Darn That Title 9

[CDT_Wilson]

Title 9 has to be one of the most misconstrued laws ever. I understand women getting the right to participate in sports. I am all for that, but at the cost of mens sports, no. Due to the amount of players needed to play football they need lots of scholarships. So what ends up happening is they make up weird lame sports for the women that only attract the girls family and friends which means no income generated. What ends up happening in todays economy is men's sports suffer. Wrestling is disappearing from some campuses. Here in Iowa it seems to be baseball. I believe title 9 needs to be adapted to have the amount of scholarships a sport receives be based on the amount of income a sport generates.

I know there has to be many opinions on this matter so chime in. Another thing to ponder... in NCAA football, wrestling, and baseball, a woman can play with the men. Case in point Colorado had a female kicker several years ago. Should they count for both sexes?

[MplsBison]

I think it should be rewritten or amended to require schools offer both men's and women's teams of a given sport, if the participation in that state or the country can support it. IE, it should not consider total men's and total women's participation as two, comparable wholes. They just aren't and never will be.


IE, if a school has baseball or softball, they should have both.
If a school has men's bball, they should have women's bball.
If a school has women's soccer, they should have men's soccer.


But how many girls are playing football or wrestling? Those should not count against title IX.

How many guys are playing field hockey and doing gymnastics? Those should not count against title IX.


etc.


Just my opinion.

[Ronbo]

It has meant the demise of many football programs in the past and the Obama economy and Title 9 will bring down more to come.

[CDT_Wilson]

Maybe the NCAA can count cheer leading as a sport and we can have like 40 girls cheer at the football games to make up the scholarship difference. It would make the sideline more attractive.

[purplepeopleeaterv2]

Maybe the NCAA can count cheer leading as a sport and we can have like 40 girls cheer at the football games to make up the scholarship difference. It would make the sideline more attractive.

xbeerchugx

[GannonFan]

I've got no problem with Title IX. Look at the landscape before Title IX went into effect and what we have today. There's no denying that hundred of thousands of girls, who had no option to compete athletically before, have had a chance to do so now, and it's entirely because of Title IX. Why should a men's wrestling or gymnastics team take precedence over a women's sport? Let's be honest, outside of football and men's basketball, virtually no other sports make any money for the school anyway. And there aren't that many football and basketball teams that make money outside of the BCS schools anyway, so even those aren't good examples. So if teams aren't making money, then that argument is out the window.

So basically, people against Title IX, when you get down to it, just basically feel that boys should have the first crack at a sport than a girl should. It's not shocking, when it gets down to that simple sexist fact, that Title IX is the law of the land, and it should be. xreadx

[purplepeopleeaterv2]

I've got no problem with Title IX. Look at the landscape before Title IX went into effect and what we have today. There's no denying that hundred of thousands of girls, who had no option to compete athletically before, have had a chance to do so now, and it's entirely because of Title IX. Why should a men's wrestling or gymnastics team take precedence over a women's sport? Let's be honest, outside of football and men's basketball, virtually no other sports make any money for the school anyway. And there aren't that many football and basketball teams that make money outside of the BCS schools anyway, so even those aren't good examples. So if teams aren't making money, then that argument is out the window.

So basically, people against Title IX, when you get down to it, just basically feel that boys should have the first crack at a sport than a girl should. It's not shocking, when it gets down to that simple sexist fact, that Title IX is the law of the land, and it should be. xreadx

Unless you have a case like JMU where both women's and men's sports were cut as a result of becoming Title IX compliant xreadx ............ala the university used Title IX to cut programs not making money for the school xoopsx

[Pitz]

I've got no problem with Title IX. Look at the landscape before Title IX went into effect and what we have today. There's no denying that hundred of thousands of girls, who had no option to compete athletically before, have had a chance to do so now, and it's entirely because of Title IX. Why should a men's wrestling or gymnastics team take precedence over a women's sport? Let's be honest, outside of football and men's basketball, virtually no other sports make any money for the school anyway. And there aren't that many football and basketball teams that make money outside of the BCS schools anyway, so even those aren't good examples. So if teams aren't making money, then that argument is out the window.

So basically, people against Title IX, when you get down to it, just basically feel that boys should have the first crack at a sport than a girl should. It's not shocking, when it gets down to that simple sexist fact, that Title IX is the law of the land, and it should be. xreadx

I don't think anyone is saying they want to get rid of it completely.

It's an outdated rule, and like MplsBison said, it needs to be revised.

[CDT_Wilson]

So ticket sales alone no one makes money. but when someone buys a T shirt or some other piece of officially licensed merchandise do you think they are buying it for the School, the women's swim team or football or men's basketball team?
I like the law in spirit, but women's sports are a bigger budget drain then mens. I mean most of the women's sporting events I have gone to, for free, have had crowds of the parents and families of the players who get in free cause the players get two free tickets per game, and old people who are university boosters and go to everything. Yes there are a handful of paying fans but their gate receipts could barely pay for officials.

[GannonFan]

So ticket sales alone no one makes money. but when someone buys a T shirt or some other piece of officially licensed merchandise do you think they are buying it for the School, the women's swim team or football or men's basketball team?
I like the law in spirit, but women's sports are a bigger budget drain then mens. I mean most of the women's sporting events I have gone to, for free, have had crowds of the parents and families of the players who get in free cause the players get two free tickets per game, and old people who are university boosters and go to everything. Yes there are a handful of paying fans but their gate receipts could barely pay for officials.

And again, no one is buying any more t-shirts or attending men's sporting events outside of football and basketball, and studies have shown those two sports, at most non-BCS schools, cost the school more money than they bring in. I've been to many a college baseball game and the crowd is the same you see at women's games - families and friends are in attendance, and not much more.

[BEAR]

If women wanted to start their own football team, and they had competition at other universitities because other women wanted that program too, you can bet any university would provide them with schollys to play it..they'd have to..according to Title IX..and they should! at the cost of other sports of course. But they could under title IX. xthumbsupx

[GannonFan]

I think it should be rewritten or amended to require schools offer both men's and women's teams of a given sport, if the participation in that state or the country can support it. IE, it should not consider total men's and total women's participation as two, comparable wholes. They just aren't and never will be.


IE, if a school has baseball or softball, they should have both.
If a school has men's bball, they should have women's bball.
If a school has women's soccer, they should have men's soccer.


But how many girls are playing football or wrestling? Those should not count against title IX.

How many guys are playing field hockey and doing gymnastics? Those should not count against title IX.


etc.


Just my opinion.


I don't think anyone is saying they want to get rid of it completely.

It's an outdated rule, and like MplsBison said, it needs to be revised.

But that makes little to no sense. I understand the football argument, due to its extremely large team size, but why would wrestling all of a sudden be thrown into that argument?

And really, are there that many sports that don't have a female/male version to it? Outside of football and wrestling, what else is there? And if you team up wrestling with a female only sport like field hockey, then the only thing left by itself is football. And frankly, if a school wants to spend 65 scholarships, or more, on football, then I don't see the problem with having to spend 65 scholarships on women only sports. If you can't afford another 65 women's scholarships, then your football team is not really very profitable or useful to your school anyway, so is it really needed?

[joecooll6]

The think I don't like about Title IX is the ratios. The school has to match up scholarships with the ratio of female to male students on campus. UNI is 60% female so 60% of the sports scholarships have to be for females. After eliminating baseball this past year, UNI is left with 7 men’s sports and 10 women’s sports. The men’s golf team is non-scholarship, and indoor and outdoor track are counted as separate sports, otherwise, we would have 9 women’s sports to 5 men’s sports. We have a women’s golf team, but no scholarship men’s team. We have softball and no baseball. We have women’s soccer, tennis and swimming, but no men’s equivalent. The reason why I am saying this is because I have always wondered why having so many women’s teams and only a few men’s teams never constituted discrimination against men. I know that football skews the numbers, but not all men are football players. Not all men are capable of being football players. Why should women in Olympic sports get their rights protected, but men should not? Aren’t non revenue generating male athletes getting discriminated against? Why doesn’t anybody care about the men who have had their opportunities taken away? The only people who can successfully fight against sport cuts are women, and they usually win. Also, why are sports the only thing this is applied to? Shouldn’t UNI have equal opportunity in every aspect of the college? Why isn’t our student population 50-50? Is it because more women are applying to school? Then they should accept a lower percentage of women and a higher percentage of men to make it equal. More boys are playing high school sports in Iowa than girls. Why isn’t that considered? Why is it that there are more boys playing high school sports than girls in Iowa, but athletic opportunities at UNI should go to 60% women? How is a 60-40 standard equal anyway? The state is almost half men, so half the opportunities should go to men, right?

