login
Title IX
-
No new posts
 2005-10-13 5:15 PM |
Elite Veteran 781   |  Subject: Title IXRather than continue the title IX discussion in the Dear Abby thread, I thought I'd start a new one. Hmmm. This is probably the wrong forum....Sorry, Ron. Perhaps a third order consequence of title IX was eliminating some of the boys/mens sports programs, but that wasn't the fault of title IX and woeful DC policy makers. It is really a debate about $$$ (many things are). In order to add girls sports programs at local grade and high schools, school boards and citizens paying property taxes would have had to spend more or cut somewhere else. Local officials decided to make it a zero sum game. I don't know much about it, but aren't public schools financed by the public in the form of taxes? Although my daughter doesn't attend a public high school, I wouldn't mind paying a little more in taxes to have a flourishing sports program for both genders. Apparently John Q. Public doesn't quite feel the same way. Title IX didn't decimate boy's athletic programs, the local representatives did. They're politicians. They couldn't/wouldn't make a case for the need for increased revenue. In turn, administrators did what they had to do. Make the budget work. |
| 2005-10-13 5:29 PM in reply to: #264926 |
Champion 7704   Williamston, Michigan | Subject: RE: Title IX As someone in the sports medicine field I can tell you this is a hot topic. Yes some mens progams have been cut. Of course I bet you would be hard pressed to find a collegiate program that cut football to have more womens sports. Small sports like mens gymnastics and wrestling have suffered, but I think the gains made in womens sports are tremendous. They actually tried to pass legislation to prevent schools from elimnating olympic sports from their prgorams. (IE...you can't cut mens gymnastics because it is an olympic sport) If you think they are not cutting womens sports you are mistaken. Yale was NCAA division II national champions in womens gymnastics and they cut the program to start mens water polo. The number of grils participating in high schools sports exploded since the advent of title IX...perhaps even more important than what is going on at a college levelHere is some food for thought esp all you mommies and daddies with daughters-Girls who participate in HS sports are1-more likely to finish HS2-less likely to get pregnant as a teenager3-have better self esteem4-are less likely to get into an abusive relationship5-develop better body image6-develop healthier habits for a life time over their sedantary counterpartsNow I LOVE football.....esp HS football, but I also love gymnastics both mens and womens and neither should suffer. |
| 2005-10-13 7:27 PM in reply to: #264934 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: Title IX Many, many men's programs were cut. Ironically for a tri forum, most of them were swimming, cross country and track programs. Also gymnastics and wrestling. I attended two undergrad school, both of which cut their men's swimming programs. The first caused my transfer. It's absolutely true that it's the fault of the athletic departments, and not Title IX. Moreover, it's football's fault. Granted, football funds the ADs, but at 100+ scholarships at the DI level, it's impossible, practically, to create enough women's sports to equalize that number without cutting sports. sue7013 - 2005-10-13 5:29 PM As someone in the sports medicine field I can tell you this is a hot topic. Yes some mens progams have been cut. Of course I bet you would be hard pressed to find a collegiate program that cut football to have more womens sports. Small sports like mens gymnastics and wrestling have suffered, but I think the gains made in womens sports are tremendous. They actually tried to pass legislation to prevent schools from elimnating olympic sports from their prgorams. (IE...you can't cut mens gymnastics because it is an olympic sport) If you think they are not cutting womens sports you are mistaken. Yale was NCAA division II national champions in womens gymnastics and they cut the program to start mens water polo. The number of grils participating in high schools sports exploded since the advent of title IX...perhaps even more important than what is going on at a college levelHere is some food for thought esp all you mommies and daddies with daughters-Girls who participate in HS sports are1-more likely to finish HS2-less likely to get pregnant as a teenager3-have better self esteem4-are less likely to get into an abusive relationship5-develop better body image6-develop healthier habits for a life time over their sedantary counterpartsNow I LOVE football.....esp HS football, but I also love gymnastics both mens and womens and neither should suffer. |
| 2005-10-13 9:30 PM in reply to: #264926 |
| Elite Veteran 781 | Subject: RE: Title IX Run4, could you further your thoughts? I am absoultely not ready to jump on them. Not at all. I just want to know more about them. As a pre-Title IX baby (yes, I'm old), I really like to know where folks are coming from. And not in a judgemental way. I think we have a lot to teach each other about our thoughts. |
| 2005-10-14 6:17 AM in reply to: #265018 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: Title IX Well, first and foremost, I'm a staunch supporter of Title IX. Have been, and am now as a father of a 5yo daughter who likes to run, even moreso. My problem lies in it's application. I think Title IX is seen by college athletic directors as the perfect excuse to dump non-revenue producing sports, like swimming, track, x-country, wrestling and gymnastics. By doing so, they trim their budgets (ever so slightly...the combined budgets for each of those 5 programs at a typical D1 school total probably less than 5% of the football budget. And they also artificially bring their male/female scholarship ratio more in line, without even having to offer more opportunities to women. Look at my school as an example. When I graduated from Geogia Southern, the athletic department looked like this:
If you look at the total sports added for women versus the total dropped for men, you'd see a big negative delta. Bottom line is that while women are offered a few more opportunities, the big winners are the athletic department budgets. And that's not how it's supposed to be. lynda - 2005-10-13 9:30 PMRun4, could you further your thoughts? I am absoultely not ready to jump on them. Not at all. I just want to know more about them. As a pre-Title IX baby (yes, I'm old), I really like to know where folks are coming from. And not in a judgemental way. I think we have a lot to teach each other about our thoughts. |
| 2005-10-14 6:45 PM in reply to: #264926 |
| Elite Veteran 781 | Subject: RE: Title IX Thanks for your thoughtful response. I had no idea. With tuition as high as it is at most schools, it is a shame that so many men's programs have been cut. I suppose those programs are gone for good. I also don't understand why there are more women's programs than men's. Must be a function of $$ and the wording of Title IX. Perhaps it is time for a fine-tuning of the title. On a brighter note, I'm pleased to see some universities now have triathlon teams. I'm assuming they are co-ed. Perhaps that is the answer; go co-ed when you can (X-country, for example). |
| 2005-10-14 6:59 PM in reply to: #264926 |
Champion 7704 Williamston, Michigan | Subject: RE: Title IX Underlying defect is football makes schools money. I wish the legislation that prohibited the cutting of olympic spotrs had passed. |
| 2005-10-14 7:09 PM in reply to: #265527 |
Master 1249 Lexington, Kentucky | Subject: RE: Title IX The main source of inequity in college sports funding, IMHO, is football. There is no corresponding female sport, and the football team is huge. Count the number of players and coaches on the sidelines at any college game. You could probably fund the entire volleyball team on what it takes to support the 3rd string defense. There is a perception that football is a "revenue sport" for colleges - donors open their checkbooks when the football team wins, but don't care when the track team has a good day. (I have heard that less than 5% of college football teams are truly "profitable", but I can't remember where I heard that.) In any case, the perception is there, and so the school must have a "competitive" football program. Other "non-revenue" men's teams will be cut to keep the numbers in line. |
| 2005-10-14 7:35 PM in reply to: #264926 |
Master 1468 Tampa, Fl | Subject: RE: Title IX Basically all sports suck up money from the budget. Football more so because of the amount of players but the fact remains that football is the only one that actually puts money back into the school and athletic department. |
| 2005-10-15 9:49 AM in reply to: #265527 |
Veteran 142 Wichita, KS | Subject: RE: Title IX lynda - 2005-10-14 6:45 PM I also don't understand why there are more women's programs than men's. Must be a function of $$ and the wording of Title IX. Perhaps it is time for a fine-tuning of the title. The reason there are more women's programs than men's is because, as I understand it, Title IX requires the same number of athletic scholarships be available for men and women, which is really the only fair way to do it. Otherwise, an unscrupulous AD would just have a bunch of women's sports that require very small teams. I think the biggest problem is having football teams that resemble professional squads. There is absolutely no reason to have as big of teams as there are. Studies have shown that football does NOT have the highest injury rate (though it does have among the highest severity of injury), and there is no reason to have 3rd string players that aren't capable of playing multiple positions. Most of these guys are not going to be pros, so why specialize? The number of football scholarships should be cut across the board, which would allow for greater competition, as smaller/less famous schools would have a better chance of competing. It's not like the less talented can't walk-on, anyway. There's also more important reasons why football should be pared down, including academic immorality facing some schools (Ohio State, anyone?) as well as what percentage of minority students are athletes (some schools use the preponderance of minority athletes to bolster their overall race numbers). I love watching college football, but I think some changes need to be made. I don't think they will, but I think they should. |
| 2005-10-15 10:13 AM in reply to: #264926 |
Champion 7704 Williamston, Michigan | Subject: RE: Title IX If you leave football out of the equation there are nearly equal numbers of women and men participating in college sports. Men are a little ahead. Cheerleading is actually the most dangerous sport...highest rate of catastrophic injury (paralysis) and death...believe it or not...I have written a few chapters and articles on the female athlete so I promise this is true. |
| 2005-10-17 12:17 AM in reply to: #264926 |
Champion 19812 MA | Subject: RE: Title IX It is sad when programs get dropped for the kids involved. A good friend's son runs cross country and his U's team was excellant ranked in the nation, but it was dropped to balance the #'s for Title 9. When I was in HS I wanted to play soccer. I would have had to try out for the boys team and I wasn't strong enough mentally to do that. The year after I graduated two girls who were friends tried out and played on the team together. I went to college and played on our college team. We played when there was only one division so we played UCLA, USC, UC Santa Barbara, and we were a little college...we got creamed mostly. It wasn't an official sport, so we had to pay all the costs. I don't know the answer but am glad my daughter will have opportunity to play sports in HS and beyond. |
| 2005-10-17 11:21 AM in reply to: #265629 |
Veteran 142 Wichita, KS | Subject: RE: Title IX I thought the idea was for there to be even numbers of men and women athletes, including football. Is that not correct? Is it just to have the same number of teams? I've heard that girls' participation in sports has increased 800% since Title IX. How many ideas/programs have ever been as effective in their purpose? I had heard that cheerleading was like that, as well. The reason I had mentioned injuries is because that is often given as the reason for the number of football players, which is not supported by the facts. |
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK