I wonder how many examples of Title IX cuts there are that we never hear about?

What is politically correct about righting an injustice? For years girls/women were not afforded the opportunity to play sports. This was true even though their parents paid the same taxes and the same tuition. Even more of an injustice, which created Title IX was women with superior grades weren't getting accepted to the quality graduate programs.woman's emails senator who sponsored Title IX graduated from college PBK and wasn't accepted to one med school. Please explain where there is injustice here? I would say for years women got screwed . Women are now 60% of college graduates. Please explain why they shouldn't be treated equally in sports and academics? The question I would ask is how often is TitleImiser represented by people who dont understand the facts?

I think women deserve the same rights as men.  However, I believe the main goal of any educational institution is to prepare people (both men and women) for a career.  So when decisions are made and baseball is a sport that is eliminated, I wonder why? Sure there are the budget concerns, but there are a ton of jobs in baseball. Sure there is still Sports Management and other areas that can prepare students for careers in sports, but nothing really replaces participating in the sport.

 

Football is the sport that puts things out of whack!  It is also the main revenue producer at most schools.  I wish it wasn't part of the equation and then everything would work out better.  Women have sons and they want the best for them, men have daughters and they want the best for them. Does equality mean we have to have equal numbers in every field? Do we have to cut all those military jobs just so the numbers even out? Do we invent new jobs so the numbers equal out?  That is what has happened in college sports... old sports are cut and new sports are started for no reason other than making things more equal.

 

I'm all for figuring out how to equalize opportunities, especially when it comes to education.  But to cut something simply because there are too many men involved rather than figuring out something to enhance opportunity for women, just doesn't seem fair somehow. There are so many more career opportunities in sports for men, yet it doesn't eliminate women from being employed in those same sports. 

 

I must admit, my biggest concern is baseball and that in itself makes me unqualified to reason.

I think Title IX is a wonderful idea on paper but when it comes to putting it into effect that's where it doesn't live up to what it can / should be.  The purpose of Title IX is to build and create for women to have more opportunities and I am 100% behind this and support it.  I support it as a person, a teacher, a coach and athletic director because that is the right thing to do.  The problem is instead of building up women to create "equality" with men it ends up tearing down men so now they are "equal" with women. 

 

You look at the numbers and see where you are 20% short in number of women athletes so what colleges and universities do is start looking to cut men's teams.  Wrestling was getting hammered about a decade ago over this.  Now you take that money that was being spent on - let's say wrestling - and now put into existing women sports or create a new one.  I'm sorry but that's not building up like it should be but tearing down.  Institutions have a responsibility to provide for all - male and female - but when you cut like this you're not living up to the responsibility for the males.  Since nobody wants to be seen as a female basher they don't take up that fight.

 

If there is a disparity between male and female athletes the first thing they need to do is try to provide ways to create more revenue or shift money around (without eliminating) other sports to help create that equity.  But just to eliminate a male sport to create a female sport and shift that money is not fair.

 

At the high school level to create a sport you have to make sure there is enough interest.  But that can be a catch 22 because until you have it you don't really know what the interest is.  Where I live at in NC the trend is to bring in women's lacrosse to help with equity and so far nobody (to my knowledge) has cut a male team.  The problem with this is lacrosse - male and female - is a money pit in our area.  Nobody comes to the games regardless of how good you are and it's an expensive sport to start and maintain.  So since nobody is coming out to watch to help fund it where do you go to get that money to support them?  My school doesn't have lacrosse for men or women yet but when it comes I am going to do everything in my power to help them financially without taking money from other sports but I don't know how long I can do that.  We live in a lower economic area and its already getting hammered from all school organiztions looking for financial help.  How can I expect our community to fork over more money to a sport that nobody knows anything about and won't come watch?  This is how Title IX doesn't live up to what it's supposed to do.  Like I said I'm all in favor of women athletics and fight tooth and nail for it but sometimes you can't get blood from a turnip.

 

As I have stated over and over again on here, Title IX is not the issue when it comes to this. It's that baseball is generally not financially viable on its own. Title IX is just a scapegoat.

Coach ... When our high school added sports they were club teams before they went varsity. The kids were responsible for raising much of the money to finance the sport. When it was proven there was interest boy's hockey and girl's volleyball went varsity.

Matt,

 

How many sports (male or female) are there that are financially viable on their own?

 

Generally, two.

Out of curiosity, since I'm from Georgia, I looked up the sports programs available to men and women at UGA. Men have 8 sports, women 11. Men's sports are baseball, basketball, cross country, football, golf, swim & dive, tennis and track & field. Women's are basketball, cross country, equestrian, golf, gymnastics, soccer, softball, swim & dive, tennis, track & field and volleyball. Women have more sports available to them than men.

And I can't think of any sports that are self sufficient or profitable other than football and basketball. And much of that is because of the TV contracts. I know the coach at my sons D2 school said they do not have football at their school because it would actually cost the school too much money. It just wouldn't generate the same revenue as the big D1s. Maybe, for equities sake, they should figure Title IX excluding the sports programs that are self sufficient. If a team can sustain itself, it shouldn't be counted in the Title IX formulas. That would include men's and women's sports that support themselves.