How is 60-40 equal???

[CDT_Wilson]

I think the big issue comes from the equivallancey because of football needing at least 24 players for a team (11 offense, 11 defense, and two kickers). At UNI we are talking about adding womens rugby. We already have a club team that plays against varsity teams nationally. They were ranked number 9 in the nation last year. But sadly UNI dropped baseball. They said it was a financial thing, but if they didn't have crap sports like women's soccer and women's swimming and women's tennis they probably could have kept a sport that had been around far longer then any of the before mentioned.

[bunny]

Another thing to ponder... in NCAA football, wrestling, and baseball, a woman can play with the men. Case in point Colorado had a female kicker several years ago. Should they count for both sexes?

Compliance is measured in terms of participation by individuals, not teams. So, a woman playing on the football team contributes to the total number of women at the school.

[ChickenMan]

I'd have no problem with Title IV.. if football was exempt from the Title IV equation. No female sport has anywhere near the numbers required for football and in an effort to balance the equation.. long time men's scholarship sports like 'wrestling' and 'swimming' are cut and women's scholarship sports.. like 'crew' are created at schools where there had been absolutely no prior interest or demand for that sport.

[jsualum97]

After reading all of the posts in this thread I think there are a couple of things to consider. First, in regards to why do some Men's sports get cut, while there are more women's sports at a school. There is nothing in Title IX that states a school must CUT men's sports. It simply says that there should be equal opportunities for both men and women. College administrators make the choice to cut a men's sport, so they don't have to cut the budget of football and men's basketball.
Also, the ideal of the generating of significant revenue is outside the original point of Collegiate Athletics. It should not be the goal of a college to have a sport simply to generate money. It is great when it does, but the goal of collegiate athletics is to provide an extra-curricular activity to enhance the collegiate educational experience. Any person who thinks that it should come down to dollars does not have the well being of the student-athlete first on their mind.

[bunny]

For reference, information about equity in athletics/compliance can be found at:
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/index.aspx

There are several places to find information about applications and admissions; here's one:
http://www.stateuniversity.com/

[Cobblestone]

Title 9 has to be one of the most misconstrued laws ever. I understand women getting the right to participate in sports. I am all for that, but at the cost of mens sports, no. Due to the amount of players needed to play football they need lots of scholarships. So what ends up happening is they make up weird lame sports for the women that only attract the girls family and friends which means no income generated. What ends up happening in todays economy is men's sports suffer. Wrestling is disappearing from some campuses. Here in Iowa it seems to be baseball. I believe title 9 needs to be adapted to have the amount of scholarships a sport receives be based on the amount of income a sport generates.

I know there has to be many opinions on this matter so chime in. Another thing to ponder... in NCAA football, wrestling, and baseball, a woman can play with the men. Case in point Colorado had a female kicker several years ago. Should they count for both sexes?

Post of the year! Title IX is pure bovine feces.

As for the second paragraph... give me a gal who can cover a WR and I'll gladly put her in our secondary.

[WMTribe90]

And really, are there that many sports that don't have a female/male version to it? Outside of football and wrestling, what else is there? And if you team up wrestling with a female only sport like field hockey, then the only thing left by itself is football. And frankly, if a school wants to spend 65 scholarships, or more, on football, then I don't see the problem with having to spend 65 scholarships on women only sports. If you can't afford another 65 women's scholarships, then your football team is not really very profitable or useful to your school anyway, so is it really needed?


Title IX has done a lot of good, but it's also had some disasterous unintended consequences, especially for the male sports of wrestling, football and baseball. The intent of the law was to provide equal opportunity for females to participate in college athletics. It largely accomplished that goal. What we see hapening now, especially at schools with football programs, is university's creating opportunities where there is little to no demand just to meet the requirements of title IX.

For example, WM has a women's lax team. Because of Title IX, virtually the entire roster is on scholarship, even though only a small number of HS in the country even sponsor the sport. In my experience the starters were talented and dedicated, but some of the bench players (on full rides) approached the sport more as a hobby and had very limited skills.

Some universities have created teams for rowing and actively recruited girls to fill the roster. Creating a new sport, where there was no demand. At the same time, you have wrestling programs, where there is a high demand and competition and the majority of the HS's in the country have wrestling teams, getting axed. WM got rid of a successful wrestling program full or extremely dedicated athletes.

In our culture, males are more likely to take a serious interest in athletics. We shouldn't have a law, no matter how well intentioned that ignores this basic fact. Should we have a law requiring cheerleading squads have equal numbers of males and females?

The law needs to be tweaked, not abolished, so that any female that is dedicated and serious about her chosen sport is not dneied an opportunity to pursue it in college (at least to the degree that her equally dedicated male counterpart is able to), but the law somehow needs to take into account demand, dedication and the level of competition, especially as it relates to football.

There needs to me some sort of exemption for football. There is no equivalent female sport and universities are either creating female sports where there is little interest or demand or doing away with popular male sports to make up the difference.

[andy7171]

I've said this before in the past, when I was at Towson they decided to "phase out" football scholarships after my RS soph year (which was better than dropping the program all together) so those of us on scholarships were grandfathered in. I was totally and completely against Title IX.

15 years later, I have three very athletic daughters and have done a complete 180 turn.

Call me selfish, whatever. I live in the hottest hot bed of the fastest growing womens sport in the country, lacrosse. :)

[RabidRabbit]

Post of the year! Title IX is pure bovine feces.

As for the second paragraph... give me a gal who can cover a WR and I'll gladly put her in our secondary.

Many a gal can cover a WR! xthumbsupxxrulesx

OH OH.......






You meant on a football field? xdohxxlolxxlolx

[MplsBison]

I've got no problem with Title IX. Look at the landscape before Title IX went into effect and what we have today. There's no denying that hundred of thousands of girls, who had no option to compete athletically before, have had a chance to do so now, and it's entirely because of Title IX. Why should a men's wrestling or gymnastics team take precedence over a women's sport? Let's be honest, outside of football and men's basketball, virtually no other sports make any money for the school anyway. And there aren't that many football and basketball teams that make money outside of the BCS schools anyway, so even those aren't good examples. So if teams aren't making money, then that argument is out the window.

So basically, people against Title IX, when you get down to it, just basically feel that boys should have the first crack at a sport than a girl should. It's not shocking, when it gets down to that simple sexist fact, that Title IX is the law of the land, and it should be. xreadx

It's done its job, though.


Why not make schools offer the sports that can be supported by the female participants, rather than forcing schools to have total participants in male and female be even?

[GannonFan]

I've said this before in the past, when I was at Towson they decided to "phase out" football scholarships after my RS soph year (which was better than dropping the program all together) so those of us on scholarships were grandfathered in. I was totally and completely against Title IX.

15 years later, I have three very athletic daughters and have done a complete 180 turn.

Call me selfish, whatever. I live in the hottest hot bed of the fastest growing womens sport in the country, lacrosse. :)

I agree, and I don't even have daughters. But since I can project what I would feel if my daughters were denied the opportunity to compete, then I have the stance towards Title IX that I do today.

