D3boards.com

In response to a drift from the 'Purple Powers' thread, I'm opening this new one.

I have only sons (and a non-athletic wife, and non-athletic daughter-in-law) so have no personal stake in this argument.  But I DO think Title IX was one of the best things since, well, forever.  From NO women's sports at all when I was in school, we now have national tourneys in many, many sports.

Pretty much my ONLY reservation would be not taking football out of the equation.  Several decades after the rise of women's sports, I still see no real move towards women's football (still mostly derided as 'powderpuff football' and/or turned into a sexist fantasy: 'lingerie football' :P).  Since football has a much larger number of participants than any other sport, the result (to balance number of participants by gender) has been the dropping of many (minor :P) male teams.  (Here I DO have a personal interest: my older son was recruited by EMU as a scholarship soccer player, before they dropped the men's soccer team.)

I'm still very much a supporter of Title IX, but I'd have to go in the 'Good, but...' category.  What say you all?

Expanding on the previous post: is strict equality on numbers really fair?  As I understand it, athletic support (and number of participants) must equal the proportions in the student body.  But is sports participation/interest equal by gender?

Here is where I think the law breaks down.  My younger son's girlfriend (who seems likely to be daughter-in-law #2) is on the EMU cross-country team, yet is FAR less sports-obsessed than son #2.  I am truly grateful for the female posters here on d3boards.com (most are definitely WELL above the average of the male posters!), but the fact remains that 90-95% of posters are male.  Is there any evidence that anywhere near an equal number of potential athletes are female?  If not, isn't it true that female athletes are being unfairly favored over male athletes?

On balance (and considering past blatant discrimination) I strongly support Title IX.  But I do wonder if some tinkering might be in order.

Would we have developed women's sports without Title IX?  is there any evidence of some great sexist collusion among administrators who tried to keep women from representing their school athletically?  Who would cut women's programs if title IX was eliminated today? 

I don't know how bad the sports scene was when Title IX was enacted (since I wasn't born yet), but currently pretty much all sports have both male and female versions. Basketball, soccer, cross country, baseball/softball, etc. all are offered to both genders. The only sports off the top of my head which are generally one gender are football, wrestling, and volleyball (of course I could be wrong)

I feel that as long as a school is reasonable and offers the opportunity for the same sports to both genders (besides sports like football which doesn't really have the female counterpart) that they don't need to use Title IX. That's not to say it should be completely done away with, but I think it's served its purpose in creating equal opportunities for females and can now be relaxed a bit to allow schools a bit more freedom to choose which sports they sponsor based on participant interest in each sport.

Quote from: AO on December 27, 2011, 09:05:11 AM
Would we have developed women's sports without Title IX?  is there any evidence of some great sexist collusion among administrators who tried to keep women from representing their school athletically?  Who would cut women's programs if title IX was eliminated today?

If you remember the 60's and 70's, it was bleak. My sister had no organized athletics in high school. The NCAA didn't even start sponsoring the women's basketball tournament until their hand was forced by the AIAW. Indiana had no organized high school sports for girls until 1975 and without title IX, who knows when it would have happened.

The money talked, and it would keep talking. It wasn't that long ago that a Big 12 school (Oklahoma) was seriously thinking of cutting women's hoops. Without some sort of regulation, there would always be those that would give excess largesse to football or other sports and leave the women with little or no scholarships, equipment or facilities.

The issue is that football and revenue sports consume a great deal of money and administrators and athletics directors are cowardly and looking very short term and not long term at the entire program. The issues in Maryland right now are due to inept handling of the revenue sports.

BTW, there is men's volleyball.

Quote from: smedindy on December 27, 2011, 09:44:49 AM

Quote from: AO on December 27, 2011, 09:05:11 AM
Would we have developed women's sports without Title IX?  is there any evidence of some great sexist collusion among administrators who tried to keep women from representing their school athletically?  Who would cut women's programs if title IX was eliminated today?

If you remember the 60's and 70's, it was bleak. My sister had no organized athletics in high school. The NCAA didn't even start sponsoring the women's basketball tournament until their hand was forced by the AIAW. Indiana had no organized high school sports for girls until 1975 and without title IX, who knows when it would have happened.

The money talked, and it would keep talking. It wasn't that long ago that a Big 12 school (Oklahoma) was seriously thinking of cutting women's hoops. Without some sort of regulation, there would always be those that would give excess largesse to football or other sports and leave the women with little or no scholarships, equipment or facilities.

The issue is that football and revenue sports consume a great deal of money and administrators and athletics directors are cowardly and looking very short term and not long term at the entire program. The issues in Maryland right now are due to inept handling of the revenue sports.

BTW, there is men's volleyball.

no, I don't remember the 60s or 70s.  My experience starts in the 80s and includes observing a lot of athletic programs in D3 that derive very little direct revenue from football or basketball.  These d3 programs derive their value from the interest of the students involved who choose to go to that school based partly on the existence of that team. 

Maybe the interest in football at Oklahoma was greater than the interest in women's hoops?  Does this mean that women's hoops at Oklahoma have zero value? No, but perhaps the programs costs went far and above it's real value.  The same standard should be applied to men's and women's sports.  The basketball programs for men and women at MCTC (minneapolis community and technical college) were cut a couple years ago as their value declined.   

I do not see it written anywhere in the law that "football revenues shall first be used to support less popular women's programs because it is inherently unfair that more people like watching football than all other women's sports combined"

At Wisconsin's flag ship university the University of Wisconsin only three sports generate revenue profit and all three are men's sports (football, basketball and hockey).  Those sports not only help support all of the women's sports but also several other men's teams like rowing, wrestling, fencing, swimming/diving and track/field.  Though I don't have data to support it it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case at other universities as well. 

Title IX wasn't established because it was inherently unfair that more people liked watching football than all other women's sports combined.  Title IX was established because it was inherently unfair that male athletes were given opportunities that did not exist for female athletes.   

Quote from: badgerwarhawk on December 27, 2011, 11:10:07 AM
At Wisconsin's flag ship university the University of Wisconsin only three sports generate revenue profit and all three are men's sports (football, basketball and hockey).  Those sports not only help support all of the women's sports but also several other men's teams like rowing, wrestling, fencing, swimming/diving and track/field.  Though I don't have data to support it it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case at other universities as well. 

Title IX wasn't established because it was inherently unfair that more people liked watching football than all other women's sports combined.  Title IX was established because it was inherently unfair that male athletes were given opportunities that did not exist for female athletes.   

Are women not allowed to play football anymore?  It is the sexes themselves that are inherently unequal, not the athletic opportunities provided by the men's football or basketball teams.  The only opportunities that are denied to one sex are the opportunities reserved solely for women.   This doesn't mean that I think the women's basketball team needs to be cut. There are JV and intramural basketball teams for those that don't make the varsity cut, club teams for sports without as much student interest.  Women's teams will thrive on their own merit (and without the subsidies from the men's teams at the d1 level). 

Athletics should not be a dollars-and-cents zero-sum game. The only value proposition is the value to the institution as a whole, to attract a wider variety of students and provide opportunities to grow, thrive and learn. No college NEEDS sports, but colleges that offer a wide variety of athletics, like other activities, thrive.

The Oklahoma situation was despicable. They shafted the team by giving it the worst facilities, practice times and basically no institutional support, because it wasn't football or baseball. Then they wanted to yank it away because it couldn't make gold out of lead.

All student athletes deserve equal opportunity to compete. I'm sorry if we poor males seem discriminated against because we can't join the women's basketball team, or the women's cross country team but the women on those teams deserve as much of a chance to compete and win as their male counterparts. Pity us. 

Title IX represents top down social engineering, like it or not.

There should be two pools.  Football should be in one and all other sports in the second.  The second pool should have all the Title IX rules.  That should last until a women's sport comes along that requires rosters as big as football.

Football is not only a "revenue" sport in D1 but apparently it is also a "revenue" sport at D3 if you consider its impact on attracting male students and tuition paying football players. :)

I feel it is safe to say that football will not be broken out into its own pool. Back in the 70s some congressman attempted that as an ammedment to Title IX and it was soundly defeated. It was also considered to be indefensible in terms of later court review of the original law.

There was also an attempt to exempt revenue producing sports. That too was scrapped on fears that colleges would work real hard at making sure prized programs fell under "revenue producing" by one gimmick or another.

I believe there are flaws in Title IX and am sad every time a sport disappears. However, we live in an era of limited resources and unlimited desires. Women deserve athletic opportunities at schools receiving Federal funds and I highly doubt anyone could convince me otherwise.

W&L was an all-male school until the mid-80s. Since then, it has become 50/50 gender and the school has worked hard at adding the appropriate facilities and sports for female athletes. It has been expensive, but I believe the school is better off for being co-ed, and for having those student athletes on campus. I, for one, would not have gone to a single-sex school and knew plenty of classmates that felt the same way. So I suppose you could have used our tuition to offset the costs of adding female sports!

Frank, sometimes 'social engineering' happens for the greater good of humanity.

