Its,
No question you are a seed spitting champion. Both the distance and your accuracy are deserving of a large scholarship. Hopefully the academics (parties) won't get in the way.
Unforunately all schools are eliminating their seed spitting teams so that they can add sports for females. I don't get it, why not just add a women's seed spitting team? Now that is a sport I would definitely go watch. Well, at least until they started televising all the seed spitting games. I love it when you can see the instant replays.
PG - LOL - my only concern at this point is - as I lose the rest of my teeth - will I still be competitive?
quote:Originally posted by slotty:quote:Originally posted by jemaz: The education system is contantly changing to ensure the de-masculinity of boys and all but ensure their failure in the broadest sense, not just in sports.
Because it was not level in the past, retribution is important now, and what do young men matter anyway? Fewer and fewer of them qualify for college anymore and especially not for graduate school. The good part is that the nation will have a large supply of laborers -- if there are jobs at all for laborers.
Phew! Where to start?
Here's what Title IX says (in part): "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of [s-e-x], be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of [emphasis mine], or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance..."
So there are only two possibilities regarding your stated opinion, as far as I can see:
(1) You believe that men are, generally speaking, more deserving than women; or
(2) You believe that our tax dollars that are shared with colleges/univeristies should, proportionally, be spent more on men than women.
It's not as though the Yannkees are being forced to give a contract to a woman. We're talking about federal monies (i.e. our tax dollars) being directed to institutions of higher learning, dictating not how it should be spent but only that if it is spent, that is should not be spent disproportionately on one [s-e-x] or the other.
What I think is that football ought to be kept out of the equation entirely. What I also think is that proportionality is bogus and destructive (if it applies to sports, apply it as well to school admissions and make the student body equal to the percentages of men and women in the population, along with that of EVERY minority group).
If football is left in the equation (which obviously is the case), then Title IX as it applies to college athletics is a bad law that has destructive impact. Unfortunately, I do not get to decide how the law is implemented (bad or otherwise). I think the long-term impact on the nation will be incredibly negative.
And, take note, nowhere here have I said eliminate women's sports. But I also do not believe in eliminating men's sports, which are fast, fast disappearing. I would rather simply eliminate all scholarships based on anything other than need and adopt the Ivy League model for every school.
I also believe it is beyond ridiculous to create sports (rowing) that no one will watch simply to provide more athletic scholarships for women, espcially when upward a third of all men's programs have been eliminated. But, as I said earlier, hardly anyone cares at this point and we are left with a building injustice.
The rowing bashing is a little much. I've waited a while to post - and I was surprised when even PG joined in 
Is the point of an athletic scholarship so an athlete can go pro? Wow - somebody better tell all those baseball players that they should plunk $1 on a lottery ticket. They might win. (Or better yet, as we all agree, make sure they study. Because they'll need a degree to make money).
Anybody ever been on an erg? My rowing daughters (one on scholarship to a top D1 and one getting offers now) are in far better aerobic and endurance shape than my D1 baseball son. Hands down. And the girls at a D1 rowing program can take the football team (it's been done) in an endurance test any time.
In rowing, no one person is the hero; there's no individual walk off homerun, amazing catch, stolen base. Rather, 9 women (or men) have to work TOGETHER all the time at a level of excellency and endurance and sheer exhaustion to achieve a common goal - victory. Life lessons, fitness, olympic aspirations, teamwork, making sure the "weakest" rower gets stronger, better, because everyone MUST contribute to the team ALL the time. (Not like a reliever, or a DH, who I'll agree play roles on the team - but again, individual roles contributing to the greater good.) By the way, as an employer, I'd hire the rower over the baseball player (and remember - one of my kid's plays D1 baseball). The skills the rower learns are the kind of skills I'd like to see in my business.
Informationally, a fully funded women's rowing program has 20 scholarships for the team - yes, sometimes of 70 girls. No minimum scholarship; I've seen coaches offer a girl books, and she signs an NLI. Are there recruited walkons who may even get scholarships? Darn right! . Girls who have competed internationally MAY get a full ride at a top 20 program; others get 50%. Walk ons may get books, or a thousand dollars with the hope of increased money later. When you hear of "everyone" getting a full ride, it's simply not true. And not all top programs are fully funded.
It surprises me that the focus on "why so many scholarships" is not on football - 85 full rides? FULL RIDES???????? Why not 60 scholarships for football and 20 for baseball? There are alot of scenarios where men can fight the fight themselves - they've got plenty of money. Don't blame the girls for this one.
Anyway - my Title IX or baseball info may not be accurate - but I did want to shed perspective on the rowing piece from someone who lives it and, quite frankly, benefits from it.
Is the point of an athletic scholarship so an athlete can go pro? Wow - somebody better tell all those baseball players that they should plunk $1 on a lottery ticket. They might win. (Or better yet, as we all agree, make sure they study. Because they'll need a degree to make money).
Anybody ever been on an erg? My rowing daughters (one on scholarship to a top D1 and one getting offers now) are in far better aerobic and endurance shape than my D1 baseball son. Hands down. And the girls at a D1 rowing program can take the football team (it's been done) in an endurance test any time.
In rowing, no one person is the hero; there's no individual walk off homerun, amazing catch, stolen base. Rather, 9 women (or men) have to work TOGETHER all the time at a level of excellency and endurance and sheer exhaustion to achieve a common goal - victory. Life lessons, fitness, olympic aspirations, teamwork, making sure the "weakest" rower gets stronger, better, because everyone MUST contribute to the team ALL the time. (Not like a reliever, or a DH, who I'll agree play roles on the team - but again, individual roles contributing to the greater good.) By the way, as an employer, I'd hire the rower over the baseball player (and remember - one of my kid's plays D1 baseball). The skills the rower learns are the kind of skills I'd like to see in my business.
Informationally, a fully funded women's rowing program has 20 scholarships for the team - yes, sometimes of 70 girls. No minimum scholarship; I've seen coaches offer a girl books, and she signs an NLI. Are there recruited walkons who may even get scholarships? Darn right! . Girls who have competed internationally MAY get a full ride at a top 20 program; others get 50%. Walk ons may get books, or a thousand dollars with the hope of increased money later. When you hear of "everyone" getting a full ride, it's simply not true. And not all top programs are fully funded.
It surprises me that the focus on "why so many scholarships" is not on football - 85 full rides? FULL RIDES???????? Why not 60 scholarships for football and 20 for baseball? There are alot of scenarios where men can fight the fight themselves - they've got plenty of money. Don't blame the girls for this one.
Anyway - my Title IX or baseball info may not be accurate - but I did want to shed perspective on the rowing piece from someone who lives it and, quite frankly, benefits from it.
gamefan,
I apologize, should have known someone would be close to the situation. It's just that I know of a case where someone who never rowed in her life was offered a large rowing scholarship. Something about that didn't seem right.
Regarding football schaolarships, once again, football would go way down hill in a hurry if they had a much lower scholarship number. Injuries alone can nearly cut a team in half. The #1 running back at U of Iowa is Mark Weisman. He wasn't even a running back at the beginning of the year. In fact, he isn't even on scholarship, but he has scored 7 TDs and gained about 600 yds in the three games he has been the running back. Once again, he is not on scholarship! All the scholarship guys are out or gone.
I know 85 scholarships is a lot, but any less than that would hurt many programs. Even with 85, the bigger programs will have several walk ons. Many of those walk ons end up playing. It's not like the pros where you lose both guys at a position you just go out and sign someone else.
Anyway, I'm happy that rowing has worked out well for your daughters. I'm sure it's a great sport for those who know more about it. I do have to ask... 20 scholarships for a rowing team? Do they need that many? Geez, DI basketball is what? 13?. Actually DI womens basketball is 15. Do women need more players than men? This stuff really confuses me.
I apologize, should have known someone would be close to the situation. It's just that I know of a case where someone who never rowed in her life was offered a large rowing scholarship. Something about that didn't seem right.
Regarding football schaolarships, once again, football would go way down hill in a hurry if they had a much lower scholarship number. Injuries alone can nearly cut a team in half. The #1 running back at U of Iowa is Mark Weisman. He wasn't even a running back at the beginning of the year. In fact, he isn't even on scholarship, but he has scored 7 TDs and gained about 600 yds in the three games he has been the running back. Once again, he is not on scholarship! All the scholarship guys are out or gone.
I know 85 scholarships is a lot, but any less than that would hurt many programs. Even with 85, the bigger programs will have several walk ons. Many of those walk ons end up playing. It's not like the pros where you lose both guys at a position you just go out and sign someone else.
Anyway, I'm happy that rowing has worked out well for your daughters. I'm sure it's a great sport for those who know more about it. I do have to ask... 20 scholarships for a rowing team? Do they need that many? Geez, DI basketball is what? 13?. Actually DI womens basketball is 15. Do women need more players than men? This stuff really confuses me.
Hi PG -
Interesting that a varsity basketball team has 13 (15) scholarships for a team that plays 5 at a time. Yes, more play, but their minutes can be very, very limited. Baseball does get the low number at 11.7 for 9 players on the field at a time. Again, I understand more will play, but maybe 12 actually get a lot of innings/at bats.
Conversely, there are 20 girls on a varsity team who row at EVERY regatta and 3 coxswains (steer the boat). Then there is the "jv" level for girls working to make the top boats. And then there is the novice team for new rowers who are learning their first year. So all of a sudden 20 scholarships for 20 varsity rowers might become a little more "rational" if you follow this one line of logic. It doesn't really add up that way, but it made for a nice analogy.
As a sport that does not train/compete extensively in HS (we are lucky to live in an area with a top ranked HS team) college rowing needs time and numbers to train their varsity level teams. The health of a rowing program is in analyzing their roster; a team evenly distributed from freshmen - seniors is a healthy team. A bottom heavy roster, not so much.
Interesting that a varsity basketball team has 13 (15) scholarships for a team that plays 5 at a time. Yes, more play, but their minutes can be very, very limited. Baseball does get the low number at 11.7 for 9 players on the field at a time. Again, I understand more will play, but maybe 12 actually get a lot of innings/at bats.
Conversely, there are 20 girls on a varsity team who row at EVERY regatta and 3 coxswains (steer the boat). Then there is the "jv" level for girls working to make the top boats. And then there is the novice team for new rowers who are learning their first year. So all of a sudden 20 scholarships for 20 varsity rowers might become a little more "rational" if you follow this one line of logic. It doesn't really add up that way, but it made for a nice analogy.
As a sport that does not train/compete extensively in HS (we are lucky to live in an area with a top ranked HS team) college rowing needs time and numbers to train their varsity level teams. The health of a rowing program is in analyzing their roster; a team evenly distributed from freshmen - seniors is a healthy team. A bottom heavy roster, not so much.
Here is a list of the DI Men’s sports that have no
Women’s sport.
Baseball
Football
Rifle (what is that)
Wrestling
Here is a list of DI Women’s sports that have no Men’s sport.
Archery
Badminton
Bowling
Equestrian
Field Hockey
Rowing
Rugby
Softball
Squash
Synchronized Swimming
Team Handball
My questions are…
Why no women in “Rifle”?
Why no men in Archery?
Why no men in Badminton?
Why no men in Bowling?
Not sure men play Field Hockey or do Equestrian.
Why no men in Rowing?
Why no men in Rugby?
Why no men in Softball
Squash? Does anyone play that?
Also, some of the numbers don’t add up. For example men’s tennis is 4.5 scholarships and women's tennis is 8. I know this is all based on making things equal, but does it take more tennis players for the women's team? And would male tennis players agree that this was equal? Why does softball have slightly more scholarships than baseball? The same pitcher throws all the time in softball, maybe two pitchers cover most all the season. Obviously you need much more pitching in baseball. How about Gymnastics or swimming and diving? Nearly twice the scholarships available for women's gymnastics and swimming is 9.9 for Men, 14 for Women.
What about the poor boy that has mastered archery or bowling or rowing or handball… They just out of luck?
I do believe they have to create opportunities for female athletes. It’s the right thing to do!
All of this could be simplified and actually give women and men even more opportunities if they just took football out of the equation at the DI level. If a team can’t afford football, that is the sport they should drop because it is by far the most expensive sport. The money they save could add many more opportunities for both women and men in other sports. BTW, this is coming from a huge football fan.
The way it is now, just isn't the answer. We are all either Men or Women (I guess there are some variations, but I don't know any of them) We have children and they are either Boys or girls. If we have all boys, Mom (the woman) will want what is best for her children. We have all girls Dad, (the man) will want what is best for his children. All of us are the Tax payers!
It's not as much a female/male issue as it is a bunch of hype to make someone look like they're doing something good. Why not... make it as fair as possible for everyone concerned. Geez, who figured out this plan?
Women’s sport.
Baseball
Football
Rifle (what is that)
Wrestling
Here is a list of DI Women’s sports that have no Men’s sport.
Archery
Badminton
Bowling
Equestrian
Field Hockey
Rowing
Rugby
Softball
Squash
Synchronized Swimming
Team Handball
My questions are…
Why no women in “Rifle”?
Why no men in Archery?
Why no men in Badminton?
Why no men in Bowling?
Not sure men play Field Hockey or do Equestrian.
Why no men in Rowing?
Why no men in Rugby?
Why no men in Softball
Squash? Does anyone play that?
Also, some of the numbers don’t add up. For example men’s tennis is 4.5 scholarships and women's tennis is 8. I know this is all based on making things equal, but does it take more tennis players for the women's team? And would male tennis players agree that this was equal? Why does softball have slightly more scholarships than baseball? The same pitcher throws all the time in softball, maybe two pitchers cover most all the season. Obviously you need much more pitching in baseball. How about Gymnastics or swimming and diving? Nearly twice the scholarships available for women's gymnastics and swimming is 9.9 for Men, 14 for Women.
What about the poor boy that has mastered archery or bowling or rowing or handball… They just out of luck?
I do believe they have to create opportunities for female athletes. It’s the right thing to do!
All of this could be simplified and actually give women and men even more opportunities if they just took football out of the equation at the DI level. If a team can’t afford football, that is the sport they should drop because it is by far the most expensive sport. The money they save could add many more opportunities for both women and men in other sports. BTW, this is coming from a huge football fan.
The way it is now, just isn't the answer. We are all either Men or Women (I guess there are some variations, but I don't know any of them) We have children and they are either Boys or girls. If we have all boys, Mom (the woman) will want what is best for her children. We have all girls Dad, (the man) will want what is best for his children. All of us are the Tax payers!
It's not as much a female/male issue as it is a bunch of hype to make someone look like they're doing something good. Why not... make it as fair as possible for everyone concerned. Geez, who figured out this plan?
Discussing Title IX- it's a depressing subject- does offer a window into our current society as a whole, imo.
Like many social programs, it was probably a good idea when it started. Despite the fact that women were probably going to get the benefits that derived from it without the legislation, it certainly moved things forward and made possibilities available to deserving female athletes.
However over time it has turned into another in a long line of quota driven programs with supporters acting like avenging angels whenever anyone wanted to make necessary updates to the law.
Case in point, Pres. Bush wanted to allow for surveys to be used as a simple mechanism to determine the satifaction level of females on campus with regards to their access to athletics. The Pelosi's (and yes Joe Bidens) of the world called that approach sexist, etc and wouldnt allow it. Its all about quotas now.
As a result boys sports continue on a downward spiral, with of course the exception of mens' basketball and football which fund everything.
If you have 60% women at a school, 60% of the funds must go to their sports.
Couple of thoughts:
1. If we have a gender quota regarding allocation of funds, why not a gender quota allocating space in incoming freshman class? 50 -50 male-female quota. The avenging angels dont like that approach.
2. You now hear the avenging angels demanding Title IX be applied to the hard sciences. ie why aren't women attracted to the hard sciences, must be a problem that a Title IX quota system would solve they think.
3. My thoughts are that since no reasonable accomodation can be made to correct for the problems that result in schools like Towson shutting down their baseball team, let's move to a full equalty model in college sports. Let the women's teams fund the women's budget and the same with the men's teams. Currently the mens teams are viewed by the avenging angel crowd one of two ways; either as a cash cow or a target for elimination.
Let them fund their own programs and grow their own support base. They will learn quickly enough that the only people who care about women's sports are the parents of the participants.
Its a modest proposal.
PS. PG, imo, the days of discussing "fairness" with this crowd are long gone. They view it as a sign of weakness and will use it to steamroll us into submission.
Like many social programs, it was probably a good idea when it started. Despite the fact that women were probably going to get the benefits that derived from it without the legislation, it certainly moved things forward and made possibilities available to deserving female athletes.
However over time it has turned into another in a long line of quota driven programs with supporters acting like avenging angels whenever anyone wanted to make necessary updates to the law.
Case in point, Pres. Bush wanted to allow for surveys to be used as a simple mechanism to determine the satifaction level of females on campus with regards to their access to athletics. The Pelosi's (and yes Joe Bidens) of the world called that approach sexist, etc and wouldnt allow it. Its all about quotas now.
As a result boys sports continue on a downward spiral, with of course the exception of mens' basketball and football which fund everything.
If you have 60% women at a school, 60% of the funds must go to their sports.
Couple of thoughts:
1. If we have a gender quota regarding allocation of funds, why not a gender quota allocating space in incoming freshman class? 50 -50 male-female quota. The avenging angels dont like that approach.
2. You now hear the avenging angels demanding Title IX be applied to the hard sciences. ie why aren't women attracted to the hard sciences, must be a problem that a Title IX quota system would solve they think.
3. My thoughts are that since no reasonable accomodation can be made to correct for the problems that result in schools like Towson shutting down their baseball team, let's move to a full equalty model in college sports. Let the women's teams fund the women's budget and the same with the men's teams. Currently the mens teams are viewed by the avenging angel crowd one of two ways; either as a cash cow or a target for elimination.
Let them fund their own programs and grow their own support base. They will learn quickly enough that the only people who care about women's sports are the parents of the participants.
Its a modest proposal.
PS. PG, imo, the days of discussing "fairness" with this crowd are long gone. They view it as a sign of weakness and will use it to steamroll us into submission.
quote:Informationally, a fully funded women's rowing program has 20 scholarships for the team - yes, sometimes of 70 girls. No minimum scholarship; I've seen coaches offer a girl books, and she signs an NLI. Are there recruited walkons who may even get scholarships? Darn right! . Girls who have competed internationally MAY get a full ride at a top 20 program; others get 50%. Walk ons may get books, or a thousand dollars with the hope of increased money later. When you hear of "everyone" getting a full ride, it's simply not true. And not all top programs are fully funded.
20 scholarships for rowing? I had no idea. Absurdity has reached a new level. As for football, people (millions of people willing to spend billions of dollars) actually care. Without the emphasis on football, there is no rowing or anything else for that matter.
As I said, eliminate ALL scholarships except for need (as is done in the Ivy League) and there are no arguments, problems or programs (male or female) that need to be eliminated. And, as I also said, dictate that actual college enrollments must mirror society at large on a percentage basis. Then we will have the "fairness" extreme supporters of Title IX are looking to bring about.
quote:Rifle (what is that)
Actually there is women's rifle. Many of the programs are essential co-ed with rifle I think.
quote:And the girls at a D1 rowing program can take the football team (it's been done) in an endurance test any time.
Okay..... and the football players can outlift the girls on a rowing team pound-for-pound all day long. The point???
I think there is a lot to be said for eliminating all athletic scholarships-- and lots against it.quote:As I said, eliminate ALL scholarships except for need (as is done in the Ivy League) and there are no arguments, problems or programs (male or female) that need to be eliminated.
But that won't fix the problems, and sports will still need to be eliminated. Athletic scholarships are only a fraction of the total costs of fielding an athletic program. Across all the sports, scholarships are in the neighborhood of 25% of the program costs.
I am all for the concept of Title IX. However, it is clear that the cause of all of the seamingly disproportionate application can be traced back to football. Football is an anomoly because, on one hand, the number of players is so high and, on the other hand, it brings in the most $$$. If the Title IX powers that be can figure out a way to account for the "football exception", things wouldn't be such a mess.
BTW, our HS has no rowing program. In fact, I'm pretty sure there isn't one within 100 miles. Yet,
we have colleges calling and asking if we have any girls who are athletes who may be interested in a rowing scholarship. One just accepted a 100% scholarship before she ever lifted an oar. She'll do fine but she is not an exceptional athlete. This type of scenario is very frustrating for HS boys who are equally competitive with their piers and face a much more difficult road to have any access to any athletic scholarship $$$, let alone 100% for a sport they never played or even knew existed.
My daughter was into sports purely for the social aspect. She was reasonably athletic but not a standout and she had no interest in dedicating a significant amount of time to any sport year-round, particularly if it was an inconvenience to the rest of her social schedule. Yet the HS golf and tennis coaches continuously urged her to come out for the team, noting the abundance of athletic scholarship $$ available in college for girls.
One of my sons, on the other hand, dedicated to his sport, garnered just about every area accolade he could, good student, ultimate team player and competitor, willing to go anywhere in the country struggled mightily to get a chance at any athletic $$.
For those arguing that Title IX is currently an equitable system, please...
Oh boy, what did I just step in?
BTW, our HS has no rowing program. In fact, I'm pretty sure there isn't one within 100 miles. Yet,
we have colleges calling and asking if we have any girls who are athletes who may be interested in a rowing scholarship. One just accepted a 100% scholarship before she ever lifted an oar. She'll do fine but she is not an exceptional athlete. This type of scenario is very frustrating for HS boys who are equally competitive with their piers and face a much more difficult road to have any access to any athletic scholarship $$$, let alone 100% for a sport they never played or even knew existed.
My daughter was into sports purely for the social aspect. She was reasonably athletic but not a standout and she had no interest in dedicating a significant amount of time to any sport year-round, particularly if it was an inconvenience to the rest of her social schedule. Yet the HS golf and tennis coaches continuously urged her to come out for the team, noting the abundance of athletic scholarship $$ available in college for girls.
One of my sons, on the other hand, dedicated to his sport, garnered just about every area accolade he could, good student, ultimate team player and competitor, willing to go anywhere in the country struggled mightily to get a chance at any athletic $$.
For those arguing that Title IX is currently an equitable system, please...
Oh boy, what did I just step in?
This is what your President believes about Title IX in his own words:
A bothersome quote, "Let’s not forget, Title IX isn’t just about sports." Meaning the idea of "making up for past inequities" is going to require we tell more talented people they have to give up their opportunity for someone else not because they are more deserving but because of a simple physical attribute. There is no intention of ever calling it even.
"young people" means - "every person based on their race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and national origin."
How much farther? What is better than awarding according to merit?
And I can't even believe he can slip this last one in....
Didn't he just say "women" are the people that have been so put upon that Title IX had to be enacted to make up for it? How do you go from that and now say the polar opposite? I'm going to stick up for everybody, "right after I make sure that the downtrodden get their fair share. Whatever that may be today, based on yesterday and for as many tomorrows as necessary." It makes it so easy to swallow that way don't it?
Is this how we want our children evaluated or even rewarded in school or in the workplace?
quote:
Coaching my daughter Sasha’s basketball team is one of those times when I just get to be “Dad.”
I snag rebounds, run drills, and have a little fun. More importantly, I get to watch Sasha and her teammates improve together, start thinking like a team and develop self-confidence. Any parent knows there are few things more fulfilling than watching your child discover a passion for something. And as a parent, you’ll do anything to make sure he or she grows up believing she can take that ambition as far as she wants; that your child will embrace that quintessentially American idea that she can go as far as her talents will take her. But, it wasn’t so long ago that something like pursuing varsity sports was an unlikely dream for young women in America. Their teams often made do with second-rate facilities, hand-me-down uniforms, and next to no funding. Let’s not forget, Title IX isn’t just about sports. Title IX ensures equality for our young people in every aspect of their education. It’s a springboard for success: it’s thanks in part to legislation like Title IX that more women graduate from college prepared to work in a much broader range of fields, including engineering and technology. And that is what we are seeing today. Women are not just taking a seat at the table or sitting at the head of it, they are creating success on their own terms. The women who grew up with Title IX now pioneer scientific breakthroughs, run thriving businesses, govern states, and, yes, coach varsity teams. Because they do, today’s young women grow up hearing fewer voices that tell them “You can’t,” and more voices that tell them “You can.” We have come so far. But there’s so much farther we can go. As president, I’ll do my part to keep Title IX strong and vibrant, and maintain our schools as doorways of opportunity so every child has a fair shot at success. And as a dad, I’ll do whatever it takes to make sure that this country remains the place where, no matter who you are or what you look like, you can make it if you try. President Obama
A bothersome quote, "Let’s not forget, Title IX isn’t just about sports." Meaning the idea of "making up for past inequities" is going to require we tell more talented people they have to give up their opportunity for someone else not because they are more deserving but because of a simple physical attribute. There is no intention of ever calling it even.
quote:Title IX ensures equality for our young people in every aspect of their education.
"young people" means - "every person based on their race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and national origin."
quote:We have come so far. But there’s so much farther we can go.
How much farther? What is better than awarding according to merit?
And I can't even believe he can slip this last one in....
quote:And as a dad, I’ll do whatever it takes to make sure that this country remains the place where, no matter who you are or what you look like, you can make it if you try.
Didn't he just say "women" are the people that have been so put upon that Title IX had to be enacted to make up for it? How do you go from that and now say the polar opposite? I'm going to stick up for everybody, "right after I make sure that the downtrodden get their fair share. Whatever that may be today, based on yesterday and for as many tomorrows as necessary." It makes it so easy to swallow that way don't it?
Is this how we want our children evaluated or even rewarded in school or in the workplace?
More reading material.
In the 1960s, many undergraduate colleges in the USA would not admit women (UVA in 1970, Notre Dame in 1972, Columbia in 1983). Title IX was passed in 1972.
Title IX doesn’t dictate scholarship limits, the NCAA does that. Rowing gets 20, more than any other women’s sport.
“But if you leave preconceptions aside and just look at the data, you will find that the real enemy of men's sports isn't Title IX. It's NCAA scholarship limits.”
http://espn.go.com/espnw/title...ent-enemy-men-sports
The conventional wisdom on this thread seems to be that football supports all the other sports, but football is expensive and the reality just isn’t that cut and dried.
“Last year, 42% of the teams in the top-tier Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division 1A), lost money, according to a NCAA report prepared by Fulks.” www.smartmoney.com/spend/famil...8414326/#articleTabs
And this doesn’t even include capital costs, like new stadiums.
“Cal's Football-Stadium Gamble. Amid a Costly Renovation, the School Is Short of Its Funding Goal; Tapping Campus Funds?”
http://online.wsj.com/article/...350214257041598.html
In the 1960s, many undergraduate colleges in the USA would not admit women (UVA in 1970, Notre Dame in 1972, Columbia in 1983). Title IX was passed in 1972.
Title IX doesn’t dictate scholarship limits, the NCAA does that. Rowing gets 20, more than any other women’s sport.
“But if you leave preconceptions aside and just look at the data, you will find that the real enemy of men's sports isn't Title IX. It's NCAA scholarship limits.”
http://espn.go.com/espnw/title...ent-enemy-men-sports
The conventional wisdom on this thread seems to be that football supports all the other sports, but football is expensive and the reality just isn’t that cut and dried.
“Last year, 42% of the teams in the top-tier Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division 1A), lost money, according to a NCAA report prepared by Fulks.” www.smartmoney.com/spend/famil...8414326/#articleTabs
And this doesn’t even include capital costs, like new stadiums.
“Cal's Football-Stadium Gamble. Amid a Costly Renovation, the School Is Short of Its Funding Goal; Tapping Campus Funds?”
http://online.wsj.com/article/...350214257041598.html
Don't you just hate it when a few facts get in the way of a perfectly good knee jerk reaction?
1) I challenge anyone who thinks rowing is easy to attempt to successfully sit in a shell. I'll bet in three seconds their head is in the water.quote:Originally posted by gamefan:
The rowing bashing is a little much. I've waited a while to post - and I was surprised when even PG joined in
Is the point of an athletic scholarship so an athlete can go pro? Wow - somebody better tell all those baseball players that they should plunk $1 on a lottery ticket. They might win. (Or better yet, as we all agree, make sure they study. Because they'll need a degree to make money).