I talk about this a lot with my wife, and it's interesting, she went trough school in the 80's and the early 90's and the sports available to her to play then were extremely limited - softball, track, cheerleading, basketball, field hockey. That was about it. Growing up as a girl in the 80's meant little sports outlets. Now, girls can and do play any sport under the sun (save for football) and they keep doing so in greater and greater numbers. Why people would see this as a bad thing is almost beyond me, assuming that we just overlook the sexist angle.

But like I said, schools that can afford to give out 65-83 football scholarships shouldn't be crying poor when they need to give out the same number of scholarships for girls. If you can't afford it for the girls, then you should consider whether football is a worthwhile investment. Not every school needs a fully funded football team.

[WMTribe90]

There wa a good discussion going on there. This is getting ridiculous...

[GannonFan]

Yeah - obviously the title of the tread was the problem - you can't put a profanity in the title. But you think they could've just fixed the title and left the thread. Oh well, so much for discussion.

[CDT_Wilson]

My bad I thought the # and @ made it ok.

[EmeryZach]

Well here is what I was going to respond with before it disappeared.

I absolutely disagree with you.xnonox

You are listening to the junk excuses that colleges are giving the public when they cut sports that aren't making them any money, and they want to move the money to football, basketball, and hockey.

At most schools baseball doesn't make money, wrestling doesn't make money, men's tennis doesn't make money, men's gymnastics doesn't make money, etc etc.

So what these school's are doing when they begin to get budget cuts and don't want to pull money away from Football, Basketball, and Hockey, is that they begin to cut these sports and don't want to tell you the real reason so they just blame it on Title 9 because it is the easy excuse.

The only school that I can remember in recent history that was honest about this and admitted they were cutting sports to put more money towards football was Rutgers. And they got a lot of crap for admitting it. It's much easier for a school to say, "oh we have to cut wrestling because we need to comply to Title 9," instead of saying "oh we have to cut wrestling because it isn't making any money and we need to put more into the football team."

TITLE 9 IS BEING USED AS AN EXCUSE FOR SCHOOLS TO CUT TEAMS TO MOVE MORE MONEY TO THE BIGGER SPORTS!!!xrulesx

School's should be honest about what they are doing and stop blaming Title 9, which has helped the expansion of college athletics immensely.

[jsualum97]

I thought that it was a wonderful discussion on Title IX. To the powers that be, please change the title and put up the thread!!! It was a great!

[CDT_Wilson]

Ok some men's sports are a drain on the budget, but aren't all women's sports with the exception of maybe UCONN Women's basketball a budget drain?

[Buzzcut]

IMO, wrestling has fallen victim to the Title IX excuse more than any other sport. As a result, I now believe only 63 Div I schools even have wrestling programs.

History will show that many a good wrestler have made great football players. Something to consider.

[andy7171]

I go swimming with my daughters at the pool. I have one sit up on my shoulders and I slowly list to one side and then go under and they jump off at the last second. We call it SINKING SHIP.

I think that game applies here today.

[WMTribe90]

Well here is what I was going to respond with before it disappeared.

I absolutely disagree with you.

You are listening to the junk excuses that colleges are giving the public when they cut sports that aren't making them any money, and they want to move the money to football, basketball, and hockey.

At most schools baseball doesn't make money, wrestling doesn't make money, men's tennis doesn't make money, men's gymnastics doesn't make money, etc etc.

So what these school's are doing when they begin to get budget cuts and don't want to pull money away from Football, Basketball, and Hockey, is that they begin to cut these sports and don't want to tell you the real reason so they just blame it on Title 9 because it is the easy excuse.

The only school that I can remember in recent history that was honest about this and admitted they were cutting sports to put more money towards football was Rutgers. And they got a lot of crap for admitting it. It's much easier for a school to say, "oh we have to cut wrestling because we need to comply to Title 9," instead of saying "oh we have to cut wrestling because it isn't making any money and we need to put more into the football team."

TITLE 9 IS BEING USED AS AN EXCUSE FOR SCHOOLS TO CUT TEAMS TO MOVE MORE MONEY TO THE BIGGER SPORTS!!!

This may be the case a t some lower level FBS schools that struggle to keep up with the Michigan's and Florida's of the world. It doesn't expalin schools in FCS that already contain costs for football being forced to decide whether to keep football or find mone to create a women's crew team from thin air.

WM plays cost containment football, the football scholarships, new lights, field turf and football building were all privately funded with earmarked donations. Wrestling was cut well before any of these additions because of Title IX and it had nothing to do with increasing the budget for the football program, which ran a bare bones operation at the time.

I think this scenario is playing out more than one you describe above.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

Ok some men's sports are a drain on the budget, but aren't all women's sports with the exception of maybe UCONN Women's basketball a budget drain?



Exactly. I've been on the soapbox on this one.

There is no reason why a school should give a full scholorship to an athlete in a sport that doesn't generate revenue for the school...mens or women. It's a slap in the face of studens who put academics first.

[WMTribe90]

To the mods, seriously changethe title of the thread and bring it back. It wasn't even offensive to begin with, unless the # sign freaks you out.

[Duke Dawg]

TITLE 9 IS BEING USED AS AN EXCUSE FOR SCHOOLS TO CUT TEAMS TO MOVE MORE MONEY TO THE BIGGER SPORTS!!


absolutely incorrect.

at JMU, the programs cut were absolutely for Title IX reasons, NOT for money.

JMU is 61% female, but it's athletic programs were 55% male...a HUGE discrepancy.

Further, before the cuts JMU was sponsoring more sports than any school in the country except 3..... Ohio State, Michigan and an Ivy League school ( I think it was Harvard).

We were sponsoring 28 sports ! That was an insane amount for a school that did not play BCS football. Because of that, there was NO option to ADD more sports to meet Title IX's requirements. We were already waaaaay out of whack with a school our size should be at. The whole reason our Title IX issue even came up was because a women's club sport was asking the school to become a varsity sport. Again, as above, that was just not possible for us....to add MORE sports.

Next, only 3 women's sports were cut....one of which, Fencing, had to advertise in the student newspaper to find enough people to field a team every year !

As for money, the cuts resulted in a savings of $500,000 out of an athletic budget of $21 million. Do you think JMU would have taken the publicity hit it did just to save .02% of its budget?...no chance.

Further, all $500,000 of those savings were reallocated to Olympic sports such as golf and tennis to give more scholarship money to those athletes and programs and bring them up to the NCAA limit in amount of scholarships that could be awarded to those sports. Not ONE dollar went to football or basketball, both of which have been fully funded programs for many many years.

Ok, I'm done...just wanted to state the FACTS about JMU's situation. :)

[ChickenMan]

There wa a good discussion going on there. This is getting ridiculous...


Big Brother is alive and well... the MODS take this site and themselves WAY TOO SERIOUSLY...

[Duke Dawg]

Big Brother is alive and well... the MODS take this site and themselves WAY TOO SERIOUSLY...

exactly why I don't frequent here to much.

It has potential, but until the mods can chill out a little, it's going to be a mediocre site IMO.


PS - I'm sure this will get deleted too. ;)

[andy7171]

Hey AGS believes in free speech, as long as "they" agree with you.

[EmeryZach]

absolutely incorrect.

at JMU, the programs cut were absolutely for Title IX reasons, NOT for money.

JMU is 61% female, but it's athletic programs were 55% male...a HUGE discrepancy.

Further, before the cuts JMU was sponsoring more sports than any school in the country except 3..... Ohio State, Michigan and an Ivy League school ( I think it was Harvard).

We were sponsoring 28 sports ! That was an insane amount for a school that did not play BCS football. Because of that, there was NO option to ADD more sports to meet Title IX's requirements. We were already waaaaay out of whack with a school our size should be at. The whole reason our Title IX issue even came up was because a women's club sport was asking the school to become a varsity sport. Again, as above, that was just not possible for us....to add MORE sports.

Next, only 3 women's sports were cut....one of which, Fencing, had to advertise in the student newspaper to find enough people to field a team every year !

As for money, the cuts resulted in a savings of $500,000 out of an athletic budget of $21 million. Do you think JMU would have taken the publicity hit it did just to save .02% of its budget?...no chance.