Very interesting discussion.
I remember the 60's and 70's well (graduated Highschool-'71, semi-rural Ga) we had 6 boy sports, 5 girl sports.
Played college ball (D-2, now D-1fcs, public school OVC) in the early mid 70's - we had 7 boy and 7 girl sports........

the undergraduate school my daughters graduated from (D-1, public, SEC) in this mililinium (sp) has 8 boy sports and 11 girl sports, and one sport (football) pays all the bills (War Damn Eagle)

the school my son graduated from (D-3, Private, Independent) in spring 2011 has 9 each (and the boys girl friend - to paraphrase Mr Ypsi- who seems to be hanging around a lot) plays one of the girls).... .Hawk 'em

the larger question, does title 9 do good and help female athletes ?
... no question to me...yep
has it harmed mens sports ?
...no question on certain campuses... yep. ain't no college wrestling in NCAA, mens gymnastics, et al in the deep south
do the good out weigh the bad ?
i spect yall can educate me on that, i sure ain't smart enough to know... as my girls were bothe tai kwan do'ers, karate'ers and kick boxers (thier husbands are both  kept in line)
keep the faith 

Good or bad?  This will go back and forth forever.  I think Title IX was "Necessary" if women were to receive relatively equal athletic treatment in colleges and universities.  One irony is that with women's enrollment in higher education significantly higher than men's, and particularly in smaller colleges and universities, colleges are starting football programs to help grow their male numbers. Equal opportunity is, on the whole, a good thing--unfortunately, in some instances at the expense of some male sports.  But these are institutional decisions.  I believe we can name a number of colleges and universities that have dropped men's sports even though, at least in my mind, they could have found a way to retain them.  The financial question is in some ways in some schools a tough nut driven, I am sorry to believe, by faculty and academic administrators' concerns about how much money is spent on athletics relative to how much is spent on academics.  And that is a hot topic some administrators don't want to tackle, opting to preserve their jobs, or at least avoid turmoil, rather than risk faculty ire by funding athletics at ever-increasing levels.  Hence, the trade off of teams, with men's teams almost always losing out.  Many think that a school will devote whatever  resources necessary to athletics; we like to believe that.  That's not the way it always works. With only so much pie to divide, well . . . .

AO: http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=6153.0
Why are there pictures/stories of women on the front page of D3hoops?

... that was the thread I was referring to in the other conversation.

Quote from: smedindy on December 27, 2011, 09:44:49 AM

Quote from: AO on December 27, 2011, 09:05:11 AM
Would we have developed women's sports without Title IX?  is there any evidence of some great sexist collusion among administrators who tried to keep women from representing their school athletically?  Who would cut women's programs if title IX was eliminated today?

If you remember the 60's and 70's, it was bleak. My sister had no organized athletics in high school. The NCAA didn't even start sponsoring the women's basketball tournament until their hand was forced by the AIAW. Indiana had no organized high school sports for girls until 1975 and without title IX, who knows when it would have happened.

I also remember the late 60's and early 70's and girls in NJ had plenty of opportunities to compete.  My high school had football for the boys and field hockey for the girls (one of the best hs field hockey programs in the state) and cross-country for both.  Winter had wrestling (the big sport at Warren Hills) boys and girls basketball.  Spring was Baseball, Softball and Track and Field for both.  They added boys soccer in 78 and girls soccer in 80 or 81. 

In the late 30's and early 40's my mother was limited to intramural girls basketball (6 players per side and the guards couldn't cross half-court) and intramural softball by the 50's that had changed in NJ.  I have to admit when I was a little kid and learning how to play baseball my dad taught me to throw and field but mom taught me to hit.  Mom was a good hitter, having four older brothers helped her out with baseball.

But NJ was an outlier, Knightstalker.

I have a picture of my maternal grandmother, who taught school before she married, coaching girls' 3-a-side, 6-woman basketball, to her pupils in a cotton field 70 miles west of Abilene in 1921.

In my high school in the mid 1960's, women's volleyball, basketball and track were big.  The head cheerleader lettered in 3 sports. I cannot remember if we had tennis for both men and women. The guys only had golf.  No cross country for either yet in the 1960's.

I remember that the University Interscholastic League offered championships in several girls sports in Texas when I was growing up in the 1960's. It was a mixed bag tho', but I can remember some women's teams in west Texas that were every bit as good as the men in basketball (if you called the game in pure "Naismithian" style).  The Wayland Baptist Flying Queens were a powerhouse in Women's AAU and AIAW.

Opportunity and equity are the two main focuses of title 9.  In the back of my mind though, I have this issue of men simply being more interested in sports from an early age.  Surely there are women who have strived to compete at early ages in various sports, but as children, how often do you see females organize playground sports on their own?  How many hours of basketball (from pickup games, shooting by yourself, etc) does your average college male ball player compare to your female ball player?  Does the female ball player deserve the same at the highest level?

Now maybe we can say that boys have role models to look up too that females don't at an early age?  I mean we all realize that there is difference between males and females and that is why we have separate teams, but in the end people want to see the best human beings compete regardless of gender.  At the youth level, why do adults set up leagues for our sons and daughters?  Because of their interest?  Our interest? 

My girls love sports camp and soccer. Girls sports in Minnesota are huge. And they deserve every dollar of support.

And I've seen plenty of girls around in pickup games and working on their games on their own. But I don't see as many pickup games as I did back when I was a kid, because of the way society is now.

Also some of the most compelling sporting events I've seen have been women's team sports.

Ralph, were they sanctioned state tournaments for girls back in the 60's or were they loosely organized?

Also, was it actual hoops or the 6-player hybrid?

Quote from: smedindy on January 01, 2012, 11:18:30 AM
My girls love sports camp and soccer. Girls sports in Minnesota are huge. And they deserve every dollar of support.

And I've seen plenty of girls around in pickup games and working on their games on their own. But I don't see as many pickup games as I did back when I was a kid, because of the way society is now.

Also some of the most compelling sporting events I've seen have been women's team sports.

Plenty?  How many adult men's or women's basketball or softball leagues do you see?  What do you see boys and girls do on their own during a 5th, 6th, 7th grade recess? 

I'm a big basketball guy and have been playing at local boston parks over most of my adult life at probably 100 different parks.  I've never seen a girls or women's pickup game.  I've played with plenty of girls and have seen many play, but males by far show a much greater interest in sports and playing sports.

I'm not saying that's a reason to deprive women of opportunities, but there is something there.

Not as many as men, but women's softball is quite popular in some quarters. I know my hometown had, at some point, 40 women's softball teams.

Plenty of girls in Indiana hoop. Indiana has a bunch of girl gym-rats. It may be an urban, Eastern thing you're describing and not necessarily a cross-section of the entire country. Girls weren't part of the urban park basketball culture for the most part - they were part of the organized gym culture. Doesn't mean they're not as interested, just a different dimension.

My daughters in MN tend to get into kickball or dodgeball games at recess. Of course, in the winter everyone is sledding during recess or something similar.

I do think that it's becoming less and less of a prevalent thing for unorganized sports to spring up.

When I was kid growing up, I didn't know what Title IX was, I only know that as an elementary, middle and high school girl, I did not have a plethora of options (as are offered today) to play organized competitive sports through my public school system or in the community. In my high school, girl's sports options were basketball, tennis and track. Softball was added my senior year. College options were tennis, basketball, hockey or lacrosse.

I did play in plenty of sandlot pick-up football games, baseball, and basketball games with the guys and was often picked over many other guys in the neighborhood when teams were chosen, but when school teams were formed I was left out.  The 1969 little league team from my neighborhood went to the Little League world series in Williamsport.  One of the dads in the neighborhood coached one of the LL teams from which the guys were selected, and he often told me he wished I could play for his team. I could unofficially play and practice with the guys, but could not officially be part of the team.  No LL girls baseball or softball teams then.  There was no AAU sports options for girls when I was a young teenager either, so I played on an ASA women's travel softball team.  So all I can say is that if it was title IX that got us to where we are today with the number of options for girls and young women that are now available, then I have to say it's a good thing. 

That said, I don't like the idea of men's teams having to be shut down because there are not equal numbers of women interested in competing at the same school.  I don't know what the fair balance is, but I'd hate to go back to exactly the way things were before Title IX.

Just one old lady's perspective here who experienced pre Title IX and is fortunate to see the impact the Title IX has made on girls/women's athletics in this country.

hoopstermom, thanks for the personal account.  You came along just barely too soon as a federal lawsuit forced LL to open up in 1974.  I'm proud to say that Ypsilanti played a role in that!

In 1973, Carolyn King was easily selected as a starter for her LL team.  Williamsport, as was their standard practice at the time, threatened to revoke the LL charter (for the entire league) if she played.  The Ypsi city council, by a unanimous 10-0 vote, told the league they would not be allowed to use public baseball diamonds if Carolyn did NOT play.  The league (to their undying credit) let Carolyn play, and filed a federal lawsuit against LL.  While accounts of the decision most often refer to Maria Pepe of Hoboken (who had filed suit a year earlier; like many federal suits, the eventual decision merged many individual suits into one), Carolyn King and Ypsilanti definitely played their role.

Alas, as often happens with slow-moving lawsuits, the protagonists themselves received no direct benefit - both Maria and Carolyn had aged out of LL by the time of the decision.  I'm happy to report that Carolyn's daughters played LL baseball (NOT softball)! ;D

Ypsi has two LLs - American and National.  Carolyn's league (American) always played an all-star game against the Nationals, but since the Nationals had no girls and retained their charter, they 'chickened out' at the threat of also losing their charter in 1973.  Since many of the kids remained in Ypsi, there was banter for years on who would have won the all-star game that year.  The alums finally played a couple of years ago, but since all were now 50-ish, I doubt anything was settled!  (But, reportedly, everyone had a great time, and consumed far more beer than [hopefully] would have happened in 1973. 8-))

We didn't have sanctioned little league in our town growing up.  We had what we called the farm league.  We had girls playing (mostly as fill in players when only seven or eight would show up for games (it was tough sometimes to get all the farm kids during the spring planting season).  I used to love playing first base when Amy was playing third, she had one of the best infielder arms in the league and she was a hell of a lead off hitter.  She went on to be an all conference field hockey and softball player in HS.

Do the title IX apologists have a problem with little league today?  How did the argument in the 70s move from, "equal opportunity to tryout for the baseball team to demanding that a separate girls only softball team be created and supported by the football/basketball teams"?  2.5 Million boys play little league baseball, while only 360,000 girls play in their softball division.  Is there any denying that boys are more interested in sports than girls?  Who out there would deny girls a chance to play today when there's enough interest, title IX or not?

There are a lot of other softball leagues that aren't sanctioned by Little League, AO. Many of those sprung up independently, whilst LL has had a 50-year jump on them. So that's not relevant at all.

So as a percentage girls aren't as interested in sports as boys? Big deal. Does that mean they don't deserve opportunity? "Sorry, we need a 10th assistant coach for football so no girls cross-country..."

Quote from: smedindy on January 02, 2012, 12:45:21 PM
There are a lot of other softball leagues that aren't sanctioned by Little League, AO. Many of those sprung up independently, whilst LL has had a 50-year jump on them. So that's not relevant at all.

So as a percentage girls aren't as interested in sports as boys? Big deal. Does that mean they don't deserve opportunity? "Sorry, we need a 10th assistant coach for football so no girls cross-country..."

I'm sure there are other softball leagues, but there are also other baseball leagues.  We have pretty clear evidence both anecdotal about not seeing female play pick up games in parks or gyms and the reality of youth participation numbers.  Boys and girls are different.  It's ok.

The percentages matter quite a bit when they're a part of title IX. 

Cross country can survive on its own without football money.  It does so just fine at most high schools and d3s that don't get much profit from their football program.

No, it doesn't matter. There needs to be the opportunity. Opportunity breeds participation. More and more girls and women are interested in sports than they were before Title IX. And that will keep growing and growing.

I never ever want to have my daughters denied any opportunity to play sports or dance or become engineers.

Quote from: smedindy on January 02, 2012, 02:40:07 PM
No, it doesn't matter. There needs to be the opportunity. Opportunity breeds participation. More and more girls and women are interested in sports than they were before Title IX. And that will keep growing and growing.

I never ever want to have my daughters denied any opportunity to play sports or dance or become engineers.

What about your hypothetical sons who wanted to wrestle at university xyz before that program was cut while a rowing team with little interest from girls was maintained in order to comply with title IX? 

The fair thing to do would be to operate each program independently.  Women shouldn't have to be compared to men in the athletic realm.  It's simply not a fair competition athletically.  Women's programs have unique value.  They don't need to measure themselves according to attendance, locker room size, or number of charter flights.  Let each school make their own decisions based upon their much better understanding of the interests of the students at their school.

Then you get in a perpetual catch-22 situation. No interest because of no opportunity. No opportunity because of no interest. And how do you know there's not any more interest in women's rowing than wrestling at school x? They're both niche sports. If there were opportunities for women's rowing in 1940 instead of just now, who knows how big it could have been.

Wrestling is one of those sports that has unfortunately been caught because of the inept handling of this by colleges and universities (for the most part).

Let me throw this out there:

Boston University women's basketball program draws little interest from anyone outside the parents and a few alumni.  Now this is a d1 program that probably costs the school about 500k a year lets say.  Boston University also has a partnership with a school system in a poor urban area of Boston called Chelsea.  BU probably spends a few million in Chelsea a year in this program.  Is title 9 helping out those kids in Chelsea that might be able to use that extra 500k that is spent on the basketball teams?  If I'm a teacher in that program, should I care about girls opportunities to play basketball in college?

Now Boston University is a private university, they can do what they want.......but in reality they can't.

Let's look at a strange situation happening in massachusetts with basically the same thing with the genders reversed.  About 20 years ago a boy in MA sued the MIAA (organization that oversees high school sports in MA) over not being able to play on the girls field hockey team.  He won, and ended up playing field hockey.  In recent years, more boys have been playing field hockey and causing kind of an issue because a few of them were all state caliber and were taking spots from girls.  Now in college these boys have no protection from title 9 because there is no Interest in men's field hockey at that level.  So I think we all have to admit that interest doesn't have anything to do with it.  It's a numbers game.

Another interesting article on a similar issue in MA right now:

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/norwood/articles/2012/01/01/miaa_to_discuss_issue_of_boys_breaking_girls_swim_records/

Quote from: smedindy on January 02, 2012, 03:09:55 PM
Then you get in a perpetual catch-22 situation. No interest because of no opportunity. No opportunity because of no interest.

Wrestling is one of those sports that has unfortunately been caught because of the inept handling of this by colleges and universities.

Interest will always come before a certain number of varsity spots is offered in a region.  We wouldn't have title IX if there wasn't interest before opportunity.  I see title IX as an accelerant to the rise of women's athletics, not a necessary support in todays less sexist world.

The inept handling bit has been debunked previously, but even if you felt they were inept you could at least admit that it makes title IX look bad.  Would you support a reform that would not count sports without a female counterpart such as football and wrestling?  You could also eliminate the 3-prong test and still mandate a number of women's teams be fielded with a certain funding level.

Utes,

Many college sports teams don't draw any interest. That's not a valid argument. Look at the D-1 attendance at mid-to-low major men's programs. Many draw flies, at best, like BU's MEN'S teams. 553 vs. Delaware. Wow. That's packing them in. The women average 389. I really can't see much of a difference - so maybe BU should cut every sport that doesn't draw anything, right? So goodbye men's hoops too. They're just as much (or even more) of a money sponge.

Shouldn't BU sponsor a robust athletics program? Why isn't that in the best interest of BU as a whole?

And yes, as a teacher you should care that your students have all of the opportunities.

Just because YOU don't have interest in something doesn't mean that others don't. It's not a zero sum game, people.

As for your other posts, that's a Massachusetts thing. It's not reflective of how other states or the NCAA handles situations. And it IS about interest, Johnny. Interest AND opportunity. Because, in the past, there were unlimited scholarships for men's sports and NOTHING for women's. Opportunity breeds interest.


AO,

Tell me Maryland's handling of athletics isn't inept. Tell me that Oklahoma's almost pulling the plug on women's hoops wasn't inept?

Quote from: smedindy on January 02, 2012, 04:00:19 PM
Utes,

Many college sports teams don't draw any interest. That's not a valid argument. Look at the D-1 attendance at mid-to-low major men's programs. Many draw flies, at best, like BU's MEN'S teams. 553 vs. Delaware. Wow. That's packing them in. The women average 389. I really can't see much of a difference - so maybe BU should cut every sport that doesn't draw anything, right? So goodbye men's hoops too. They're just as much (or even more) of a money sponge.

Shouldn't BU sponsor a robust athletics program? Why isn't that in the best interest of BU as a whole?

And yes, as a teacher you should care that your students have all of the opportunities.

Just because YOU don't have interest in something doesn't mean that others don't. It's not a zero sum game, people.

As for your other posts, that's a Massachusetts thing. It's not reflective of how other states or the NCAA handles situations. And it IS about interest, Johnny. Interest AND opportunity. Because, in the past, there were unlimited scholarships for men's sports and NOTHING for women's. Opportunity breeds interest.


AO,

Tell me Maryland's handling of athletics isn't inept. Tell me that Oklahoma's almost pulling the plug on women's hoops wasn't inept?

Well BU has a problem attracting male students as it is, but part of my point is that they aren't able to do what they want with their own money.  And high school boys in MA are able to play sports because the state gives them the opportunity.  What would a high school,in MN say if a boy wanted to play a sport that he didn't have the chance to play?  Too bad, there isn't enough in interest? 

In MA we have had a few high school girls do well on boys hockey teams, especially at goalie over the past 25 years.  Shouldn't we let those girls play on boys teams if they are good enough, even if there are two teams?  Surely they could argue the competition is better and would give them a better opportunity for their future.

I'm going off on a little tangent I know, but I think the lines need to be redrawn a little.

And I think schools like BU want that d1 men's program for the hope that a magic NCAA tourney draw brings some money their way.

Smed:  How can you not see a difference between a 1500 average and a 389 average?  Not to mention the BU men getting paid for playing in front of 9000 at texas, 5000 at Boston College and 8000 at Villanova?

I don't know much about maryland or oklahoma athletic directors but I do know many different decisions would be made without title IX.  You can't take from one and give to another without taking from one.

Quote from: smedindy on January 02, 2012, 04:00:19 PM
Utes,

Many college sports teams don't draw any interest. That's not a valid argument. Look at the D-1 attendance at mid-to-low major men's programs. Many draw flies, at best, like BU's MEN'S teams. 553 vs. Delaware. Wow. That's packing them in. The women average 389. I really can't see much of a difference - so maybe BU should cut every sport that doesn't draw anything, right? So goodbye men's hoops too. They're just as much (or even more) of a money sponge.

Shouldn't BU sponsor a robust athletics program? Why isn't that in the best interest of BU as a whole?

And yes, as a teacher you should care that your students have all of the opportunities.

Just because YOU don't have interest in something doesn't mean that others don't. It's not a zero sum game, people.

As for your other posts, that's a Massachusetts thing. It's not reflective of how other states or the NCAA handles situations. And it IS about interest, Johnny. Interest AND opportunity. Because, in the past, there were unlimited scholarships for men's sports and NOTHING for women's. Opportunity breeds interest.


AO,

Tell me Maryland's handling of athletics isn't inept. Tell me that Oklahoma's almost pulling the plug on women's hoops wasn't inept?

What if BU said they were cutting 20 women's scholarships and 5 men's scholarships for sports, but we're going to add 30 women's scholarships for their teaching program, and 10 for men in the teaching program.  They would be in violation of title 9, but would they be taking opportunities from women?  Or just taking away opportunities from women in an area where there is no interest.  What if they can show that there is more interest in that teaching program for women?  Aren't there women and men being left out of scholarship money there?

Quote from: AO on January 02, 2012, 04:23:04 PM
Smed:  How can you not see a difference between a 1500 average and a 389 average?  Not to mention the BU men getting paid for playing in front of 9000 at texas, 5000 at Boston College and 8000 at Villanova?

I don't know much about maryland or oklahoma athletic directors but I do know many different decisions would be made without title IX.  You can't take from one and give to another without taking from one.

AO,

The 1500 average includes the Harvard and Northerastern games, which are rivalry. And pay-for-play games are contra indicators of interest. If there was interest, they wouldn't need pay-for-play games. How many people in Boston realized that BU lost to Quinnipiac? I think parents and alums, much like the women.

You don't HAVE to take from one. But you can choose to cut the bloat, which fraidy-cat athletics directors have not done because you need that 13th assistant coach.

Utes,

That makes no sense. Again, it's about opportunity, which creates interest. So in your world, it'd be like it was in the old days, where there was no opportunity, thus no interest, thus no opportunity. So you can answer to my daughters then why they don't have a soccer team, because someone said girls don't want to play sports which is only true because there was no team. My sister LIVED that, dude.

Not exactly Title IX, but.......
  http://oxyathletics.com/sports/mbkb/2011-12/releases/20120102a18rma

Quote from: smedindy on January 02, 2012, 04:50:51 PM

Quote from: AO on January 02, 2012, 04:23:04 PM
Smed:  How can you not see a difference between a 1500 average and a 389 average?  Not to mention the BU men getting paid for playing in front of 9000 at texas, 5000 at Boston College and 8000 at Villanova?

I don't know much about maryland or oklahoma athletic directors but I do know many different decisions would be made without title IX.  You can't take from one and give to another without taking from one.

AO,

The 1500 average includes the Harvard and Northerastern games, which are rivalry. And pay-for-play games are contra indicators of interest. If there was interest, they wouldn't need pay-for-play games. How many people in Boston realized that BU lost to Quinnipiac? I think parents and alums, much like the women.

You don't HAVE to take from one. But you can choose to cut the bloat, which fraidy-cat athletics directors have not done because you need that 13th assistant coach.

Utes,

That makes no sense. Again, it's about opportunity, which creates interest. So in your world, it'd be like it was in the old days, where there was no opportunity, thus no interest, thus no opportunity. So you can answer to my daughters then why they don't have a soccer team, because someone said girls don't want to play sports which is only true because there was no team. My sister LIVED that, dude.

The BU women also played Northeastern and Harvard?  With crowds of 364 at home and 556 at Harvard.  How is getting paid to play a contra-indicator compared to the women?  How much would the women have been paid to play the Texas women?  We're comparing men versus women, not BU versus Texas.  This was part of my point in a previous post.  Stop trying to compare the men and women.  The women lose those comparisons.  They're separate and unequal but both still valuable.

Cut the bloat?  What if you cut the bloat and still have to cut wrestling?  Especially at places like BU that don't have the millions in football/men's basketball profit to pay for as much of the women's scholarships.

Quote from: smedindy on January 02, 2012, 04:50:51 PM

Quote from: AO on January 02, 2012, 04:23:04 PM
Smed:  How can you not see a difference between a 1500 average and a 389 average?  Not to mention the BU men getting paid for playing in front of 9000 at texas, 5000 at Boston College and 8000 at Villanova?

I don't know much about maryland or oklahoma athletic directors but I do know many different decisions would be made without title IX.  You can't take from one and give to another without taking from one.

AO,

The 1500 average includes the Harvard and Northerastern games, which are rivalry. And pay-for-play games are contra indicators of interest. If there was interest, they wouldn't need pay-for-play games. How many people in Boston realized that BU lost to Quinnipiac? I think parents and alums, much like the women.

You don't HAVE to take from one. But you can choose to cut the bloat, which fraidy-cat athletics directors have not done because you need that 13th assistant coach.

Utes,

That makes no sense. Again, it's about opportunity, which creates interest. So in your world, it'd be like it was in the old days, where there was no opportunity, thus no interest, thus no opportunity. So you can answer to my daughters then why they don't have a soccer team, because someone said girls don't want to play sports which is only true because there was no team. My sister LIVED that, dude.

Opportunity doesn't always create interest.  If you look at that article I liked to, there isn't enough interest in these boys sports so they don't have teams.  Girls have opportunities at these schools that boys don't have.  Should these schools add boys swimming and field hockey teams in the hope that one day there is enough interest?

And the girls hockey example has nothing to do with either.  It has to do with being the best at the sport you love regardless of gender.  Should girls have to play softball even if they want to play baseball?  Let's face the fact that we have girls play softball because they simply won't find enough talent to be competitive in the Sport of baseball.  It is also the reason why we have different size basketballs.  We set up different rules and sports because of physical gender differences, but we want to apply the same title9 rules to everyone.

Quote from: smedindy on January 02, 2012, 04:50:51 PM

Quote from: AO on January 02, 2012, 04:23:04 PM
Smed:  How can you not see a difference between a 1500 average and a 389 average?  Not to mention the BU men getting paid for playing in front of 9000 at texas, 5000 at Boston College and 8000 at Villanova?

I don't know much about maryland or oklahoma athletic directors but I do know many different decisions would be made without title IX.  You can't take from one and give to another without taking from one.

AO,

The 1500 average includes the Harvard and Northerastern games, which are rivalry. And pay-for-play games are contra indicators of interest. If there was interest, they wouldn't need pay-for-play games. How many people in Boston realized that BU lost to Quinnipiac? I think parents and alums, much like the women.

You don't HAVE to take from one. But you can choose to cut the bloat, which fraidy-cat athletics directors have not done because you need that 13th assistant coach.

Utes,

That makes no sense. Again, it's about opportunity, which creates interest. So in your world, it'd be like it was in the old days, where there was no opportunity, thus no interest, thus no opportunity. So you can answer to my daughters then why they don't have a soccer team, because someone said girls don't want to play sports which is only true because there was no team. My sister LIVED that, dude.

Smed, I'm not well versed in Title IX so my post may seem uniformed.  Doesn't this come down to supply and demand?  Back in the 70's there weren't as many women going to college.  I don't imagine girls youth sports were as big as they are today either.  There has been a natural societal evolution where more girls showed interest in participating in sports.  That coupled with significantly more women attending college creates a natural incentive for high schools and colleges to offer women's sports.  If a college doesn't feel that fielding women's teams in some sports would be beneficial to their mission, can't women simply choose to go elsewhere?  It just seems that with so many women attending college today, and so many women wanting to participate in sports, that schools will naturally make program available to attract them. 
An over simplification?

When the marketplace fails to produce an outcome favorable to certain persons, some of those persons often turn to the practice of politics in an attempt to get their way.

emma17 - yes, an oversimplification.

Title IX was passed BEFORE the boom in women's (and girl's) sports, but was a result of feminist pressure.  (Little League, for example, didn't allow girls until 5 years after Title IX (which didn't directly effect LL), but only in response to a federal lawsuit - they also added LL softball.)  It really is a chicken and egg dispute about girl's (women's) interest in sports and Title IX, but I strongly suspect that the boom in girl's (women's) interest would not have occurred as quickly without Title IX.

Since women now outnumber men (by far) in colleges, I am agnostic on the continued need for Title IX.  Today the trend seems to be for colleges to add football in order to attract MALE students.  But make no mistake, at the time of Title IX, it was very much necessary.  When I was in hs (early 60s) and when I was in college (late 60s) there were NO girl's or women's sports offered.  (I was enlightened on this subject early on, since by far the best athlete in my neighborhood growing up was a girl! 8-)  She had no teams to play on. >:()

Quote from: frank uible on January 04, 2012, 12:46:31 AM
When the marketplace fails to produce an outcome favorable to certain persons, some of those persons often turn to the practice of politics in an attempt to get their way.

Frank,

If 'the marketplace' were the ONLY consideration, we would still have 'Negro' slavery and 7-year-olds working in factories.

Because of attitudes like yours, thank God for politics! ;D

Have I said anything which is untrue?

Quote from: frank uible on January 04, 2012, 05:28:29 AM
Have I said anything which is untrue?

Nope, like usual Frank, you hit the nail right on the head.

But for the greater good, corrections like this need to be made. Maybe society has evolved, maybe it has not. I don't want to know what would happen if the Civil Rights Acts or Voting Rights Acts disappeared.

I've beat this to death. I fear that if you remove Title IX, you remove women's sports. ADs already are doing insane things in the name of the holy football BCS dollar - basically ripping apart their entire athletics departments rivalries and continuity, increasing travel and overhead just to play for something mythical.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 04, 2012, 12:53:54 AM

Quote from: frank uible on January 04, 2012, 12:46:31 AM
When the marketplace fails to produce an outcome favorable to certain persons, some of those persons often turn to the practice of politics in an attempt to get their way.

Frank,

If 'the marketplace' were the ONLY consideration, we would still have 'Negro' slavery and 7-year-olds working in factories.

Because of attitudes like yours, thank God for politics! ;D

Mr. Ypsi- I usually enjoy and agree with your posts, but not this one.  Do you really believe this?  Do you really believe we would have negro slavery today and 7 yr olds in factories?  Do you really believe that about this country? 
I sure hope this was tongue in cheek.  People and societies evolve, they always have. 

Quote from: smedindy on January 04, 2012, 09:40:24 AM
But for the greater good, corrections like this need to be made. Maybe society has evolved, maybe it has not. I don't want to know what would happen if the Civil Rights Acts or Voting Rights Acts disappeared.

I've beat this to death. I fear that if you remove Title IX, you remove women's sports. ADs already are doing insane things in the name of the holy football BCS dollar - basically ripping apart their entire athletics departments rivalries and continuity, increasing travel and overhead just to play for something mythical.

So like Mr. Ypsi you don't know what would happen if the Civil Rights Act or Voting Act disappeared?  Really?  You think a country with the ethnic/racial/gender diversity we have would go back to what?  Slaves?  Blacks riding in the back of the bus?  Women unable to vote?  Come on man- this is a form of paranoia is it not? 
You don't know if the country evolved?  There are youth and high school sports for women because it was the right thing and there was a demand.  There is now a supply to meet the demand.  That's how it works.

Quote from: emma17 on January 04, 2012, 09:59:14 AM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 04, 2012, 12:53:54 AM

Quote from: frank uible on January 04, 2012, 12:46:31 AM
When the marketplace fails to produce an outcome favorable to certain persons, some of those persons often turn to the practice of politics in an attempt to get their way.

Frank,

If 'the marketplace' were the ONLY consideration, we would still have 'Negro' slavery and 7-year-olds working in factories.

Because of attitudes like yours, thank God for politics! ;D

Mr. Ypsi- I usually enjoy and agree with your posts, but not this one.  Do you really believe this?  Do you really believe we would have negro slavery today and 7 yr olds in factories?  Do you really believe that about this country? 
I sure hope this was tongue in cheek.  People and societies evolve, they always have.

Mr. Ypsi's point is valid.  The majority cannot decide for the minority all the time.  We cannot (or shouldn't) run a society like we do the marketplace.

But is it fair to compare slavery and the opportunity to vote to womens sports?

Quote from: emma17 on January 04, 2012, 10:07:44 AM

Quote from: smedindy on January 04, 2012, 09:40:24 AM
But for the greater good, corrections like this need to be made. Maybe society has evolved, maybe it has not. I don't want to know what would happen if the Civil Rights Acts or Voting Rights Acts disappeared.

I've beat this to death. I fear that if you remove Title IX, you remove women's sports. ADs already are doing insane things in the name of the holy football BCS dollar - basically ripping apart their entire athletics departments rivalries and continuity, increasing travel and overhead just to play for something mythical.

So like Mr. Ypsi you don't know what would happen if the Civil Rights Act or Voting Act disappeared?  Really?  You think a country with the ethnic/racial/gender diversity we have would go back to what?  Slaves?  Blacks riding in the back of the bus?  Women unable to vote?  Come on man- this is a form of paranoia is it not? 
You don't know if the country evolved?  There are youth and high school sports for women because it was the right thing and there was a demand.  There is now a supply to meet the demand.  That's how it works.

You just said youth and high school sports for women exist because "it was the right thing" and "there was a demand".  "The right thing" would be subjective and "there was a demand" would be what the majority wants.

So if a College President said it was the right thing for his university to get rid of women's sports because there is no demand you would be ok with that?

Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on January 04, 2012, 11:24:26 AM

Quote from: emma17 on January 04, 2012, 09:59:14 AM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 04, 2012, 12:53:54 AM

Quote from: frank uible on January 04, 2012, 12:46:31 AM
When the marketplace fails to produce an outcome favorable to certain persons, some of those persons often turn to the practice of politics in an attempt to get their way.

Frank,

If 'the marketplace' were the ONLY consideration, we would still have 'Negro' slavery and 7-year-olds working in factories.

Because of attitudes like yours, thank God for politics! ;D

Mr. Ypsi- I usually enjoy and agree with your posts, but not this one.  Do you really believe this?  Do you really believe we would have negro slavery today and 7 yr olds in factories?  Do you really believe that about this country? 
I sure hope this was tongue in cheek.  People and societies evolve, they always have.

Mr. Ypsi's point is valid.  The majority cannot decide for the minority all the time.  We cannot (or shouldn't) run a society like we do the marketplace.

So you think the majority of people in this country would revert to slavery and child sweatshops and also prevent women from working?

Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on January 04, 2012, 11:39:42 AM

Quote from: emma17 on January 04, 2012, 10:07:44 AM

Quote from: smedindy on January 04, 2012, 09:40:24 AM
But for the greater good, corrections like this need to be made. Maybe society has evolved, maybe it has not. I don't want to know what would happen if the Civil Rights Acts or Voting Rights Acts disappeared.

I've beat this to death. I fear that if you remove Title IX, you remove women's sports. ADs already are doing insane things in the name of the holy football BCS dollar - basically ripping apart their entire athletics departments rivalries and continuity, increasing travel and overhead just to play for something mythical.

So like Mr. Ypsi you don't know what would happen if the Civil Rights Act or Voting Act disappeared?  Really?  You think a country with the ethnic/racial/gender diversity we have would go back to what?  Slaves?  Blacks riding in the back of the bus?  Women unable to vote?  Come on man- this is a form of paranoia is it not? 
You don't know if the country evolved?  There are youth and high school sports for women because it was the right thing and there was a demand.  There is now a supply to meet the demand.  That's how it works.

You just said youth and high school sports for women exist because "it was the right thing" and "there was a demand".  "The right thing" would be subjective and "there was a demand" would be what the majority wants.

So if a College President said it was the right thing for his university to get rid of women's sports because there is no demand you would be ok with that?

That college president doesn't constitute a majority and that president would have to answer to the majority of students, faculty and alum. Good luck to that college president.

Quote from: emma17 on January 04, 2012, 11:42:33 AM

Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on January 04, 2012, 11:24:26 AM

Quote from: emma17 on January 04, 2012, 09:59:14 AM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 04, 2012, 12:53:54 AM

Quote from: frank uible on January 04, 2012, 12:46:31 AM
When the marketplace fails to produce an outcome favorable to certain persons, some of those persons often turn to the practice of politics in an attempt to get their way.

Frank,

If 'the marketplace' were the ONLY consideration, we would still have 'Negro' slavery and 7-year-olds working in factories.

Because of attitudes like yours, thank God for politics! ;D

Mr. Ypsi- I usually enjoy and agree with your posts, but not this one.  Do you really believe this?  Do you really believe we would have negro slavery today and 7 yr olds in factories?  Do you really believe that about this country? 
I sure hope this was tongue in cheek.  People and societies evolve, they always have.

Mr. Ypsi's point is valid.  The majority cannot decide for the minority all the time.  We cannot (or shouldn't) run a society like we do the marketplace.

So you think the majority of people in this country would revert to slavery and child sweatshops and also prevent women from working?

No and that wasn't his point.

Quote from: emma17 on January 04, 2012, 11:45:13 AM

Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on January 04, 2012, 11:39:42 AM

Quote from: emma17 on January 04, 2012, 10:07:44 AM

Quote from: smedindy on January 04, 2012, 09:40:24 AM
But for the greater good, corrections like this need to be made. Maybe society has evolved, maybe it has not. I don't want to know what would happen if the Civil Rights Acts or Voting Rights Acts disappeared.

I've beat this to death. I fear that if you remove Title IX, you remove women's sports. ADs already are doing insane things in the name of the holy football BCS dollar - basically ripping apart their entire athletics departments rivalries and continuity, increasing travel and overhead just to play for something mythical.

So like Mr. Ypsi you don't know what would happen if the Civil Rights Act or Voting Act disappeared?  Really?  You think a country with the ethnic/racial/gender diversity we have would go back to what?  Slaves?  Blacks riding in the back of the bus?  Women unable to vote?  Come on man- this is a form of paranoia is it not? 
You don't know if the country evolved?  There are youth and high school sports for women because it was the right thing and there was a demand.  There is now a supply to meet the demand.  That's how it works.

You just said youth and high school sports for women exist because "it was the right thing" and "there was a demand".  "The right thing" would be subjective and "there was a demand" would be what the majority wants.

So if a College President said it was the right thing for his university to get rid of women's sports because there is no demand you would be ok with that?

That college president doesn't constitute a majority and that president would have to answer to the majority of students, faculty and alum. Good luck to that college president.

I think you are missing my point here emma.  At one point, the "majority", and college presidents and colleges did not want womens sports, and didn't provide the opportunity for women to play sports, so the governemnt stepped in and basically told them that they had to provide opportunity for women (if they wanted to accept public funds).  The majority lost out with Title 9, as they may have done with various civil rights issues.

What was his point? That I have a certain bad attitude? What attitude might that be, and where have I expressed it?

Quote from: frank uible on January 04, 2012, 11:58:26 AM
What was his point? That I have a certain bad attitude? What attitude might that be, and where have I expressed it?

I don't think that was his point either.  You are right in what you said, and Mr. Ypsi was just pointing out that politics isn't always a bad thing.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but that is the way I understood it.

Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on January 04, 2012, 12:05:35 PM

Quote from: frank uible on January 04, 2012, 11:58:26 AM
What was his point? That I have a certain bad attitude? What attitude might that be, and where have I expressed it?

I don't think that was his point either.  You are right in what you said, and Mr. Ypsi was just pointing out that politics isn't always a bad thing.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but that is the way I understood it.

Thanks - you've gotten it.

Emma, no, I do not think society would NOW revert to slavery or child labor.  But it was politics, not the marketplace, which eliminated those disgraces.

As I expressed earlier, I am agnostic as to whether or not Title IX is STILL necessary.  But I am absolutely convinced that it was necessary to getting women's sports opportunities in the first place.

Quote from: smedindy on January 04, 2012, 09:40:24 AM
I've beat this to death. I fear that if you remove Title IX, you remove women's sports. ADs already are doing insane things in the name of the holy football BCS dollar - basically ripping apart their entire athletics departments rivalries and continuity, increasing travel and overhead just to play for something mythical.

+1

While I'm a huge fan of one of the sports that's a common "victim" of Title IX (wrestling), I generally agree with this viewpoint.  I think it's a shame that so many niche sports have been cut at the collegiate level to remain in Title IX compliance, but I'm even more afraid of what might happen if it were removed.  As smedindy said, the BCS football dollars have already shredded a lot of wonderful tradition at the D-I level in other sports.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on January 04, 2012, 12:35:20 PM

Quote from: smedindy on January 04, 2012, 09:40:24 AM
I've beat this to death. I fear that if you remove Title IX, you remove women's sports. ADs already are doing insane things in the name of the holy football BCS dollar - basically ripping apart their entire athletics departments rivalries and continuity, increasing travel and overhead just to play for something mythical.

+1

While I'm a huge fan of one of the sports that's a common "victim" of Title IX (wrestling), I generally agree with this viewpoint.  I think it's a shame that so many niche sports have been cut at the collegiate level to remain in Title IX compliance, but I'm even more afraid of what might happen if it were removed.  As smedindy said, the BCS football dollars have already shredded a lot of wonderful tradition at the D-I level in other sports.

As the parent of four daughters and one son,I understand the concerns on both sides of the issue. That said, without title IX, my daughters would not have/had the same opportunities for competition as my son did. On the other side of the coin if my son wanted to play volleyball or wrestle in colllege his choices would be limited. I don't think it would be a good idea to get rid of Title IX, but I don't see why it can't be amended.  As a coach of both female and male athletes-it has been awesome to see members of both sexes be able to continue their sport(s) and have successful college careers. I would never want to see the door shut on athletic competition to anyone based on their gender.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 04, 2012, 12:28:23 PM

Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on January 04, 2012, 12:05:35 PM

Quote from: frank uible on January 04, 2012, 11:58:26 AM
What was his point? That I have a certain bad attitude? What attitude might that be, and where have I expressed it?

I don't think that was his point either.  You are right in what you said, and Mr. Ypsi was just pointing out that politics isn't always a bad thing.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but that is the way I understood it.

Thanks - you've gotten it.

Emma, no, I do not think society would NOW revert to slavery or child labor.  But it was politics, not the marketplace, which eliminated those disgraces.

As I expressed earlier, I am agnostic as to whether or not Title IX is STILL necessary.  But I am absolutely convinced that it was necessary to getting women's sports opportunities in the first place.

But Mr Ypsi, politics is supposed to represent the will of the people.
Perhaps politics pushed the agenda front and center at some point, but at the end of the day it's still the desire of the people. Greater collegiate sports offerings for women would continue without Title IX because the demand exists for it.
That's not to say that everything would be perfect and "equal" to everyone's liking, but it would work.

Full disclosure- I have two sons and a daughter. My daughter is far more involved in her sport and dreams of playing college volleyball. If the school of her choice didn't offer volleyball for whatever reason, we would find one that does- I surely wouldn't demand political action to force her first choice.

Quote from: emma17 on January 04, 2012, 01:14:23 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 04, 2012, 12:28:23 PM

Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on January 04, 2012, 12:05:35 PM

Quote from: frank uible on January 04, 2012, 11:58:26 AM
What was his point? That I have a certain bad attitude? What attitude might that be, and where have I expressed it?

I don't think that was his point either.  You are right in what you said, and Mr. Ypsi was just pointing out that politics isn't always a bad thing.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but that is the way I understood it.

Thanks - you've gotten it.

Emma, no, I do not think society would NOW revert to slavery or child labor.  But it was politics, not the marketplace, which eliminated those disgraces.

As I expressed earlier, I am agnostic as to whether or not Title IX is STILL necessary.  But I am absolutely convinced that it was necessary to getting women's sports opportunities in the first place.

But Mr Ypsi, politics is supposed to represent the will of the people.
Perhaps politics pushed the agenda front and center at some point, but at the end of the day it's still the desire of the people. Greater collegiate sports offerings for women would continue without Title IX because the demand exists for it.
That's not to say that everything would be perfect and "equal" to everyone's liking, but it would work.

Full disclosure- I have two sons and a daughter. My daughter is far more involved in her sport and dreams of playing college volleyball. If the school of her choice didn't offer volleyball for whatever reason, we would find one that does- I surely wouldn't demand political action to force her first choice.

Emma politics is not always about the will of the people, not in the United States anyway.  We have a Constitution here, and the constitution has protections for various freedoms, groups of peoples, and ideas.  These protections should stand firm regardless of what the majority of the people want.

Quote from: emma17 on January 04, 2012, 01:14:23 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 04, 2012, 12:28:23 PM

Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on January 04, 2012, 12:05:35 PM

Quote from: frank uible on January 04, 2012, 11:58:26 AM
What was his point? That I have a certain bad attitude? What attitude might that be, and where have I expressed it?

I don't think that was his point either.  You are right in what you said, and Mr. Ypsi was just pointing out that politics isn't always a bad thing.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but that is the way I understood it.

Thanks - you've gotten it.

Emma, no, I do not think society would NOW revert to slavery or child labor.  But it was politics, not the marketplace, which eliminated those disgraces.

As I expressed earlier, I am agnostic as to whether or not Title IX is STILL necessary.  But I am absolutely convinced that it was necessary to getting women's sports opportunities in the first place.

But Mr Ypsi, politics is supposed to represent the will of the people.
Perhaps politics pushed the agenda front and center at some point, but at the end of the day it's still the desire of the people. Greater collegiate sports offerings for women would continue without Title IX because the demand exists for it.
That's not to say that everything would be perfect and "equal" to everyone's liking, but it would work.

Full disclosure- I have two sons and a daughter. My daughter is far more involved in her sport and dreams of playing college volleyball. If the school of her choice didn't offer volleyball for whatever reason, we would find one that does- I surely wouldn't demand political action to force her first choice.

Isn't that what student-athletes do now? If you want to participate in a certain sport, you choose your school from a list of those that offer the sport? I wouldn't expect every school to offer every sport-it is nice however, to see every school offer something for both men and women.

I'm reading a book on the ratification of the US Constitution, and the framers were very smart in their compromises to protect the minority from absolute power grabs by the majority.

Schools can offer whatever sports they want as long as they follow Title IX. It so happens that there's not a high-scholarship sport like football (a flaw in the legislation) for women, but that meant more niche sports for women.

Here's another item to chew on - what would happen to many of our women's Olympic sports without Title IX in this day and age? Some sports have always had the private club culture but the growth in basketball, volleyball, swimming and track & field have been helped by Title IX.

Quote from: smedindy on January 04, 2012, 02:07:07 PM
I'm reading a book on the ratification of the US Constitution, and the framers were very smart in their compromises to protect the minority from absolute power grabs by the majority.

Schools can offer whatever sports they want as long as they follow Title IX. It so happens that there's not a high-scholarship sport like football (a flaw in the legislation) for women, but that meant more niche sports for women.

Here's another item to chew on - what would happen to many of our women's Olympic sports without Title IX in this day and age? Some sports have always had the private club culture but the growth in basketball, volleyball, swimming and track & field have been helped by Title IX.

The olympics issue is interesting smed.  I think there is a market for many female sports in the olympics and there always has been.  Competition between women, especially in individual sports breeds more interest than team sports do.  I'm saying this is because the team sports simply don't have the same competition as the men's sports do.

Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on January 04, 2012, 03:52:53 PM

Quote from: smedindy on January 04, 2012, 02:07:07 PM
I'm reading a book on the ratification of the US Constitution, and the framers were very smart in their compromises to protect the minority from absolute power grabs by the majority.

Schools can offer whatever sports they want as long as they follow Title IX. It so happens that there's not a high-scholarship sport like football (a flaw in the legislation) for women, but that meant more niche sports for women.

Here's another item to chew on - what would happen to many of our women's Olympic sports without Title IX in this day and age? Some sports have always had the private club culture but the growth in basketball, volleyball, swimming and track & field have been helped by Title IX.

The olympics issue is interesting smed.  I think there is a market for many female sports in the olympics and there always has been.  Competition between women, especially in individual sports breeds more interest than team sports do.  I'm saying this is because the team sports simply don't have the same competition as the men's sports do.

I don't think that smed is arguing that there is no market for those sports in the Olympics - I think his point was that, without Title IX, it would be a lot more difficult for women to find a place to train & compete in those sports through their adolescent and teenage years.  I know that this may vary depending on what region of the country you live in, but in Pennsylvania virtually every high school (and most colleges) have a women's basketball team, track team, swim team, and so forth.  I'm sure that there's still a market for those sports in the Olympics with or without Title IX, but I'm not sure that they're so readily accessible to everyone without Title IX.  Make sense?

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on January 04, 2012, 04:04:04 PM

Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on January 04, 2012, 03:52:53 PM

Quote from: smedindy on January 04, 2012, 02:07:07 PM
I'm reading a book on the ratification of the US Constitution, and the framers were very smart in their compromises to protect the minority from absolute power grabs by the majority.

Schools can offer whatever sports they want as long as they follow Title IX. It so happens that there's not a high-scholarship sport like football (a flaw in the legislation) for women, but that meant more niche sports for women.

Here's another item to chew on - what would happen to many of our women's Olympic sports without Title IX in this day and age? Some sports have always had the private club culture but the growth in basketball, volleyball, swimming and track & field have been helped by Title IX.

The olympics issue is interesting smed.  I think there is a market for many female sports in the olympics and there always has been.  Competition between women, especially in individual sports breeds more interest than team sports do.  I'm saying this is because the team sports simply don't have the same competition as the men's sports do.

I don't think that smed is arguing that there is no market for those sports in the Olympics - I think his point was that, without Title IX, it would be a lot more difficult for women to find a place to train & compete in those sports through their adolescent and teenage years.  I know that this may vary depending on what region of the country you live in, but in Pennsylvania virtually every high school (and most colleges) have a women's basketball team, track team, swim team, and so forth.  I'm sure that there's still a market for those sports in the Olympics with or without Title IX, but I'm not sure that they're so readily accessible to everyone without Title IX.  Make sense?

Well see I'm not so sure about that one in regards to the olympics.  The USA doesn't have great men's basketball because of opportunities in high school and college for boys and men.  The USA has a great men's basketball team because boys in the USA love to play basketball at a young age.  This interest starts with the playgrounds I mentioned earlier in the discussion.  To be a great olympic basketball player, you have to play a lot of basketball at a young age.  You could eliminate college mens basketball and you would still have playgrounds packed with boys and men playing the sport because we love it so much.  We organize it ourselves, and make up leagues and conferences where competition expands and expands (why we have college bball and the NBA).

Girls in the USA do not for the most part show that interest at an early age.  Now we can ask ourselves why girls do not have that interest.  Is it because they don't see female NBA players?  Is it because they like to do other things?  Is it because they don't have the opportunity to do what boys do?  Is it because the ones that are interested are excluded by the boys?

At the early ages, sports start out on the playground.  Kids organize these games by themselves, based on what they see on TV, and from what they see older kids and their parents do.

I dunno.  It is hard to explain in words but this interest from boys at a young age accounts for something in my book.

There are more girls basketball teams in the youth association that my daughter is playing in than boys teams.  These are 3-4 grade, 5-6 grade and middle school aged kids.  In fact her first game is tonight, she is the starting center and at 10 is already 5' 1" and as tall as her mother and her coach and a head taller than almost every other girl in the league.

QuoteAt the early ages, sports start out on the playground.  Kids organize these games by themselves, based on what they see on TV, and from what they see older kids and their parents do

Not now they don't. Not where I've lived. Everything is organized. Soccer and hoops at 5, 6, and 7. I think that's your flaw in your interest argument.

Quote from: smedindy on January 04, 2012, 05:14:17 PM

QuoteAt the early ages, sports start out on the playground.  Kids organize these games by themselves, based on what they see on TV, and from what they see older kids and their parents do

Not now they don't. Not where I've lived. Everything is organized. Soccer and hoops at 5, 6, and 7. I think that's your flaw in your interest argument.

This still happens in places like Jersey City but in the suburban and rural areas it is leagues and associations.  Parents don't let their kids just go out and play anymore and people don't let kids play sports on their property anymore.  I think my daughter is a throwback, when the weather is nice she wants to be outside playing with the dog, playing ball, riding her bike.  She plays video games and such but would actually rather read when she has to stay inside.

Jonny,

I disagree with much of your previous post re: basketball, but even if that's all true, you can't generalize that to most of the other Olympic sports.  You can play basketball at any playground with a ball and a net - as you've alluded, kids can practically teach themselves the game from what they see on TV. 

Where are you going to learn to pole vault?  Swim the butterfly?  What about team sports like field hockey and volleyball?  Again - without continuation of these sports at the high school and collegiate level - who is ever going to play them?  Sure, not every high school field-hockey player makes the Olympic team, but if you got rid of high-school field hockey then you would dilute the available pool of talent so badly that we'd struggle to even field a team in a few decades.

Yes, in some sports the skills are developed at an early age, but high-school sports are a key part of the overall culture that even encourages children to pursue sports from their childhood.  This might be just me, but I really believe that in the absence of high school sports, you'd see a lot fewer children out there playing sports.  The reason that I started playing football as a little kid wasn't because I dreamed of NFL millions - it was because my dad took me to our high school's games and I thought the guys were just the coolest thing around (so big, so tough, so fast!).  Many kids play sports because of what they see on TV, but many more play because their parents want to get them involved in some activities or becuase their friends do, or because it's just a cool thing to do in high school.

Quote from: Knightstalker on January 04, 2012, 05:24:52 PM

Quote from: smedindy on January 04, 2012, 05:14:17 PM

QuoteAt the early ages, sports start out on the playground.  Kids organize these games by themselves, based on what they see on TV, and from what they see older kids and their parents do

Not now they don't. Not where I've lived. Everything is organized. Soccer and hoops at 5, 6, and 7. I think that's your flaw in your interest argument.

This still happens in places like Jersey City but in the suburban and rural areas it is leagues and associations.  Parents don't let their kids just go out and play anymore and people don't let kids play sports on their property anymore.  I think my daughter is a throwback, when the weather is nice she wants to be outside playing with the dog, playing ball, riding her bike.  She plays video games and such but would actually rather read when she has to stay inside.

Yea but I was talking about the best of the best here.  The Olympics.  Brazil has good soccer because kids play in the street for 10,000 hours from the ages of 3-15.  Hockey in Canada for the same reason, Basketball in the US, Nordic Skiing in Finland, baseball in Cuba, etc, etc. 

I can orgainze anything but if there isn't enough interest, the kids aren't going to be good at those sports when they turn 16.  You need more than parents setting up leagues for kids to excell in sports.  Are those kids still going to be interested when they get to the high school age?  Are they playing sports when they are kids because they want to or because the parents want them to?  Basically adults are generating interest based on what they think is important, which it could be at an early age (excerise, teamwork, competetiviness, dedication, etc)

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on January 04, 2012, 05:32:16 PM
Jonny,

I disagree with much of your previous post re: basketball, but even if that's all true, you can't generalize that to most of the other Olympic sports.  You can play basketball at any playground with a ball and a net - as you've alluded, kids can practically teach themselves the game from what they see on TV. 

Where are you going to learn to pole vault?  Swim the butterfly?  What about team sports like field hockey and volleyball?  Again - without continuation of these sports at the high school and collegiate level - who is ever going to play them?  Sure, not every high school field-hockey player makes the Olympic team, but if you got rid of high-school field hockey then you would dilute the available pool of talent so badly that we'd struggle to even field a team in a few decades.

Yes, in some sports the skills are developed at an early age, but high-school sports are a key part of the overall culture that even encourages children to pursue sports from their childhood.  This might be just me, but I really believe that in the absence of high school sports, you'd see a lot fewer children out there playing sports.  The reason that I started playing football as a little kid wasn't because I dreamed of NFL millions - it was because my dad took me to our high school's games and I thought the guys were just the coolest thing around (so big, so tough, so fast!).  Many kids play sports because of what they see on TV, but many more play because their parents want to get them involved in some activities or becuase their friends do, or because it's just a cool thing to do in high school.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying we should eliminate high school or college sports.  I coach high school football and it is one of the best things I have ever done in my life.  I love it.  But how did we start these systems in the first place?  Wasn't it because of the interest?

One of the guys I coach football with is also the girls freshman basketball coach at the same high school.  The level of athleticism is horrible this year.  These girls have put in 1/100th of the basketball hours that their male counterparts have (playground time).  And I'm not talking about a place where girls or womens sports aren't important.  The girls basketball program has been decent and has had 4 division one scholarship players in the last 10 years.  But those girls simply haven't put in the time they boys have in that sport, regardless of the leagues that have been set up for both, which is pretty equal.

Again, its hard for me to put these thoughts into words, but theres something there.

Again, I think that's for your singular area, Jonny. Not the entire country as a whole.

Once again, playground time isn't there. It's not there for suburbia.

And some times, in high schools, without school choice, some classes just are horrible. Happens everywhere.

Quote from: smedindy on January 04, 2012, 07:36:30 PM
Again, I think that's for your singular area, Jonny. Not the entire country as a whole.

Once again, playground time isn't there. It's not there for suburbia.

And some times, in high schools, without school choice, some classes just are horrible. Happens everywhere.

Amen to that!  My older son coaches freshmen girls soccer at a local high school.  He has had freshman classes where 7-8 girls were grabbed away by the varsity coach; he has also had classes where less than 11 girls (the size of a soccer team) even knew the rules of soccer!

Quote from: smedindy on January 04, 2012, 07:36:30 PM
Again, I think that's for your singular area, Jonny. Not the entire country as a whole.

Once again, playground time isn't there. It's not there for suburbia.

And some times, in high schools, without school choice, some classes just are horrible. Happens everywhere.

It's not just playground time. Its also about spending time getting better at what you,like to do.  Weightrooms, backyards, open gym, after school gyms, golf cources, pond hockey, wallball for lacrosse, open swim at the local pool, any tennis court in the USA.

Did labron james become labron james because of organized leagues?  How about Andrew luck?  How many off field practices did luck have with friends growing up?  why are Canadians so good,at hockey? 

Again, I'm talking about the best of the best, which is what college sports should be.

Side note, the stalkerettes basketball team lost 14-5, the stalkerette is the leading scorer on her team with 3 points, one field goal and a foul shot.  I love that they keep score at this level here, I have seen too many 3rd and 4th grade teams where they don't keep score.  Not bad for team where only about 3 of the ten players has ever played a game before.  They had fun and hustled and tried hard, can't ask for more at this level.  Yes I am a proud dad at the moment.

Chicken and egg, Utes. Chicken and egg.

In order to get people interested, you have to have programs for them to be interested in. Remember, the boys have up to 100 years of a head start. Culture has changed. Even the pond hockey culture has changed.

And now there are camps, AAU teams, organized drills, etc. In most of the country, you don't get noticed playing in the playground - you get noticed at camps and on AAU teams and summer teams. So the girls do that, they don't GO to the playground. That's done.

Is college sports also 'the best of the best'? I've heard of plenty of kids that decided to play sports in college that didn't play in high school because of various reasons. Yes, a great number of kids, even at the most moribund D-3 programs, were pretty decent players in high school. But I've seen several players who average low digits in high school basketball shine in college.

Quote from: smedindy on January 04, 2012, 08:52:12 PM
Chicken and egg, Utes. Chicken and egg.

In order to get people interested, you have to have programs for them to be interested in. Remember, the boys have up to 100 years of a head start. Culture has changed. Even the pond hockey culture has changed.

And now there are camps, AAU teams, organized drills, etc. In most of the country, you don't get noticed playing in the playground - you get noticed at camps and on AAU teams and summer teams. So the girls do that, they don't GO to the playground. That's done.

Is college sports also 'the best of the best'? I've heard of plenty of kids that decided to play sports in college that didn't play in high school because of various reasons. Yes, a great number of kids, even at the most moribund D-3 programs, were pretty decent players in high school. But I've seen several players who average low digits in high school basketball shine in college.

The boys have those camps and AAU teams as well as going to the playground.  Title IX didn't start those camps and it won't kill those camps.  Boys and girls are not equal in regards to interest in sports.  Maybe someday boys won't be as interested, I don't know....but advocating that we should just assume that the same level of interest exists between boys and girls at every school   is folly.  More local control leads to better experiences for each student.  Perhaps an intermediate goal would be a reform that mandates a minimum set of women's sports be provided while not restricting the maximum number of male or female athletes.

Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on January 04, 2012, 01:37:13 PM

Quote from: emma17 on January 04, 2012, 01:14:23 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 04, 2012, 12:28:23 PM

Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on January 04, 2012, 12:05:35 PM

Quote from: frank uible on January 04, 2012, 11:58:26 AM
What was his point? That I have a certain bad attitude? What attitude might that be, and where have I expressed it?

I don't think that was his point either.  You are right in what you said, and Mr. Ypsi was just pointing out that politics isn't always a bad thing.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but that is the way I understood it.

Thanks - you've gotten it.

Emma, no, I do not think society would NOW revert to slavery or child labor.  But it was politics, not the marketplace, which eliminated those disgraces.

As I expressed earlier, I am agnostic as to whether or not Title IX is STILL necessary.  But I am absolutely convinced that it was necessary to getting women's sports opportunities in the first place.

But Mr Ypsi, politics is supposed to represent the will of the people.
Perhaps politics pushed the agenda front and center at some point, but at the end of the day it's still the desire of the people. Greater collegiate sports offerings for women would continue without Title IX because the demand exists for it.
That's not to say that everything would be perfect and "equal" to everyone's liking, but it would work.

Full disclosure- I have two sons and a daughter. My daughter is far more involved in her sport and dreams of playing college volleyball. If the school of her choice didn't offer volleyball for whatever reason, we would find one that does- I surely wouldn't demand political action to force her first choice.

Emma politics is not always about the will of the people, not in the United States anyway.  We have a Constitution here, and the constitution has protections for various freedoms, groups of peoples, and ideas.  These protections should stand firm regardless of what the majority of the people want.

The U.S. Constitution has no protection for "groups of people" -- it protects everybody, individual by individual, and it does so in a manner that supersedes any specific group identities. That's what the Fifteenth Amendment is all about. The only discrete groups that are mentioned in the Constitution are the specific classes of citizens who are eligible for certain federal offices (e.g., only native-born citizens over the age of 35 who have had 14 years of residence in the U.S. can be elected president). Also, the Constitution does not protect ideas. It protects the right to hold ideas, and to express ideas, not the ideas themselves. As to whether those ideas live or die, that's up to your powers of persuasion. ;)

What is your take on Title IX?

Good
    - 7 (30.4%)
Good, but ...
    - 13 (56.5%)
Bad
    - 3 (13%)
What is Title IX?
    - 0 (0%)

Quote from: smedindy on January 01, 2012, 11:20:57 AM
Ralph, were they sanctioned state tournaments for girls back in the 60's or were they loosely organized?

Also, was it actual hoops or the 6-player hybrid?

It was official,  by that I mean University Interscholastic League, but it was 3 & 3.

Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on January 04, 2012, 03:52:53 PM


The olympics issue ...

Wilma Rudolph and Wyomia Tyus were winning Olympic gold long before Title IX!

Don't forget Babe Didrikson.

But they were atypical of the normal opportunities for girls and women of their time.

Quote from: smedindy on January 12, 2012, 09:18:47 AM
But they were atypical of the normal opportunities for girls and women of their time.

Perhaps they were also atypical of girls' interest in sports at that time?

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.

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

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.   

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.

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.

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.

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 (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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.     

"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

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.

Quote from: frank uible on January 12, 2012, 02:50:04 PM
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.

The girls had no role models, nor encouragement, and I bet that if many of them asked if they could play the boys may have sneered at them or their parents may have said, 'girls don't play that'. Again, it may not have been overt - rather covert.

You know, I've never been too much concerned with the rise in the number of women's sports teams as a significant part of the societal movement toward equality for women in all aspects of life.  That some mens' teams have been lost is an unfortunate, and in my view unnecessary, consequence.  The whole women's movement and its consequences for men in all aspects of life is a complicated topic, with many nuances.  Just in recent times have people who know about these things started studying the impact on boys and men--and so on society as a whole. Anyway  it's hard for me to believe that most colleges and universities (and in particular those with big-time football and/or basketball programs) can't find the money to sponsor "minor" sports--not so minor to those who participate in them.  Even knowing that only a few of the big boys (no pun here) actually make money in their athletic programs does not change my thinking on this.  When I see the lists of how many hangers on go to Bowl games, I am disgusted that some of those same institutions have dropped mens' programs.  With DIII schools, I am not surprised that mens' teams are lost when a school does the math and knows that it has to comply to receive Federal money.
     I do recall a fairly recent study that showed the number of participants in high school wrestling has climbed in the last twenty years. By the way, another counting of programs indicates that college wrestling is not the sport most dropped.  Cross country, indoor track and field, golf, tennis, rowing (!), outdoor track and field, and swimming have all been lost in greater numbers (in part, I think, because not as many schools offered wrestling to start with.  But what a list.) Having watched a lot of college wrestling and track and field for a long time, one of the ironies for me is that the decrease in the number of teams in these sports has actually resulted in a higher level of competition in Division III.  Wrestling is harder to gauge--but I'm told the competitive level is way up, And look at the national records in DIII T & F and what has happened to them in the last decade or more.   As more DI and DII schools drop wrestling and track and field, dedicated athletes look for somewhere to compete, and this trickles down (or up) to DIII.  At least that's my theory--in addition to realizing that today's athletes are bigger, stronger, and better trained than the athletes of the past.     
     How schools adding football fits into all this, in light of Title IX, is another interesting discussion as they fight for male students.  It would be fascinating to be a fly on a campus wall when the discussions of adding a football comes up.  This makes my head hurt.  Fascinating discussion on this board:  passionate, learned, and educational.  We have to do something between O:OO on the clock and kick off.





   

                                                                         

"But the south isn't a true microcosm of the entire landscape of college athletics."
oh yea, and of that we be proud  ;D

"so I doubt if Title IX disappeared magically they'd all gallop to add wrestling"very very true for the SEC at this point in time, football pays the bills, 2 other boys sports come close to breaking even where i live, but football  really, really pays bills.... and we do like our football in the deep south

keep the faith

Boo-hoo. As long as we are taking wild guesses about who did what to whom, it is guessed that 1940s girls judiciously chose to use their recreational time as well or better than 1940s boys did theirs, whether the girls use be in endeavors the same as or similar or dissimilar to those of the boys. It is arrogant to substitute our judgments about the value of various recreational pursuits for the judgments of the participants.

Please be a little more general and condescending next time.  Thanks.

It's also arrogant to discount the pull of societal norms, values and pressures toward how children approach their play time. We are all somewhat products of our environment, for better or worse. And without overt or tacit approval or peer pressure, kids won't engage in an activity.

And while the general notion that girls should have athletics opportunity is probably now cemented in our society, the fact remains that there are significant minorities who think that women are abandoning their 'traditional' place, and sports was not part of their 'traditional' place. It wasn't 100 years ago that women couldn't vote for president, and some cynics believe they only got that right because the 'drys' assumed that women wouldn't vote in 'wet' politicians.

Without a kick in the backside from Title IX, women's sports would be at least 20 years behind where it is today. And that means no feel good stories like the US Women's Soccer team...

Quote from: smedindy on January 12, 2012, 07:37:19 PM
It's also arrogant to discount the pull of societal norms, values and pressures toward how children approach their play time. We are all somewhat products of our environment, for better or worse. And without overt or tacit approval or peer pressure, kids won't engage in an activity.

And while the general notion that girls should have athletics opportunity is probably now cemented in our society, the fact remains that there are significant minorities who think that women are abandoning their 'traditional' place, and sports was not part of their 'traditional' place. It wasn't 100 years ago that women couldn't vote for president, and some cynics believe they only got that right because the 'drys' assumed that women wouldn't vote in 'wet' politicians.

Without a kick in the backside from Title IX, women's sports would be at least 20 years behind where it is today. And that means no feel good stories like the US Women's Soccer team...

That is not cynics; that is mainstream historians.  Another reason was that many felt that women had been sufficiently scared about 'Negro predators' that they would support Jim Crow.  The suffragette victory should NOT be equated with the feminist movements of the 1800s or later 1900s.

I do totally agree with your last paragraph, though I might hazard at least 30 years.  Mia Hamm was so motivated she probably still would have been Mia Hamm, but she might not have had a team to play for.

For my simple mind this discussion seems to be way over-complicated.
I still see this as a supply and demand issue.  Yes, Title IX probably did give women's sports a jump start.

However, at the end of the day, if the Demand is there, then the supply will follow.  If no less than 50% of college students are female, and a reasonable % of those female students want to attend a college that offers female sports, then the college "powers that be" have a decision to make.  They can choose to Supply the Demand, or they can decide not to.  I don't think we need a law to tell them what to do. 

The same theory of course applies to men's sports.  I don't think the government has any business dictating to a college how it should allocate its resources.  This is a market decision.  Today, women are the bigger part of the market.