Baseball: An Anti-Trust Exemption Discussion

Let's go back to the days when the high school baseball team got dugouts and running water fountains while the softball team got benches and rolled out their own water. Let's go back to the days when the boys got the new locker room and the girls got the mold infested old one. Let's go back to the day when the boys baseball field was perfectly groomed by maintainance and the girls had to maintain their own field because maintainance didn't clean it up after every game like they did baseball.

I don't think so! These things all happened at our high school until the threat of a Title IX lawsuit. All this happened while the baseball team was mired in twenty years of mediocrity while the softball team won four consecutive conference titles becoming the first class in any sport at the high school to win all four years.

Some rediculous things have happened in the past at the collegiate level with Title IX. But the rule now states male sports can't be dropped for equity. Women's sports must be added. The only way around this is lack of budget and it has to be proven.

Our high school recently added girl's volleyball because they wanted to have a boy's hockey team.

Title IX isn't just about college. It's about gender equity in sports right down to the community rec level of sports.

You can't give college sports a business anti-trust exemption. You can't find a college president in the country who will openly admit collegiate sports are a business. They will tell you student-athletes play collegiate sports and they are amateurs.

The real issue in college baseball is the severe scholarship limitations. But softball has the same limitations.

And what the heck does skin color have to do with any of this? Black kids don't play baseball because they consider it slow and uncool. Even Barry Larkin said it about his own kids attitude towards baseball.

The exemption is not the result of an act of Congress, but rather a Supreme Court decision from I think the 1930's. Congress has occasionally threatened to overrule the precedent by statute, but it seems to me they do that more to rattle the saber when they want MLB to take some action or other (e.g., steroid testing), as opposed to really caring whether MLB is subject to antitrust laws.

The whole draft bonus slotting thing is nothing but a price-fixing scheme and it amazes me that anyone lets this go on, exempt or not.

But bear in mind, the antitrust thing applies only in the pro context, not colleges. And nobody but nobody wants to be the politician who proposes to weaken the anti-discrimination laws. Meaning, never gonna happen.

BUM, YOU WILL BE NEEDING THIS !!!

Let's go back to the days when you kept what you earned. Let's go back to the days when you fought for what you want instead of running to mommy and daddy(or in this case, Uncle Sam) to tell and have someone else take care of your problem. Let's go back to the days when if you needed something, you went out and earned it, or fundraised it, or asked for it, but didn't expect or demand it from other people who have earned it for themselves.

I believe that if you have earned something, it's yours and should be your decision if you want to share it with someone else, not the governments decision. Football should have advantages financially because they can charge $5 or $10 to get in to a game in which 500 to 50,000 people will show up. That's their money, not baseball's. If the university baseball team, or softball team, could get 50,000 people to show up and pay $10 for a ticket to watch a game, they should get to keep that money and decide what to do with it. People don't show up to watch football so that the money will go to gymnastics, or softball, or baseball for that matter.

Look, Title IX in it's purest form, is a form of discrimination. It's a form of Robin Hood economics of steal from the rich and give to the poor. Again, if the softball team at a university earns, fundraises, or collects donations, that is their money, and no male sport(or another female sport) is entitled to it. Title IX is a result of socialist thinking, where we should put weights on the ankles of fast kids so that they cannot run any faster than the slow kids. Where we should put bags over every one's heads so that there are no "good looking" people. Where we put "body suits" on thin people so that everyone is the same size and there are no fat people. Yeah, it's that ridiculous. While we're at it, let reincarnate Joseph Stalin and have him run for president. Take care of yourself, don't expect the government to do it for you. It's not their job.

Wasn't most plumbing outdoors back in those days too?

ON STANDBY FOR YOU B24

I think most plumbing was outdoors back then...back when this country was founded by hard workers who got tired of a government stealing their money that they had worked so hard for and giving it to people who refused to work for anything.

OK, I love America with the rest of you, but remember we stole this country from some people who had a pretty sophisticated culture and about 2000 years of history. And a lot of the homesteading that went on was as a result of the government giving away land that it had stolen. The good ol' days weren't that great. I assume you are talking about the same days when half the country's population couldn't vote, and Jim Crow was the law of the land.

I am not a big fan of Title IX but let us have some perspective and understand that the vast majority of Americans are still hard working and pay their own way. I don't mind that women have the same opportunities as men, just don't take away from the men but give more to the women.

Next you will be telling me that Columbus discovered the New World. OH Yeah by the way Columbus, those people you met when you got here may have something to say about that.

deldad, I would never tell you that, and yes, I do know history, possibly we could discuss it on another forum.

Your point about not minding women having the same opportunities as men hits home. That's exactly the point. Everyone should have the same freedoms and opportunities wether it be voting or playing sports. Yet it should not be controlled by government interference. In most other aspects of life, if something makes money, it stays open. If it doesn't, it closes. In accordance, businesses that provide the best service or product make more money and profit more than those who provide a lesser service or product. That is, until government gets involved. At that point, all rules of human nature go out the window.

If college baseball had to support itself(as you suggest) this site would not exist, for there would not be college basball.

quote:

Originally posted by Baseball24:
Let's go back to the days when you kept what you earned. Let's go back to the days when you fought for what you want instead of running to mommy and daddy(or in this case, Uncle Sam) to tell and have someone else take care of your problem.

The problem typically becomes a class of people who become abused creating a need for regulation. At one time it long and unsafe working conditions along with child labor. In sports there have been inequities in female sports in the past.

Unfortunately, with regulations tend to come excessive situations. In the case of Title IX a college shouldn't have to create a womens's crew team when they don't even have a nearby river or lake to practice on, or drop a men's sport just to be equal. Equal should be based on demand for the sport, not creating one for the sake of regulation, paperwork and equity.

The reason baseball takes such a big hit is the season tends to run longer than the school year. Keeping the players at school is an additional expense.

quote:

Originally posted by TG:
In the case of Title IX a college shouldn't have to create a womens's crew team when they don't even have a nearby river or lake to practice on, or drop a men's sport just to be equal. Equal should be based on demand for the sport, not creating one for the sake of regulation, paperwork and equity.

Exactly. Oh, and Deldad, have to call you on the Columbus thing. A key definition of the word "discover" is "to make known". Leif Erickson didn't do that. He might have told a few of his fishing/plundering buddies. But Columbus indeed discovered America, as he made it known to Europe and eventually the rest of the world. The historical importance of that should not be diminished regardless of whether one views it as a positive or negative occurence.

Who discovered this and brought it to the attention of the world...huh?

gw4sale:

..do I even want to know what the heck that stuff is? If you must tell me, do not describe the application. If I want to be grossed out I'll turn on TLC's 24-hour operation channel.

The only thing I will tell queasy lil' you Bum is that the application usually involves two slices of bread.

quote:

A key definition of the word "discover" is "to make known". Leif Erickson didn't do that. He might have told a few of his fishing/plundering buddies. But Columbus indeed discovered America, as he made it known to Europe and eventually the rest of the world.

Columbus could have have gone back and said nothing; it would have mattered not to Noah Webster. A word that better describes Columbus' action is "expose."

spizzlepop

C'mon folks, Everyone knows Al Gore discovored America! I heard he invented the Internet too!

Well TD, as long as we're havin fun... your guy "discovered" Oxycontin and the Dominican Republic. He just didn't tell anyone about it.

You're right spizzle...Al should have kept quiet.

quote:

Originally posted by gotwood4sale:
You're right spizzle...Al should have kept quiet.

You're right of course Woodrow, and Gore probably would have if he knew it would come down to this....

Hey, hey...the internet is not all bad...you can find some wholesome stuff on here...