Further, all $500,000 of those savings were reallocated to Olympic sports such as golf and tennis to give more scholarship money to those athletes and programs and bring them up to the NCAA limit in amount of scholarships that could be awarded to those sports. Not ONE dollar went to football or basketball, both of which have been fully funded programs for many many years.

Ok, I'm done...just wanted to state the FACTS about JMU's situation. :)

You don't always have to add more sports to come in compliance for Title 9 with the NCAA. You can make the funding equal, as well as show that say the football field is being used for football but it is also being used for women's field hockey and lacrosse. You can even get away with just showing that you are attempting to be in compliance with Title 9.

That is one of the reasons UMass moved it's women's lacrosse games to the football stadium. That way it was being used for men's and women's sports, and helped with Title 9 compliance.

Seems like JMU went a little overboard fielding athletic teams, realized it, and then went "Crap, we can afford all these teams! How are we going to cut them and not get killed by the media? Oh yeah, the Title 9 excuse will work."

UMass didn't use the Title 9 excuse last year when it cut the ski team, and almost cut the baseball team. They admitted it was because of lack of funds.

[Duke Dawg]

you are correct, you don't have to add sports.

but the reason the Title IX issue came up at JMU is because a club sport attempted to become a varsity sport.

One of the 3 prong tests is to provide "Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex"....well, if you have a women's club petitioning to become a varsity sport, then we are obviously not meeting the interest of the student body. Strike 1

Another is "Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex"....we had not added a varsity women's sport in quite awhile (softball)....Strike 2

Both of the above could only be met if we ADDED more sports, and as I mentioned, we were already sponsoring too many. So both the 1st and 2nd tests were just not possible.

That left us no choice but to try and meet the 3rd test...."Providing athletic opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment"....well, unfortunately for us, this is the ONLY time the 61% female student body population works against us. Because we play football, and do not have an equivalent sport for women, we failed this test miserably. So we had to cut sports.....6 men's and 3 women's.

And we did not "save" any money....again, as I mentioned, we simply REALLOCATED $500,000 that was lost from the 9 sports to other sports. It was NOT cut from the budget. Just given to other sports (as I said before...none of the money went to football or basketball programs).

[CDT_Wilson]

thank you to the moderators for correcting my potty mouth to allow this excellent debate to continue.

There has been lots of valid points. I understand that NCAA athletics is all about the Student Athlete emphasis on the Student part. You have to realize that part of getting some students to attend an institution has to do with recognition. For most institutions this comes from sports mainly Men's sports. Shouldn't this be acknowledged and there fore those big men's sports given more scholarship allocation?
Just a thought.

[Jackman]

This may be the case a t some lower level FBS schools that struggle to keep up with the Michigan's and Florida's of the world. It doesn't expalin schools in FCS that already contain costs for football being forced to decide whether to keep football or find mone to create a women's crew team from thin air.

WM plays cost containment football

I would say only the PFL plays cost containment football. Those of us in full scholarship FCS conferences are playing what would be better described as "revenue containment" football, with 75% of the expense of FBS but a tiny fraction of the profit. But that's another discussion.

As for Title IX, I find it frustrating but it is good law, though not because of the social tinkering aspect. The reason the federal government can impose Title IX on our universities is because nearly all universities (including private universities) receive significant amounts of government funding and tax benefits. If you decline government funding, then you don't have to comply with Title IX any more than the NFL does. But nobody declines government money, because they'd be at an enormous financial disadvantage to other universities who do accept the money, at least in non-athletic-related areas. So until everyone agrees to decline special government treatment, no one will.

And so long as universities do accept federal money, Title IX absolutely should exist. You can't tax the income of a female student who works part time, then send her money back to the university so they can spend it disproportionately on her male classmates while they play their gender-exclusive sport. That's unconstitutional. And wrong, quite frankly. I'm pretty sure she doesn't give a damn that football requires more players than any women's sport, that's irrelevant. It's partly her money we're spending. Take public money out of the equation, and you can do whatever you want, subject to the regular old discrimination laws that the pro leagues have to comply with.

Now if you want to tinker with Title IX, and say that so long as football is funded exclusively by private donations, there shouldn't have to be a male-female equalization component, that's fine, but be careful what you wish for. That's going to put the established BCS athletic powers so far ahead of the rest of us that there's no chance anyone will ever catch them again, and with the new math they'll also have a huge advantage over us in the non-revenue men's sports as well. We all may as well move to Division III if that happens.

[GannonFan]

thank you to the moderators for correcting my potty mouth to allow this excellent debate to continue.

There has been lots of valid points. I understand that NCAA athletics is all about the Student Athlete emphasis on the Student part. You have to realize that part of getting some students to attend an institution has to do with recognition. For most institutions this comes from sports mainly Men's sports. Shouldn't this be acknowledged and there fore those big men's sports given more scholarship allocation?
Just a thought.

People went to colleges and will continue to go to colleges irrespective of the success of the athletic teams of that college. You're putting way, way too much credit into why someone attends a particular university. Why did so many people keep going to Columbia during that long losing streak by the football team, or the same for Northwestern or for Prarie View? Your logic would indicate that applications would be down for those schools, yet they weren't. And think of all the schools out there that don't play football at all. Apparently they all do quite fine as well. Sports are great, and for many of us that frequent a board like this they are important. But the majority of people out there aren't picking their colleges based on the latest top 25 poll.

[I Bleed Purple]

My problem with Title IX, and really the only problem, is that it assumes that the same amount of the female student body percentage wise want to participate in sports that the male student body does.

There was a 60-40 women to men ratio given for I believe UNI in this thread. If you would take a survey, I'd bet more men want to compete in sports at that school than women. There is countless anecdotal evidence of huge student push to fill women's sports while there's a waiting list for men's sports about to be axed. In that light, I feel Title IX is unfair.

Its existence is crucial, but in claiming equality, has created inequality because it assumes the sexes are equal in desire to play sports, which they are not.

[GannonFan]

My problem with Title IX, and really the only problem, is that it assumes that the same amount of the female student body percentage wise want to participate in sports that the male student body does.

There was a 60-40 women to men ratio given for I believe UNI in this thread. If you would take a survey, I'd bet more men want to compete in sports at that school than women. There is countless anecdotal evidence of huge student push to fill women's sports while there's a waiting list for men's sports about to be axed. In that light, I feel Title IX is unfair.

Its existence is crucial, but in claiming equality, has created inequality because it assumes the sexes are equal in desire to play sports, which they are not.

Or, has the relative lack of desire of women to play sports actually been a product of knowing they won't have the opportunity to play sports in the first place?

I'm sure you could take a survey of women in the 1970's about their desire to play sports and it would be just a small fraction of what the same survey would say today. Women in the '70's had little chance to play sports, and if surveyed there would be little interest to play college sports. All of a sudden we open up opportunities for two decades, and the number of women who want to play college sports has increased by leaps and bounds. It would be interesting in another 20 years with Title IX how much more interest there will be amongst women to play sports. The trend doesn't indicate the interest is peaking or waning.

[UNHFan99]

My only issue with Title IX is that I feel the opportunity presented is under appreciatted by the female athletes. I like what it stands for but I feel it is out of control and at some point the female sports have to bring something to the table.

Female athletes, after graduating on the same scholarship money do not put any money back into their programs. UNH does not have any money makers except hockey and football might break even. The female athletes that graduate with the same degree but their side of fundraising is significantly lower from my understanding. You have to put back in what you took in my opinion.

[MplsBison]

I think we can all agree that there is no female analog to football in high schools or youth programs today.

Until that happens, it will be unfair to include football numbers in title IX calculations.

That's my bottom line opinion.


If you look at the sports that the NCAA sponsors, every one except the follow has a male/female analog that balances out exactly (meaning they can use the exact same facilities for both practice and games):

football - no analog exists
baseball/softball - same participation but separate facilities (why women's baseball never evolved? oh well)
bowling - men's not sponsored, but could be the exact same participation and use the exact same facilities
field hockey - men's not sponsored, but could be the exact same participation and use the exact same facilities (do guys play the sport though?)
rowing - men's not sponsored, but could be the exact same participation and use the exact same facilities
wrestling - women's not sponsored, there are a limited number of female wrestlers who wrestle on male teams in high school, but no separate female teams that I know of in high school or college


So there you go. Remove the above sports from the title IX equation. Then force any school who has any sport other than the above to sponsor both men's and women's teams with equal participation and equal funding.

Problem solved exactly.

[grizzpaw]

title IX WAS badly needed! that said, titleIX is in need of revisions in order to advance womens' sports! at this time their just are not enough top athletic women for all the teams! women need to make the sports that they are good in BETTERxthumbsupx, change the rules so that they have their own sport. xpeacex

[I Bleed Purple]

Or, has the relative lack of desire of women to play sports actually been a product of knowing they won't have the opportunity to play sports in the first place?


Unlikely, as the anecdotal evidence suggests, it's harder to fill women's sports that are readily available than men's.

[BDKJMU]

I'd have no problem with Title IV.. if football was exempt from the Title IV equation. No female sport has anywhere near the numbers required for football and in an effort to balance the equation.. long time men's scholarship sports like 'wrestling' and 'swimming' are cut and women's scholarship sports.. like 'crew' are created at schools where there had been absolutely no prior interest or demand for that sport.

Bingo. If football is counted, then why is cheerleading, where women are provided athletic schollies, not allowed to be counted by schools toward Title IX? It is a sport. They put in very long hours and many teams compete in regional & national competitions. (Try telling a cheerleader that what she does isn't a sport (and get ready to protect yourself)) The NCAA allows schools to count it as a varsity team (hence your "varsity" and "junior varsity" cheerleading teams), but doesn't recognize it as a sport, and its not allowed to be counted toward Title IX purposes.xnutsx That makes absolutely no sense. The SIMPLE step of the NCAA recognizing cheerleading as a sport would solve a lot of Title IX compliance issues. Imagine how many men's wrestling teams might not have been cut if cheerleading were simply counted?

[BDKJMU]

After reading all of the posts in this thread I think there are a couple of things to consider. First, in regards to why do some Men's sports get cut, while there are more women's sports at a school. There is nothing in Title IX that states a school must CUT men's sports. It simply says that there should be equal opportunities for both men and women. College administrators make the choice to cut a men's sport, so they don't have to cut the budget of football and men's basketball.
Also, the ideal of the generating of significant revenue is outside the original point of Collegiate Athletics. It should not be the goal of a college to have a sport simply to generate money. It is great when it does, but the goal of collegiate athletics is to provide an extra-curricular activity to enhance the collegiate educational experience. Any person who thinks that it should come down to dollars does not have the well being of the student-athlete first on their mind.

Its called economics. Schools aren't going to cut funding for football and mens basketball, as those are the only 2 sports that 90+% of the alumni and fans give a damn about. Not enough dollars to add funding to women's' sports or add women's teams to get into compliance, or add enough. So the 1st thing universities do to get into compliance is cut mens non revenue sports funding and/or teams. That's the easiest, simpliest thing to do to get into compliance.

[BDKJMU]

I've said this before in the past, when I was at Towson they decided to "phase out" football scholarships after my RS soph year (which was better than dropping the program all together) so those of us on scholarships were grandfathered in. I was totally and completely against Title IX.

15 years later, I have three very athletic daughters and have done a complete 180 turn.

Call me selfish, whatever. I live in the hottest hot bed of the fastest growing womens sport in the country, lacrosse. :)

But look at the other side of the coin. What if instead you had 3 sons who excelled as HS wrestlers or one of the other non revenue mens sports that have been cut entirely or had their schollies taken away at many schools? They would now have very limited options to pursue their sport in college, even more limited scholly wise....

[BDKJMU]

Well here is what I was going to respond with before it disappeared.

I absolutely disagree with you.xnonox

You are listening to the junk excuses that colleges are giving the public when they cut sports that aren't making them any money, and they want to move the money to football, basketball, and hockey.

At most schools baseball doesn't make money, wrestling doesn't make money, men's tennis doesn't make money, men's gymnastics doesn't make money, etc etc.

So what these school's are doing when they begin to get budget cuts and don't want to pull money away from Football, Basketball, and Hockey, is that they begin to cut these sports and don't want to tell you the real reason so they just blame it on Title 9 because it is the easy excuse.

The only school that I can remember in recent history that was honest about this and admitted they were cutting sports to put more money towards football was Rutgers. And they got a lot of crap for admitting it. It's much easier for a school to say, "oh we have to cut wrestling because we need to comply to Title 9," instead of saying "oh we have to cut wrestling because it isn't making any money and we need to put more into the football team."

TITLE 9 IS BEING USED AS AN EXCUSE FOR SCHOOLS TO CUT TEAMS TO MOVE MORE MONEY TO THE BIGGER SPORTS!!!xrulesx

School's should be honest about what they are doing and stop blaming Title 9, which has helped the expansion of college athletics immensely.

Baloney. If a school ALREADY has X amount of dollars commited to football & mens basketball and are told they are out of Title IX compliance and doesn't have the $ to add to womens sports or add new womens teams without cutting $ from FB and Mens BB (not increasing it, but simply keeping it level)', their only choice is to at minimum cut/eliminate schollies to mens non revenue sports, cut those men's sports all together, or cut a mens sport and add a women's. As was already stated by Duke Dawg, JMU cut mens sports because of Title IX. Period.

[BDKJMU]

absolutely incorrect.

at JMU, the programs cut were absolutely for Title IX reasons, NOT for money.

JMU is 61% female, but it's athletic programs were 55% male...a HUGE discrepancy.

Further, before the cuts JMU was sponsoring more sports than any school in the country except 3..... Ohio State, Michigan and an Ivy League school ( I think it was Harvard).

We were sponsoring 28 sports ! That was an insane amount for a school that did not play BCS football. Because of that, there was NO option to ADD more sports to meet Title IX's requirements. We were already waaaaay out of whack with a school our size should be at. The whole reason our Title IX issue even came up was because a women's club sport was asking the school to become a varsity sport. Again, as above, that was just not possible for us....to add MORE sports.

Next, only 3 women's sports were cut....one of which, Fencing, had to advertise in the student newspaper to find enough people to field a team every year !

As for money, the cuts resulted in a savings of $500,000 out of an athletic budget of $21 million. Do you think JMU would have taken the publicity hit it did just to save .02% of its budget?...no chance.

Further, all $500,000 of those savings were reallocated to Olympic sports such as golf and tennis to give more scholarship money to those athletes and programs and bring them up to the NCAA limit in amount of scholarships that could be awarded to those sports. Not ONE dollar went to football or basketball, both of which have been fully funded programs for many many years.

Ok, I'm done...just wanted to state the FACTS about JMU's situation. :)

Slight correction Dawg. Thats correct JMU was 61% female/39% male. But the athletic programs at the time were 51% female/49% male, not 55% as you state. Still were 10% off the 39% of the student body that was male.

[JohnStOnge]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Title IX mandates equal opportunity. True equal opportunity with respect to athletics would mean eliminating the distinction between mens' and womens' athletics and just letting "people' compete. What's going on is not equal opportunity. It's a process of setting lower standards for getting athletic scholarships for females. It's allowing a female of given ability a much greater opportunity than that allowed for males of the same ability.

It's a classic "equal results" thing; not equal opportunity.

[BDKJMU]

I've got no problem with Title IX. Look at the landscape before Title IX went into effect and what we have today. There's no denying that hundred of thousands of girls, who had no option to compete athletically before, have had a chance to do so now, and it's entirely because of Title IX. Why should a men's wrestling or gymnastics team take precedence over a women's sport? Let's be honest, outside of football and men's basketball, virtually no other sports make any money for the school anyway. And there aren't that many football and basketball teams that make money outside of the BCS schools anyway, so even those aren't good examples. So if teams aren't making money, then that argument is out the window.

So basically, people against Title IX, when you get down to it, just basically feel that boys should have the first crack at a sport than a girl should. It's not shocking, when it gets down to that simple sexist fact, that Title IX is the law of the land, and it should be. xreadx

Indirect dollars GF. For example, the $500 "donation" (80% is tax deductible) I paid to the JMU Duke Club for the right to buy reserved season tickets for football and basketball, P Lot Pass for football, parking for basketball, doesn't count towards football or basketball revenue. Yet if it wasn't for football, I'm paying $0. Same goes for those that are paying far more at JMU, and those paying the 5 figure "donations" at the big BCS schools so they can park by the stadium and have the right to buy club seats, access to club lounges, etc. So a lot of these non BCS schools that aren't making $ on football and basketball really are when you factor in the indirect revenue....

[EmeryZach]

Baloney. If a school ALREADY has X amount of dollars commited to football & mens basketball and are told they are out of Title IX compliance and doesn't have the $ to add to womens sports or add new womens teams without cutting $ from FB and Mens BB (not increasing it, but simply keeping it level)', their only choice is to at minimum cut/eliminate schollies to mens non revenue sports, cut those men's sports all together, or cut a mens sport and add a women's. As was already stated by Duke Dawg, JMU cut mens sports because of Title IX. Period.

You do not have to add a womens sport to come into compliance. You can come into compliance by having equal funding for all mens sports as you do all womens sports.

Now since they do not want to spend the money to do that they take the other route and instead make the percentage of men participating in sports equal to the percentage of women participating in sports and then they blame it on Title 9.

I might be wrong here, and yell at me if I am, but I believe you could actually have 15 mens teams and 2 womens teams at a school and be in compliance with Title 9, IF the amount spent on those 2 womens teams equaled the amount spent on all 15 mens teams.

And either way I still think that in situations like JMU the school officials are thrilled when they get a chance to cut sports that aren't bringing any money or attention to the school. It's something they have probably wanted to do for a long time but now have an excuse to use to do it.

[BDKJMU]

You do not have to add a womens sport to come into compliance. You can come into compliance by having equal funding for all mens sports as you do all womens sports.

Now since they do not want to spend the money to do that they take the other route and instead make the percentage of men participating in sports equal to the percentage of women participating in sports and then they blame it on Title 9.

I might be wrong here, and yell at me if I am, but I believe you could actually have 15 mens teams and 2 womens teams at a school and be in compliance with Title 9, IF the amount spent on those 2 womens teams equaled the amount spent on all 15 mens teams.

And either way I still think that in situations like JMU the school officials are thrilled when they get a chance to cut sports that aren't bringing any money or attention to the school. It's something they have probably wanted to do for a long time but now have an excuse to use to do it.

With football and no female equivalent that's nearly impossible without either:
A. Adding funding to current women's sports or adding new womens sports.
B. cutting funding/schollies for men's sports or cutting them all together.
C. Combination of A and B.

Schools usually can't afford to do A alone, so they do B or C.

[JayJ79]

But sadly UNI dropped baseball. They said it was a financial thing, but if they didn't have crap sports like women's soccer and women's swimming and women's tennis they probably could have kept a sport that had been around far longer then any of the before mentioned.

Just because it was around longer doesn't make it a non-crap sport.

[VT Wildcat Fan53]

It has meant the demise of many football programs in the past and the Obama economy and Title 9 will bring down more to come.


Interestingly, in New England, there have been a number of small college football programs started up in just the last few years, certainly bucking conventional wisdom, .... Husson (ME), Becker (MA), Anna Maria (MA), Castleton (VT),....

... and within the last 10-15 years, schools like Endicott (MA), St. Anselm (NH), Mount Ida (MA), and Salve Regina (RI). I think, but am not sure, that even FCS Bryant (RI) is relatively new.

[JDC325]

Maybe the NCAA can count cheer leading as a sport and we can have like 40 girls cheer at the football games to make up the scholarship difference. It would make the sideline more attractive.

I dont see why not they do compete at competitions. GSU won a NC just last year over UGA no less.xrotatehx

[Jackman]

With football and no female equivalent

For the record, Rowing is the closest female equivalent to football. UMass has a 50 member Women's Rowing team. But I suppose that's not very helpful if you're not near a suitable body of water.

[jmc_jackrabbit]

I disagree with the premise of the original post. And I disagree with the perspective that a sport has to be a revenue-generator to be of value. If a university cannot manage Title IX compliance without reducing opportunities for men, I would say that's a management and fundraising problem... particularly considering that Title IX is the law of the land. Deal with it.

SDSU has 21 varsity sports. We added women's sports when we moved up to D1. The university took the position that it would provide a 1:1 ratio of men's to women's scholarships (rather than falling back on any of the weaker, calculated ratios.) The university currently funds 210 or so athletic scholarships and adds a few every year, on an athletic budget of something over $10 million last year (growing for the last few years by about $500,000 a year).

Somehow, our football program has thrived. And we have more than 400 student athletes on our campus, including 200+ women. Our football team set an MVFC record for highest-ever team GPA last year. Overall, our athletic programs boast a better than 3.0 overall GPA, including a women's basketball team that led all levels of women's basketball in GPA for three straight years (while going to the NCAA tourney in its first year of eligibility and advancing in the tourney.)

As you can tell, our 1:1 Title IX compliance is a source of pride for the university. We see it as an academic opportunity issue AND an athletic opportunity issue. And I don't think our fans (many of whom, believe it or not, are WOMEN!) would have it any other way. We set a record for first-game attendance in football this year. AND we set a record for women's volleyball attendance last weekend, too.

[UAalum72]

Interestingly, in New England, there have been a number of small college football programs started up in just the last few years, certainly bucking conventional wisdom, .... Husson (ME), Becker (MA), Anna Maria (MA), Castleton (VT),....

... and within the last 10-15 years, schools like Endicott (MA), St. Anselm (NH), Mount Ida (MA), and Salve Regina (RI). I think, but am not sure, that even FCS Bryant (RI) is relatively new.
Yes, Bryant is about 12 years old. Sacred Heart, Monmouth, and Robert Morris also began between 1992-1994.

In 1983 there were 647 college football programs in NCAA and NAIA.

http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/rsfc/history/83/rothman.txt

This year there are 715.

[ngineer]

Maybe the NCAA can count cheer leading as a sport and we can have like 40 girls cheer at the football games to make up the scholarship difference. It would make the sideline more attractive.

Actually, there already is 'competitive' cheerleading as distinct from the actual cheerleaders on the sidelines. A lot of schools have separate squads for this.

[Native]

Maybe the NCAA can count cheer leading as a sport and we can have like 40 girls cheer at the football games to make up the scholarship difference. It would make the sideline more attractive.

Great idea!

Title IX was a great idea implemented poorly!

Equal rights, YES!

Equal results, NO!

[CDT_Wilson]

For the record UNI fans. I heard straight from Tory Danens mouth in person, baseball was cut due to the budget not title 9 compliance. UNI is still not title 9 compliant without baseball. When the budget thing is figured out they are hoping to add women's rugby as a scholarship varsity sport since we are very competitive in it.

My biggest problem with title 9 is the sports they come up with for the women. Rowing? Field hockey? At UNI we have tennis and soccer which aren't major high school sports in Iowa. I believe that most if not all of our tennis players are from out of state which I think is just wrong.

[GannonFan]

Unlikely, as the anecdotal evidence suggests, it's harder to fill women's sports that are readily available than men's.

And again, it's still harder to fill women's sports because historically and even now girls don't always have the same opportunities at young ages to play sports. It's gotten better and will keep getting better, but when Title IX was first instituted of course it was hard to fill women's sports spots on college teams - women, largely, didn't play sports. That's changed significantly in the past 20 years as the real first generation of girls who played sports since age 3 or 4 has passed through a few years ago, and each year it gets easier and easier to fill women's sports teams. Phasing out this historical bit of sexism takes time. But there's no denying that there's been an explosion in terms of numbers of women athletes compared to the days right before Title IX. In that regard, Title IX has been a huge success.

