Female equility,

[Peregrinus]

Originally posted by Philistine

The "problem" as I understand it, is that some schools, rather than expanding the women's program, are reducing men's programs to remain in compliance due to funding issues.

And here is the crux of the issue, as it is for so many issues: money.

Why are colleges content--even determined--to pour piles of money down the proverbial rat-holes of football, basketball, and to a lesser extent hockey? The answer is simple: it's good advertising.

Let's have a show of hands: who here has heard of the University of Notre Dame? Everyone? I thought so.

Now let's have another show of hands: who here believes they'd have heard of Notre Dame even if Notre Dame had never had a football program?

JEC is absolutely correct. The huge budgets of the athletic programs at the Div 1A schools are rarely included in the general fund; any monies derived from sports activities--and in many cases from the marketing of sports-related merchandise--usually accrue soley to the athletic departments. They are in effect independent commercial businesses operating under the auspices of, but separate from, the institution itself.

Colleges and universities are willing to subsidize these businesses--which do not contribute to the coffers of the college nor are directly involved in the institutions stated mission--because they get exposure in return. It's a straightforward cash-for-benefit advertising transaction: we give you money, you put the school's name in front of the nation.

Track, swimming, volleyball, fencing, and all the other sports of that ilk do not generate national exposure for the sponsoring institutions, and so are the "red-headed step-children" of the athletic programs. They return no perceived benefit to the institution, and so the institution is uninterested in shelling out very much money to support them.

It should not come as a surprise to anyone that the introduction of Title IX has resulted in the addition of women's varsity sports and teams at the expense of a net reduction in the number of men's varsity sports and teams. It's a simple cost/benefit decision: they have to add the women athletes, and they're not going to cut the size of the football, basketball, and hockey programs which are their advertising stars. What's left? You do the math.

I believe that Title IX will eventually receive its purest logical expression when a college or university maintains just enough women athletes to balance the number of men in their football and basketball programs, and where all other men's varsity sports have been eliminated.

Such a scenario will be the optimum solution from the institution's position, as it will provide the biggest "bang" for its advertising "buck". It will, of course, bear no resemblance to the result intended by the regulation...but then, social engineering seldom does.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Philistine
The "problem" as I understand it, is that some schools, rather than expanding the women's program, are reducing men's programs to remain in compliance due to funding issues.

Prior to 1972, women in collegiate sports were the exception--as were women in law school, med school, etc. Attitudes change as women in sports and in the professions become more common. Title IX has been (IMHO) a major reason for this.

--Philistine

One MAJOR problem is that the current interpretation does NOT allow schools to deal with greater interest and involvement on each side. Example: lets say we have a varsity womens team with eleven starters, but a total allowed and funded roster size of 33, and a varsity mens' team with the same numbers. If the womens' team doesn't have much interest and can only get 12, but the mens' team has a lot of interest and fills its roster, these two teams do NOT cancel by Title IX. despite the fact that the school gave equal opportunity to both sides, Title IX is not satisfied. why?? because it doesn't measure opportunity. it measures participation. That is the flaw.

-m

[Niceguy4186]

My biggest argument i got from watching that news story was how one school dropped male wrestlers who had been wrestling sense the age of 6 and picked up female crew where they actully advertised, "no experence needed" one would think that agrument alone would be enough to have them rework title IX. I think the feminist person they were interviewing only response to that was brought up how much they invested in football

[Daylight]

I have to admit that Title IX has its problems but my question is, what is the alternative? The news story sounds like it was a terrible occurrence and to some extent I would agree. Title IX can and has been used as a bludgeon. I don't see that as effective use, but misuse.

But I think we are beginning to see more success with it as well. Women in sports IS something that exists. Competitive women. Many of you cited that there isn't enough interest. It is difficult to gain interest after how many years of there not being any outlet. One of my law professors spoke about the lack of athletic activities available to her during her studies...and that is only about 10 years ago! But that interest IS growing. *small smile* Look at the number of girls starting in soccer now. Title IX was a place to start. I don't think it's job is done yet though.

I have to admit not being a fan of football but in a number of cases it IS a revenue producing sport. And there have been a few success stories relating to that. The same law professor cited Nebraska's plan where an amount of the profits made from football went directly into supporting women's athletic events. By using one to support the other they succeeded in building a SOLID athletic program for both men AND women. I thought it an interesting idea and though it isn't an answer, it certainly was a fascinating idea and I've seen Nebraska in action in a NUMBER of sports events, men and women. They're GOOD.

Though it is far from the perfect answer and has a lot of negatives, the overall returns from Title IX in the long run (e.g. increasing athletic opportunity for women) are positive. As long as they continue to remain so, I support it.

[Crin Dalmeiier]

Okay, in response to Catgirl:

Yep. Did guard (as a groupie/roadie type, since they wouldn't let me actually touch the flagpole. Long story, but the gist of it is that they are afraid of me...with a big stick). Band. Drama. Helped out with choir. One of the beginning members of the Creative Writing Club. All around geek. I know how it feels to arrive an hour ahead of everybody else for band and then to leave seven hours later than everbyody else because I was a techie. Sleep? What's that?

Okay, so Title IX is working out for the long run.

Um, what about schools with budget problems? My school doesn't have a men's soccer team because the budget is so poor right now. I'm sure that helps out with the equality, giving women a better chance, but there are loads of soccer players. Soccer is a major thing out here in the midwest. All my school has to show for the men's soccer team is a bunch of intramurals.

what about the schools that have the opposite problem? Instead of kicking the men's soccer team, for example, the men are so good that they kick the women's soccer team? This enforced equality kind of gives people the raw end of the deal. It may work better for the public, but soon the numbers of cheated people are going to add up.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Daylight
I have to admit that Title IX has its problems but my question is, what is the alternative? The news story sounds like it was a terrible occurrence and to some extent I would agree. Title IX can and has been used as a bludgeon. I don't see that as effective use, but misuse.

But I think we are beginning to see more success with it as well. Women in sports IS something that exists. Competitive women. Many of you cited that there isn't enough interest. It is difficult to gain interest after how many years of there not being any outlet. One of my law professors spoke about the lack of athletic activities available to her during her studies...and that is only about 10 years ago! But that interest IS growing. *small smile* Look at the number of girls starting in soccer now. Title IX was a place to start. I don't think it's job is done yet though.

I have to admit not being a fan of football but in a number of cases it IS a revenue producing sport. And there have been a few success stories relating to that. The same law professor cited Nebraska's plan where an amount of the profits made from football went directly into supporting women's athletic events. By using one to support the other they succeeded in building a SOLID athletic program for both men AND women. I thought it an interesting idea and though it isn't an answer, it certainly was a fascinating idea and I've seen Nebraska in action in a NUMBER of sports events, men and women. They're GOOD.

Though it is far from the perfect answer and has a lot of negatives, the overall returns from Title IX in the long run (e.g. increasing athletic opportunity for women) are positive. As long as they continue to remain so, I support it.

You can't work toward equality while depriving others of equality.

On the same level, somebody brought up the point of not forcing equality, however it's common practice to do so in the USA. We have a number of discrimination laws that do just that.

[Niceguy4186]

i was just sitting here at work thinking of a fair way of getting teams based on the number of people who want to play... how about only having a team if X amount of people try out, and you have to cut Z amount of people, that way there is that base who actully want to play and you just just have the team because you have to.. Granted there are a bunch of flaws to this, but hey, i'm bored at work it it popped in my head

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Niceguy4186
i was just sitting here at work thinking of a fair way of getting teams based on the number of people who want to play... how about only having a team if X amount of people try out, and you have to cut Z amount of people, that way there is that base who actully want to play and you just just have the team because you have to.. Granted there are a bunch of flaws to this, but hey, i'm bored at work it it popped in my head

MUCH clarification needed......

-m

[KShan5[PrFC]]

First of all, I agree with Swords, Title IX is communist in nature. Many of these school are private instiutions, therefore they shold be able to let, if they see fit, the school only have male sports. If a school can be all male, then it can also, by choice, be all male in the sports catergory. If the school wishes to have an equal amount of sports for females and males, good for them, but it should be the schools choice, not enforced upon them. Of course we are still dealing with private schools, not state, or public. A school should be bale to bring in as much revenue, any way they want to do it. If the school thinks they can bring in more through male sports, then hey, why not??? It is a private institution, and, in all senses, a school is a company. The skill this company provides is education. So why should the company not be allowed to profit as well as it wants, and how it wants. For example, if Nike wanted to invest in the .com industry, and forget the shoe business, that is the President, VP/CEO's choice, it should not, and is not enforced upon them through the government what they should have to invest in.

I am in Marching Band, and I do not think it is a sport. And, no I have not joined any national cores, although I will try out for Boston Crusaders next year, but it is not a sport. It takes some physical skill, but not as much as many other sports. (hehe, I still get a Varisty letter for it.) Then again I do not view, figure skating, chearleading, or anything that is solely judged, by a judge as a sport. Also I am on debate team and math team, which are not sports, yet I still get a letter.

[Crin Dalmeiier]

What IS a sport, exactly? I mean, I've seen cheerleaders argue until they're blue in the face that cheerleading is a sport. I'll argue that if cheerleading is a sport, then heck yeah, colorguard's straight up a sport!

So what does everybody think? Should the term sport be limited to things like football, volleyball, soccer, etc?

Fencing? *grin*

[lochinvar]

Originally posted by Daylight
I have to admit that Title IX has its problems but my question is, what is the alternative?

The alternative, which no one wants to see, is simple: Eliminate varsity sports. All varsity sports, men's and women's.

Women in sports IS something that exists. Competitive women.

Absolutely. I've known many an athletic lady who could kick my can. But the fact that they exist does not, ipso facto obligate anyone to fund them or provide them with opportunities. When you put it that way, they sound like a bunch of whiny preteens expecting someone else to amuse them and towering into high dudgeon when it doesn't happen.

Many of you cited that there isn't enough interest. It is difficult to gain interest after how many years of there not being any outlet. One of my law professors spoke about the lack of athletic activities available to her during her studies...and that is only about 10 years ago! But that interest IS growing.

Come, come--you can't have it both ways; either you advocate that prior interest already existed (your professor) but that interest was stifled by the lack of opportunity, OR you advocate that prior interest did not already exist because the lack of opportunity killed it.
The lack of opportunity is a single element and cannot be made to supoort both arguements. Make up your mind.

I have to admit not being a fan of football but in a number of cases it IS a revenue producing sport.

That is an indisputable fact. And when it produces revenue, that revenue is funneled directly back into the athletic department. The college at large sees nary a penny of the profits, but nonetheless has to foot the bills in those lean years when the athletic programs fall short. Wonderful system for the athletic programs; not so wonderful for the colleges and universities.
The arguement over Title IX is not about whether football programs make money--the squabble is over who gets to spend the money, and on what it will be spent.

And there have been a few success stories relating to that. The same law professor cited Nebraska's plan where an amount of the profits made from football went directly into supporting women's athletic events. By using one to support the other they succeeded in building a SOLID athletic program for both men AND women.

This is nothing new, nor is it peculiar to Nebraska. Almost all colleges and universities use the cash generated from the "money" sports--most often football--to support the rest of their varsity teams. It's been done that way for decades, all over the nation.

Again, the squabble isn't whether the football program has to fork over a portion of its income to support the other sports. The squabble is over which sports will be supported. Given that the pool of football money is finite, and that most of it went to support men's teams, simple math tells us that women's gains will be men's losses--except in football (a men's sport) and basketball (also a men's sport); these programs will continue untouched, for they are the geese that lay the golden eggs. Meaning that all the men's losses will come out of the non-revenue generating sports, such as water polo and track.

Peregrinus is right, I fear. We will soon see a day when collegiate athletics consists of a men's football team, a men's basketball team, and a dozen women's teams of various sorts supported on the "revenue-sharing" from the first two. Males not good enough to make the football or basketball teams or who wish to play some other sport--like fencing, for example--need not apply.

Thank you, Title IX, for this weird symbiotic vision!

Though it is far from the perfect answer and has a lot of negatives, the overall returns from Title IX in the long run (e.g. increasing athletic opportunity for women) are positive.

I'm sorry, I just don't see that increasing athletic opportunity for women while decreasing athletic opportunity for men is a positive return.

I guess it's just a question of whose ox is being gored, though, isn't it?

And of course we could render this entire arguement moot by following my first reccommendation--eliminate all varsity sports. You want to play? Form a club. But nobody will buy into that--it's the rankest heresy to even think it.

So, I guess I'll stop now. I wonder if the Bears are playing...

[Philistine]

Originally posted by KShan5[PrFC]
First of all, I agree with Swords, Title IX is communist in nature. Many of these school are private instiutions, therefore they shold be able to let, if they see fit, the school only have male sports. If a school can be all male, then it can also, by choice, be all male in the sports catergory. If the school wishes to have an equal amount of sports for females and males, good for them, but it should be the schools choice, not enforced upon them. Of course we are still dealing with private schools, not state, or public. A school should be bale to bring in as much revenue, any way they want to do it. If the school thinks they can bring in more through male sports, then hey, why not??? It is a private institution, and, in all senses, a school is a company. The skill this company provides is education. So why should the company not be allowed to profit as well as it wants, and how it wants. For example, if Nike wanted to invest in the .com industry, and forget the shoe business, that is the President, VP/CEO's choice, it should not, and is not enforced upon them through the government what they should have to invest in.
{snip}

Schools are perfectly free to ignore Title IX by foregoing any federal aid. Plain and simple.

Title IX states: "No person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal aid." {My emphasis}.

Communist. Do you also consider the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and later to be Communist?

--Philistine

[lochinvar]

Originally posted by Philistine
Schools are perfectly free to ignore Title IX by foregoing any federal aid. Plain and simple.

Title IX states: "No person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal aid." {My emphasis}.
<snip>
--Philistine

He's absolutely correct, boys and girls; if you want to feed at the public trough, you have to follow Uncle Sugar-daddy's rules. If you don't want to follow the rules, then "root, hog, or die."

So much for the old, "I-don't-think-the-government-should-tell-schools-what-to-do!" arguement.

Next batter...

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Communist. Do you also consider the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and later to be Communist?

Didn't say that, I just fell it is communist in nature because it is enforced, by the state. I fell many liberal ideals are communistic(word?). Such as universal health care, and many other topics. I don't want to name any more, because I don't want to rant.

So what does everybody think? Should the term sport be limited to things like football, volleyball, soccer, etc?

I feel a sport is a physical activity, that is not judged. It depends on how you determine the winner. In the end of a football game the winner is the team with the most points on the board. Now in figure skating, for example, it is not a sport because the points are subjective, just like chearleading. But in football, basketball, etc. the refs are just there tp enforce ther ules, not award points. Track, in my opinion, is a great example of a sport, who evre crosses the finish line first wins, plain and simple.

[Philistine]

Originally posted by KShan5[PrFC]
{snip}
I feel a sport is a physical activity, that is not judged. It depends on how you determine the winner. In the end of a football game the winner is the team with the most points on the board. Now in figure skating, for example, it is not a sport because the points are subjective, just like chearleading. But in football, basketball, etc. the refs are just there tp enforce ther ules, not award points. Track, in my opinion, is a great example of a sport, who evre crosses the finish line first wins, plain and simple.

But a lot of what are pretty universally called sports are subjectively judged, at least in part.

Gymnastics, wrestling, diving, boxing, judo....Fencing , to name a few.

I'd have a hard time agreeing on a definition of "sport" which excluded the above.

--Philistine

[Purple Fencer]

Originally posted by KShan5[PrFC]
I am in Marching Band, and I do not think it is a sport. And, no I have not joined any national corps, although I will try out for Boston Crusaders next year, but it is not a sport. It takes some physical skill, but not as much as many other sports. (hehe, I still get a Varisty letter for it.) Then again I do not view, fig

Shootin' for BAC?? Good call! I'm listening to their 2000 show right now (the part where they're singing the Bocelli number). Their program last year left me a bit flat (the banners were a little too much for me), and I admit to thinking of '87 Garfield when they hit Appalachian Spring...What do you play?

Just a word of advice...your marching band may not be highly demanding, but Crusaders WILL be...remember that you're going into one of the top 12 corps in the WORLD (they weren't even close when I marched BD)...you think you work hard now? Wait until you get to dailies...12 hour practices easy.

p.s. take what you can from BAC....but GO BLUE DEVILS!!!!

[Inquartata]

From It's Not a Sport, by George Carlin.



"To my way of thinking, there are really only three sports; baseball, basketball, and football. Everything else is either a game or an activity.

Hockey comes to mind. People think hockey is a sport. It’s not. Hockey is three activities taking place at the same time: ice skating, fooling around with a puck, and beating the **** out of somebody.

If these guys had more brains than teeth they’d do these things one at a time. First you go ice skating, then you fool around with a puck, then you go to the bar and beat the **** out of somebody. The day would last longer, and these guys would have a whole lot more fun.

Another reason hockey is not a sport is that it’s not played with a ball. Anything not played with a ball can’t be a sport. Tap dancing isn’t a sport. I rest my case.

Running. People think running is a sport. Running isn’t a sport because anybody can do it. Anything we can all do can’t be a sport. I can run, you can run. For Chrissakes, my mother can run! You don’t see her on the cover of Sports Illustrated, do you?

Swimming. Swimming isn’t a sport. Swimming is a way to keep from drowning. That’s just common sense.

Sailing isn’t a sport. Sailing is a way to get somewhere. Riding the bus isn’t a sport, why the **** should sailing be a sport?

Boxing is not a sport either. Boxing is a way to beat the **** out of somebody. In that respect, boxing is actually a more sophisticated form of hockey. In spite of what the police tell you, beating the **** out of somebody is not a sport. When police brutality becomes an Olympic event, fine, then boxing can be a sport.

Bowling. Bowling isn’t a sport because you have to rent the shoes. Don’t forget, these are my rules. I make em’ up.

Billiards. Some people think billiards is a sport, but it can’t be, because there’s no chance for serious injury. Unless, of course, you welch on a bet in a tough neighborhood. Then, if you wind up with a pool cue stickin’ out of your ***, you know you have been the victim of a sports-related injury. But that ain’t billiards, that’s pool, and that starts with P, and that rhymes with D, and that brings me to darts.

Darts could have been a sport, because at least there’s a chance to put someone’s eye out. But, alas, darts will never be a sport because the whole object of the game is to reach zero, which goes against sports logic.

Lacrosse is not a sport; Lacrosse is a faggoty college activity. I don’t care how rough it is, anytime you’re running around a field, waving a stick with a little net on the end of it, you’re engaged in a faggoty college activity. Period.

Field hockey and fencing. Same thing. Faggoty college ****. Also these activities aren’t sports because you can’t gamble on them. Anything you can’t gamble on can’t be a sport. When was the last time you made a ****in’ fencing bet?

Gymnastics is not a sport because the Romanians are good at it. It took me a long time to come up with that rule, but goddammit, I did it.

Polo isn’t a sport. Polo is golf on horseback. Without the holes. It’s a great concept but it’s not a sport. And as far as water polo is concerned, I hesitate to even mention it, because it’s extremely cruel to the horses.

Which brings me to hunting. You think hunting is a sport? Ask the deer. The only good thing about hunting is the many fatal accidents on the weekends. And, of course, the permanently disfigured hunters who survive such accidents.

Then you have tennis. Tennis is very trendy and very fruity, but it’s not a sport. It’s just a way to meet other trendy fruits. Technically tennis is an advanced form of Ping-pong. In fact, tennis is ping-pong played while standing on the table. Great concept, not a sport.

In fact, all racket games are nothing more than derivatives of Ping-Pong. Even volleyball is, technically, racketless, team Ping-Pong played with an inflated ball and a raised net while standing on the table.

And finally we come to golf. Let’s just say that golf is a game that might possibly be fun, if it could be played alone. But it’s the vacuous, striving, superficial, male-bonding joiners one has to associate with that makes it such a repulsive pasttime. And it is decidedly not a sport. Period. "

[KShan5[PrFC]]

I play trumpet and I know that it will take a lot of time/money to be Crusaders. I attend a private highschool so our band is fairly small, 45ish. (We won New England Regionals : )) Our trumpet section is also sm