kids to the state tournament every year (and currently has three alums wrestling on Division I rosters).  Even with a successful program, most of us were viewed as some kind of outcasts - accused of being gay (because we "touched dudes"), dirty (because of the occasional case of ringworm/herps), crazy (because we, uh, worked hard in practice?).  We generally wrestled in front of less than 100 people (usually just parents and a few close friends).  No students came to support us at the district, regional, and state tournaments.  In the match that I won to qualify for states, my "cheering section" consisted of about eight people (my parents, brother, two of my teammates that had also qualified, and their parents).

Title IX didn't have anything to do with any of that.  Changes in society did.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

http://athletics.cmu.edu/sports/fball/2011-12/releases/20120629a4jaxa

frank uible

In my 1940s major midwestern city the boys got together, found a vacant lot and played ball there while the girls chose to do something else somewhere else. Neither adults nor government had anything to do with it except that when and if we broke for lunch, moms usually had peanut butter sandwiches for the boys and the girls. Those boys ended up playing a hell of a lot more athletics than either my sons did in a 1970s suburb of another major midwestern city (I have no daughters) or today my grandsons or granddaughters do in that same suburb or in a suburb of a southern metropolis, as the case may be.

AO

Quote from: smedindy on January 12, 2012, 12:05:31 PM
The law requires equal opportunity, not interest. I was pointing out why there was a perceived lack of your precious 'interest'.

1. So? That's not germaine.
2. Wrong. It would because of budgets because women's sports would be 'low hanging fruit' and many minor sports programs would be decimated.
3. Wrong. It would not because of budgets.
1. Interest is crucial.  It's the reason college sponsors sports.  Let's say we passed a law that said there must be equal beauty pageant opportunities for boys and girls.  There would not be enough boys interested in the pageant to maintain the number of girl opportunities.  Furthermore, the boys who did decide to go out for the pageant would be generally less dedicated to the pageant and less committed to practicing, etc.
2. Men's sports cost the same, do they not?  Why would the women be cut before the men?  Do you believe the administrators are sexist, or that their decision would be rational based upon each sports value?

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on January 12, 2012, 12:06:46 PM
Quote from: AO on January 12, 2012, 11:41:33 AM
Here is what I think we can all agree on so far:
1. Men have greater interest in sports. 
2. Getting rid of Title IX would not result in the elimination of many women's teams as the NCAA and its conferences will still require a certain number of sports be sponsored and a large majority of schools value their women's programs highly.
3. Getting rid of Title IX would result in a higher number of opportunities in sports like baseball and wrestling for men.

1) Agreed, although I think that gap has closed substantially since the passage of Title IX.

2) Are you certain of this?  I'm not.  Can you point me to the NCAA/conference rules that require sponsorships of a certain number of women's sports?  Even if they do exist, what makes you think that those rules will remain in place if Title IX is revoked? 

Your whole premise during this entire argument is that there is more interest in men's sports than women's sports - so why are you now saying that the revocation of Title IX would barely impact women's sports?  Are you that naive?  How are schools going to magically increase opportunities for men's sports WITHOUT cutting women's sports?

3) As I just said, if this did occur, it would happen at the expense of women's sports. 

I wrestled in high school and to this day I am a huge wrestling fan, but I've never agreed with people that blame the slow death of wrestling on Title IX.  High school wrestling is dying because kids just aren't that interested in it any more.  It used to be cool to be on the high school wrestling team in the 1970's and 80's - now it isn't.  I wrestled for a moderately successful small-school program that sent a few kids to the state tournament every year (and currently has three alums wrestling on Division I rosters).  Even with a successful program, most of us were viewed as some kind of outcasts - accused of being gay (because we "touched dudes"), dirty (because of the occasional case of ringworm/herps), crazy (because we, uh, worked hard in practice?).  We generally wrestled in front of less than 100 people (usually just parents and a few close friends).  No students came to support us at the district, regional, and state tournaments.  In the match that I won to qualify for states, my "cheering section" consisted of about eight people (my parents, brother, two of my teammates that had also qualified, and their parents).

Title IX didn't have anything to do with any of that.  Changes in society did.
1. As Smed was pointing out, the gap was closing as society changed; Title IX was an accelerant to this change but it was not the driving force behind it.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_III_(NCAA)#Membership Six Female teams are required for schools of over 1000 starting this year.
3. Interest in wrestling still seems to be pretty high here in Minnesota.  Since wrestling has no female counterpart and is not as popular as football, it is the low-hanging fruit as smed says of the athletic department.

ExTartanPlayer

So, just to make sure that I have this straight: you believe that removal of Title IX would result in a notable increase in the availability of men's sports programs on the college level, with a minimal decrease in the availability of women's sports programs.  Do I have this right?

Where is the money for those additional men's sports going to come from?  Moving athletic programs up to Division I?  We covered that one yesterday in your ludicrous arguments for moving UWW football up to FCS, but even if that were feasible, what about all of the other schools that remain in Division III?  Where will they conjure up the $500,000 to restart a dormant wrestling/baseball program?  If that's going to happen, the money has to come from somewhere - and in the absence of wealthy donors that really want to resume a wrestling program at their alma mater, most likely it will have to come somewhere else - you know, like the women's athletic budget.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

http://athletics.cmu.edu/sports/fball/2011-12/releases/20120629a4jaxa

smedindy

Quote from: frank uible on January 12, 2012, 12:07:28 PM
In my 1940s major midwestern city the boys got together, found a vacant lot and played ball there while the girls chose to do something else somewhere else. Neither adults nor government had anything to do with it except that when and if we broke for lunch, moms usually had peanut butter sandwiches for the boys and the girls. Those boys ended up playing a hell of a lot more athletics than either my sons did in a 1970s suburb of another major midwestern city (I have no daughters) or today my grandsons or granddaughters do in that same suburb or in a suburb of a southern metropolis, as the case may be.