[MplsBison]

I disagree with the premise of the original post. And I disagree with the perspective that a sport has to be a revenue-generator to be of value. If a university cannot manage Title IX compliance without reducing opportunities for men, I would say that's a management and fundraising problem... particularly considering that Title IX is the law of the land. Deal with it.

SDSU has 21 varsity sports. We added women's sports when we moved up to D1. The university took the position that it would provide a 1:1 ratio of men's to women's scholarships (rather than falling back on any of the weaker, calculated ratios.) The university currently funds 210 or so athletic scholarships and adds a few every year, on an athletic budget of something over $10 million last year (growing for the last few years by about $500,000 a year).

Somehow, our football program has thrived. And we have more than 400 student athletes on our campus, including 200+ women. Our football team set an MVFC record for highest-ever team GPA last year. Overall, our athletic programs boast a better than 3.0 overall GPA, including a women's basketball team that led all levels of women's basketball in GPA for three straight years (while going to the NCAA tourney in its first year of eligibility and advancing in the tourney.)

As you can tell, our 1:1 Title IX compliance is a source of pride for the university. We see it as an academic opportunity issue AND an athletic opportunity issue. And I don't think our fans (many of whom, believe it or not, are WOMEN!) would have it any other way. We set a record for first-game attendance in football this year. AND we set a record for women's volleyball attendance last weekend, too.

No doubt SDSU has done somethings right!


About the only thing lacking is top quality facilities for all sports, which I know you're working on.

[GannonFan]

But look at the other side of the coin. What if instead you had 3 sons who excelled as HS wrestlers or one of the other non revenue mens sports that have been cut entirely or had their schollies taken away at many schools? They would now have very limited options to pursue their sport in college, even more limited scholly wise....

Well, I do have 3 sons, and what I'll tell them is that sports are just one part, and a minor part of the college education as the academic part is the most important part (along with the social/growing up part). If they want to play a sport in college, then they should play a sport that is played in college. And even if they don't play a sport that is played in college, or if they aren't good enough to play in college in a college sport, then there are plenty of athletic outets (club level, intramurals, etc) that they can pursue. The NCAA keeps telling us that most of theit athletes go on to do something other than the sport they played, so if my sons have to part ways with their sport 4 years earlier than others, then so be it.

There are academic scholarships, service scholarships, grants, part time work, their parents, and their grandparents/extended family that can all help to pay for school - no reason why they should put all their eggs into one basket of hoping their get an athletic full ride when you have 18 years to plan other ways to pay for school.

[Native]

And again, it's still harder to fill women's sports because historically and even now girls don't always have the same opportunities at young ages to play sports. It's gotten better and will keep getting better, but when Title IX was first instituted of course it was hard to fill women's sports spots on college teams - women, largely, didn't play sports. That's changed significantly in the past 20 years as the real first generation of girls who played sports since age 3 or 4 has passed through a few years ago, and each year it gets easier and easier to fill women's sports teams. Phasing out this historical bit of sexism takes time. But there's no denying that there's been an explosion in terms of numbers of women athletes compared to the days right before Title IX. In that regard, Title IX has been a huge success.

Yes, of course, but it has not been an unqualified success!

Guaranteeing equal opportunities is necessary and good. Guaranteeing equal results is evil.

[Native]

Well, I do have 3 sons, and what I'll tell them is that sports are just one part, and a minor part of the college education as the academic part is the most important part (along with the social/growing up part). If they want to play a sport in college, then they should play a sport that is played in college. And even if they don't play a sport that is played in college, or if they aren't good enough to play in college in a college sport, then there are plenty of athletic outets (club level, intramurals, etc) that they can pursue. The NCAA keeps telling us that most of theit athletes go on to do something other than the sport they played, so if my sons have to part ways with their sport 4 years earlier than others, then so be it.

There are academic scholarships, service scholarships, grants, part time work, their parents, and their grandparents/extended family that can all help to pay for school - no reason why they should put all their eggs into one basket of hoping their get an athletic full ride when you have 18 years to plan other ways to pay for school.

Well said! ...but Title IX is still not an unquialified success.

[GannonFan]

Yes, of course, but it has not been an unqualified success!

Guaranteeing equal opportunities is necessary and good. Guaranteeing equal results is evil.


Well said! ...but Title IX is still not an unquialified success.

Never said it was an unqualified success - I just said that it's been a huge success in terms of both giving women a chance to play college sports and in turn, creating a grassroots, explosive increase in the athletics opportunities that are available to girls throughout their childhood. Hard to deny that.

[Native]

Ok some men's sports are a drain on the budget, but aren't all women's sports with the exception of maybe UCONN Women's basketball a budget drain?

Maybe the answer is to take sports which generate positive net revenues off the Title IX table?

[Native]

Never said it was an unqualified success - I just said that it's been a huge success in terms of both giving women a chance to play college sports and in turn, creating a grassroots, explosive increase in the athletics opportunities that are available to girls throughout their childhood. Hard to deny that.

I agree but I do not like the blowback effects.

[Husky Alum]

I'm the dad of two girls, and my dad won a bunch of sportswriting awards in CT in the early 1970s writing about the early days of Title IX. I'm as much a supporter as anyone.

HOWEVER.

People in athletic departments use the law to try and get "equality" where the law doesn't necessarily require "equality".

For example, at NU, we recently redid our hockey arena, and the Men's Hockey Locker Room and women's hockey locker room were measured to make sure they were about the same square footage because of Title IX.

When we redid our athletics gym in 2000, Mrs. Husky Alum and I donated the $$$ for the men's basketball locker room. It was supposed to be X square feet, and have a bunch of amenities - all funded by Mrs. HA and I.

When the final plans were drawn, a couple of people at NU said that the room Mrs. HA and I were paying for was too big and because of "Title IX considerations" the room had to be cut back because women's athletics had fewer square feet than men.

That's what really gets me up in arms.

As an aside, at NU, we use women's crew and ice hockey to balance Title IX - neither sport is seen as an "accomodation" as both have had national success in the past 10-15 years.

[CDT_Wilson]

I'm the dad of two girls, and my dad won a bunch of sportswriting awards in CT in the early 1970s writing about the early days of Title IX. I'm as much a supporter as anyone.

HOWEVER.

People in athletic departments use the law to try and get "equality" where the law doesn't necessarily require "equality".

For example, at NU, we recently redid our hockey arena, and the Men's Hockey Locker Room and women's hockey locker room were measured to make sure they were about the same square footage because of Title IX.

When we redid our athletics gym in 2000, Mrs. Husky Alum and I donated the $$$ for the men's basketball locker room. It was supposed to be X square feet, and have a bunch of amenities - all funded by Mrs. HA and I.

When the final plans were drawn, a couple of people at NU said that the room Mrs. HA and I were paying for was too big and because of "Title IX considerations" the room had to be cut back because women's athletics had fewer square feet than men.

That's what really gets me up in arms.

As an aside, at NU, we use women's crew and ice hockey to balance Title IX - neither sport is seen as an "accomodation" as both have had national success in the past 10-15 years.

Just kind of an interesting fact.. at UNI, Women's Basketball and Volleyball have two locker rooms.

[MplsBison]

Per the letter of the law, I believe title IX was only meant to stimulate growth in the number of women participating in athletics.

Not equal scholarships, facilities, number of coaches, travel budgets, recruiting budgets, coaches salaries, etc.

[BDKJMU]

I think 3 simple fixes could be:

-As many on here have already stated, not require football to be in the equation when there is no comparable female sport. All other sports that both men & women play there could be equal schollies/funding.

and/or
-allow cheerleading to count as a sport. Cheerleaders get schollies. Give schollies to the female cheerleaders and let them count toward Title IX. I I looked up some recent articles about some schools that were trying to do this for what they called competitive cheerleading, and not surprisingly, some womens' groups have come out against it.

and/or

not require a school's to have to fund in equal proportion to their student bodies, but rather simply 50/50. Example, if a school is 60/40 female/male, funding athletics 50/50 female/male should be good enough. Saying that school should have to allocate 60% of athletic funds to females is like saying they should have to admit 50% men. Fact is more women than men go to college, and schools that are 60/40 female or worse are put at a disadvantage funding wise for their mens' sports as opposed to schools that are the flip side 60/40 makle/female or even 50/50.

I bring this up because of JMU. JMU was 61% female at the time the sports were cut 3 years ago. They still allocated 51% of funding to female sports, but apparently that wasn't good enough...

[MplsBison]

Taking football out of the equation is by far the easiest and simplest way to fix 80-90% of the problem.

[danefan]

Per the letter of the law, I believe title IX was only meant to stimulate growth in the number of women participating in athletics.

Not equal scholarships, facilities, number of coaches, travel budgets, recruiting budgets, coaches salaries, etc.

The law requires equal access to educational opportunities, of which intercollegiate athletics is considered one.

The problem with Title IX is that it is a very broad law with very little guidance and dire consequences.

For example - Title IX can be, and is routinely used to sue school districts and Universities in cases of sexual harrassment/intimidation and assault.

[Husky Alum]

The law requires equal access to educational opportunities, of which intercollegiate athletics is considered one.

The problem with Title IX is that it is a very broad law with very little guidance and dire consequences.

Those two phrases are what's wrong with the application of Title IX.

When you have a program that's as successful as hockey has been the last couple of years at NU that wants to have fantastic facilities, and the bleeding hearts at NU want to avoid a lawsuit, so they get out their tape measures, that's NOT what the law was intended to do.

When you have an alum willing to fork over tens of thousands of dollars for a locker room, you don't slice the room by 2/3 and give the space to women's crew - which shares a state of the art boathouse in Boston - because the women can't find a similar donor for their facilities.

Title IX, back in the 1970s has dutifully served its purpose in life. My girls can aspire to play sports of any kind at any level, and don't need to sacrifice their femininity because of it and don't need to be ashamed of wanting to be athletic. They can even get a scholarship if they're good enough - that's great. They have female athletic role models to look up to and admire because of Title IX.

Mission Accomplished Title IX.

Now let's work on making the law non-discriminatory against men.

[JohnStOnge]

Per the letter of the law, I believe title IX was only meant to stimulate growth in the number of women participating in athletics.


I don't think it was meant to stimulate the growth of women participating in athletics. I think it was a general "equal opportunity" effort that was later "interpreted" to mean greater opportunities for women in particular to participate in athletics.

Take this language from Title IX:

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."

(http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleIX.htm)

I don't think that was written with athletics in mind at all.

And here's the thing: Women are generally not as athletic as men. The idea that women are being excluded on the basis of "sex" because they don't get as many athletic scholarships is absurd. Let's say they eliminate the distinction between mens and womens athletics. If a woman can run a 10.0 100 meters, she's going to get an athletic scholarship. The fact that she can't do that and therefore doesn't get an athletic scholarship doesn't mean she's being discriminated against on the basis of sex. She's being "excluded" because she doesn't have the athleticism to merit an athletic scholarship.

I can pretty much guarantee you that if the people who voted for Title IX in 1972 had been told it was going to be "interpreted" as it's been interpreted, it would never have passed. It's one more example of the Judiciary distorting the law.

[JMU99]

Taking football out of the equation is by far the easiest and simplest way to fix 80-90% of the problem.

Isn't CUTTING the amount of Football scholarships the easiest way?
The NFL gets it done with what, a 53 man roster?
FBS used to be 110 scholarships, now it is 85!
If it were cut to 60-70, that would free up enough scholarships for several additional men's sports.
It could be cut to a commensurate level in FCS as well.

We simply don't "need" the amount of football scholarships in order to field competitive teams. The reduction from 110 has arguably increased parity in FBS. Knocking off a few more scholarships would arguably continue that trend as well as trickle down to FCS. Fewer available scholarships in FBS, means higher quality athletes to populate our programs.

Id be curious to see how many scholarship football players at each program never play meaningful minutes in games.

[Duke Dawg]

any post that suggests cutting anything related to the football program just can't be taken seriously.

You cut back on football, you must as well get rid of your athletic department.

maybe that doesn't "sound" politically correct or whatever, but it's reality.

[UAalum72]

any post that suggests cutting anything related to the football program just can't be taken seriously.

You cut back on football, you must as well get rid of your athletic department.

maybe that doesn't "sound" politically correct or whatever, but it's reality.
Just hysterical, in both meanings of the word, as funny and as mindless panic.

Really? Disband athletics if you can't have both third-string guards on scholarship?

If scholarship costs were lower, maybe more schools would have football teams if they couldn't use the Title IX excuse.

[CDT_Wilson]

Isn't CUTTING the amount of Football scholarships the easiest way?
The NFL gets it done with what, a 53 man roster?
FBS used to be 110 scholarships, now it is 85!
If it were cut to 60-70, that would free up enough scholarships for several additional men's sports.
It could be cut to a commensurate level in FCS as well.

We simply don't "need" the amount of football scholarships in order to field competitive teams. The reduction from 110 has arguably increased parity in FBS. Knocking off a few more scholarships would arguably continue that trend as well as trickle down to FCS. Fewer available scholarships in FBS, means higher quality athletes to populate our programs.

Id be curious to see how many scholarship football players at each program never play meaningful minutes in games.

You can't really compare the NFL and College football. The reason college requires so many scholarships is they have to develop talent then lose it every 4 years. NFL has the luxury of being able to just pick up already developed talent and just teach them their system. NFL also retains talent as long as they remain talented.

[Hammerhead]

The NFL players association says the average NFL career is about 3.5 years.

[JMU2K_DukeDawg]

You can't tax the income of a female student who works part time, then send her money back to the university so they can spend it disproportionately on her male classmates while they play their gender-exclusive sport. That's unconstitutional. And wrong, quite frankly. I'm pretty sure she doesn't give a damn that football requires more players than any women's sport, that's irrelevant. It's partly her money we're spending.

What if she is like my girlfriend and loves to go to men's football and basketball games, but really doesn't follow or even like any women's sports? xeyebrowx

Also, the assumption that women want the same opportunities as men is the key underlying assumption that is so politically incorrect it is never stated nor argued regarding title IX. Often they don't! I wish universities would use the survey rule more often to prove this, but they view it as a risk to their control over the sports management process.

As stated by Duke Dawg, JMU's case was a management decision. JMU had those 28 sports for so long, and finally the dam broke. The Athletics Department simply wanted to be competitive, i.e. field teams with the same number of scholarships as their rivals in golf and tennis among others. It was like JMU sports were playing FCS vs. FBS all the time in college football jargon. Now they compete head to head without the financial disadvantage of losing good players that otherwise would have chosen JMU if offered a scholarship.

Also, do you really want to see your school's football field used for other sports? Nahhh... I love having a thing of beauty be a gem to its sport. I mean, imagine a track in Montana's stadium. Think about it people.

Oh, and I think GannonFan is secretly fishing for a date with a feminist. :p ;)

[JMU2K_DukeDawg]

Also, the assumption that women want the same opportunities as men is the key underlying assumption that is so politically incorrect it is never stated nor argued regarding title IX. Often they don't! I wish universities would use the survey rule more often to prove this, but they view it as a risk to their control over the sports management process.


Can't believe I am quoting myself, but I want to highlight something.

Had JMU successfully used the survey test as opposed to proportionality, then JMU could have remained out of compliance on the sex ratio rule and kept those 9 sports cut. JMU did not want to do this, as doing this would have prevented them from financially being able to support the other remaining sports at the level that the AD considers competitive (i.e., full scholarships). This points out how schools manipulate title IX for their convenience as opposed to the purpose of the law.

In other words, no matter what angle you look at it, the law desperately needs reform.