Anybody ever been on an erg? My rowing daughters (one on scholarship to a top D1 and one getting offers now) are in far better aerobic and endurance shape than my D1 baseball son. Hands down. And the girls at a D1 rowing program can take the football team (it's been done) in an endurance test any time.
In rowing, no one person is the hero; there's no individual walk off homerun, amazing catch, stolen base. Rather, 9 women (or men) have to work TOGETHER all the time at a level of excellency and endurance and sheer exhaustion to achieve a common goal - victory. Life lessons, fitness, olympic aspirations, teamwork, making sure the "weakest" rower gets stronger, better, because everyone MUST contribute to the team ALL the time. (Not like a reliever, or a DH, who I'll agree play roles on the team - but again, individual roles contributing to the greater good.) By the way, as an employer, I'd hire the rower over the baseball player (and remember - one of my kid's plays D1 baseball). The skills the rower learns are the kind of skills I'd like to see in my business.
Informationally, a fully funded women's rowing program has 20 scholarships for the team - yes, sometimes of 70 girls. No minimum scholarship; I've seen coaches offer a girl books, and she signs an NLI. Are there recruited walkons who may even get scholarships? Darn right! . Girls who have competed internationally MAY get a full ride at a top 20 program; others get 50%. Walk ons may get books, or a thousand dollars with the hope of increased money later. When you hear of "everyone" getting a full ride, it's simply not true. And not all top programs are fully funded.
It surprises me that the focus on "why so many scholarships" is not on football - 85 full rides? FULL RIDES???????? Why not 60 scholarships for football and 20 for baseball? There are alot of scenarios where men can fight the fight themselves - they've got plenty of money. Don't blame the girls for this one.
Anyway - my Title IX or baseball info may not be accurate - but I did want to shed perspective on the rowing piece from someone who lives it and, quite frankly, benefits from it.
2) For all those making the football argument regarding Title IX, football is excluded due to it's excessive cost.
3) For those who think women's sports should be dropped because they can't go pro ** ...
a) then all D2 and D3 men's sports should be dropped since the players are not recognized as pro prospects during the recruiting process, and
b) it highlights how corrupted college sports have become to think they're for the purpose of going pro.
** They do go pro in several sports. In others their sponsorships and endorsements to play on Team USA are the equivilants of income.
I asked a mid major D1 AD why his college dropped football. He said they don't have the money to build the kind of facilties required for recruiting. He added they couldn't continue to support the expense of a mediocre football program on an average of 3,000 paid atendance.quote:Originally posted by MidAtlanticDad:
More reading material.
In the 1960s, many undergraduate colleges in the USA would not admit women (UVA in 1970, Notre Dame in 1972, Columbia in 1983). Title IX was passed in 1972.
Title IX doesn’t dictate scholarship limits, the NCAA does that. Rowing gets 20, more than any other women’s sport.
“But if you leave preconceptions aside and just look at the data, you will find that the real enemy of men's sports isn't Title IX. It's NCAA scholarship limits.”
http://espn.go.com/espnw/title...ent-enemy-men-sports
The conventional wisdom on this thread seems to be that football supports all the other sports, but football is expensive and the reality just isn’t that cut and dried.
“Last year, 42% of the teams in the top-tier Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division 1A), lost money, according to a NCAA report prepared by Fulks.” www.smartmoney.com/spend/famil...8414326/#articleTabs
And this doesn’t even include capital costs, like new stadiums.
“Cal's Football-Stadium Gamble. Amid a Costly Renovation, the School Is Short of Its Funding Goal; Tapping Campus Funds?”
http://online.wsj.com/article/...350214257041598.html
For those who don't understand where Title IX came from, Patsy Mink graduated from college PBK and didn't receive one acceptance to med school. She went to law school, got elected to office and changed the world.
Go to this link for some good stats from NCAA on the popularity and trends in sports at their schools. Baseball looks to be far from dying.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/co...cipation+hits+450000
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/co...cipation+hits+450000