Societal norms, Frank, are instilled early without overt knowledge.

AO

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on January 12, 2012, 01:18:57 PM
So, just to make sure that I have this straight: you believe that removal of Title IX would result in a notable increase in the availability of men's sports programs on the college level, with a minimal decrease in the availability of women's sports programs.  Do I have this right?

Where is the money for those additional men's sports going to come from?  Moving athletic programs up to Division I?  We covered that one yesterday in your ludicrous arguments for moving UWW football up to FCS, but even if that were feasible, what about all of the other schools that remain in Division III?  Where will they conjure up the $500,000 to restart a dormant wrestling/baseball program?  If that's going to happen, the money has to come from somewhere - and in the absence of wealthy donors that really want to resume a wrestling program at their alma mater, most likely it will have to come somewhere else - you know, like the women's athletic budget.
Yes. 

Yes, the women's athletic budget may be cut.  Cutting the budget is not the same thing as cutting the team.

Put yourself in the shoes of an AD.  You could add wrestling, but then you'd also have to add another female sport to comply with title IX.

ExTartanPlayer

Quote from: AO on January 12, 2012, 01:49:07 PM
Yes, the women's athletic budget may be cut.  Cutting the budget is not the same thing as cutting the team.

No, cutting the budget is not the same as cutting the team.  However, doesn't it stand to reason that the equivalent of one full female sport's budget will have to be cut to fund a new men's program?  After all, you just said that men's and women's sports cost the same amount.

Quote from: AO on January 12, 2012, 01:49:07 PM
You could add wrestling, but then you'd also have to add another female sport to comply with title IX.

Yes, I'm well aware of this.  I don't think that removing Title IX would result in a new burst of men's programs.  I think it would result in a net loss of women's programs, with that money being funneled to existing men's programs (i.e. football, basketball) or just cut from the athletics budget altogether.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

http://athletics.cmu.edu/sports/fball/2011-12/releases/20120629a4jaxa

smedindy

I don't think the benevolent chancellors, presidents or provosts would allow for adding of one non-revenue sport to replace another out of the goodness of their hearts. So no matter if Title IX goes away, I can't see a revival in college wrestling. What I'd see is a net loss of overall opportunities with very few gross adds of men's sports.





frank uible

smed: My point is not about foggy speculation concerning societal norms but is about the once upon a time accomplishment of more with fewer resources while as a byproduct youth's initiative was being exercised.

AO

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on January 12, 2012, 01:59:09 PM
Quote from: AO on January 12, 2012, 01:49:07 PM
Yes, the women's athletic budget may be cut.  Cutting the budget is not the same thing as cutting the team.

No, cutting the budget is not the same as cutting the team.  However, doesn't it stand to reason that the equivalent of one full female sport's budget will have to be cut to fund a new men's program?  After all, you just said that men's and women's sports cost the same amount.

Quote from: AO on January 12, 2012, 01:49:07 PM
You could add wrestling, but then you'd also have to add another female sport to comply with title IX.

Yes, I'm well aware of this.  I don't think that removing Title IX would result in a new burst of men's programs.  I think it would result in a net loss of women's programs, with that money being funneled to existing men's programs (i.e. football, basketball) or just cut from the athletics budget altogether.
In the end, I guess I just value women's and non-revenue sports more highly than you and smed.  I believe they'd still be offered based upon their own merit.  Maybe I'm wrong and school B really does find that they'd be better off just offering football and men's basketball.  I don't think volleyball and football have to be combined into the same department.  A school might want to offer nursing and not a male dominated program.     

DGPugh

"Yes, I'm well aware of this.  I don't think that removing Title IX would result in a new burst of men's programs"

i do not know anything about anywhere but where i live and work 9and there are many who question if i am even self aware at times)......but title 9 killed SEC wrestling. Wrestling in bama and Ga at  AAU/ Wrestling USA and  highschool are well and healthy.  Au was dominant, ~20 sec titles.

the SEC, in an the attmept to implement title nine  set a rule- at least one more 'girl' sport than 'boy' sport- and most have 2 more. Where i work there are 3 more sports for young ladies. (the boys club soccer team is barred from even practicing on any of the 'young lady soccer field, which is a state of the art facility). yall title9 offiicionados (sp) know this is one of the implemtation styles for meeting title9 regs.

on another, yet similar note, several deep south NAIA schools (all private) are either looking into starting wrestling or have a new team up and running. The move has followed the trend down here to start D-3 or NAIA football. Shorter, in rome ga, part of the mid south of the NAIA, added wrestling 2 yrs ago. Thier conference (which just added 4 new schools for  'start up' football programs in the past 5 yrs) now have 6 teams wrestling, and may, may get an increase.
respectfully
keep the faith
"Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes." 
Ephesians 6:11

smedindy

But the south isn't a true microcosm of the entire landscape of college athletics. That one NAIA conference isn't going to mirror what happens in the Northeast, or the West.

Also, I just read that the SEC only sponsors 20 sports as a way to concentrate their efforts in football (so it goes), so I doubt if Title IX disappeared magically they'd all gallop to add wrestling, lest important dollars are siphoned away from the secondary indoor practice facility or the auxiliary blocking sleds.