Just as other programs designed to "correct an injustice", have caused injustice, so too does Title 9.

For instance, how was it fair to scholarship athletes who committed to a school be told after their Freshman year their team was being abolished all in the name of equality. These kids were left to scramble to find another school, assuming they could even afford it, otherwise their ability to go to college was sacrificed on the alter of "fairness".

 

If you look at extra curricular activities in colleges, more women than men participate and have interest in different things. Yet you do not hear a cry from feminists or liberals about getting gender equality in such things as cheerleading and other such female dominated activities.

So why drop a male sport to create a female one that no one wants to participate in or watch? For example, a northeastern college(I currently forget the name) dropped several mens sports, and started a womens crew team all to meet T9. This despite they had no women sign up for it nor did any high school have womens rowing to recruit from. As I recall they went through the cafeteria asking "bigger girls" if they wanted to participate. Heck they didn't even have a shell for them to practice in.

So it was strictly about trying to meet a quotas, and when that happens, others always get hurt in the process.

Bball ... Football is excluded from Title IX. But only 25-30 football programs run in the black. Ttile IX isn't about numbers of teams. It's about numbers of opportunities. If there are more women's teams than men's it's what it took to create the same number of sports opportunities.

You can't remember the name of the school because it didn't happen. This story with the "I can't remember where" has been circulating the Internet for years.

I think this is a terrific idea.  It focuses the Title IX issue on equality in funding from the state.

 

You would be incorrect then.

 

There are plenty of examples where multiple mens sports(most of which do not generate revenue) are sacrificed to create gender equity in sports (which also do not generate revenue).

Don't mistake college admins using budget excuses as the only factual reason they axe mens sports at the expense of womens sports. 

If economics were the only factor at play, explain why womens sports do not get axed and the mens do. You know as well as I that T9 mandates certain percentages of women to men, so if the numbers don't comport with the T9 law, mens sports take the hit.

 

On a side note, I remember reading where the NCAA makes money off the college baseball playoffs and CWS. Most other college sports do not generate such revenue even in their post season.

 

 

`

Title IX has done some great things for female athletics. But what Title IX proponents don't want you to know its that the word athletics does not show up once in the law...

Wrong, I will come up with the name, but I was not going to delay my post just waiting for the light bulb to go off. Funny how since you defend T9 your goal is to discredit anything that might expose it to scrutiny and it's ugly under-belly.

 

The first example I mentioned regarding the freshman kids(and others as well) was related to the FIU mens tennis team. The HC was Peter Lehman, and he was directly told by the admin that due to T9 compliance requirements, his team was gone. Don't believe it, look it up or get a hold of him directly. He is all to happy to tell how he had the unpleasant task of telling kids and parents he recruited that they needed to scramble to find another college because none of their scholarships were going to be honored. Several he is personally aware of did not go back to college due to financial hardship as a result.

 

BTW - While I invite opinions on T9 (pro & con), I'd still like for my request of naming baseball programs axed or nearly so to be listed.

 

 

 

`

A. Title IX does not mandate certain percentages.

B. Women's sports do get cut.

C. Men's sports expenditure increases are about 110% those of women's in recent years.

 

Your perception is 180 degrees of reality. When men's sports get cut, it's generally because of their relative expenditure to revenue. If it was a Title IX issue, you would see a cut along the lines to promote compliance in any of the three prongs (which would be easily done with two particular sports.) Schools don't cut men's sports in a manner which would indicate the cause being compliance with Title IX.

 

Title IX influences cuts in men's sports simply in ensuring that the cuts do not illegally and unduly target women's sports.

Uh, yeah, that's kind of the point of asserting one's side, especially when the opposition is bringing non-facts to the table.

 

So, you want someone to take hearsay from a disgruntled coach? Not so much.

If I'm not mistaken the two postseasons that make the most money for the NCAA are basketball and baseball.  The NCAA does not make a dime from any type of bowl game and the big ones go to the BCS.  Now that they are doing that playoff I'm not sure that changes anything but my guess is it wouldn't.

Exactly, everyone thinks Title IX is about athletics but that is just one small part of it that gets all the attention.  I haven't read on it several years so my wording may be off but I think I can get the overall idea of it.  Title IX is aimed at things that receive federal and state money to help make sure that there are equal opportunities for women as there are men.  I think that gives you an idea of the purpose.  So if you set up some sort of tutoring program with federal / state money then you cannot deny access to females to this program.  Just like you cannot have 150 males competing in fall sports and only 30 in female sports.  It's about number of opportunities provided based on male to female ration being as close to 1:1 as possible.

       
       

Ok. Here are the numbers at UGA. Men's - baseball-39, basketball-14, cross country-28, golf-10, swim&dive-28, tennis-10, track&field-53. Women's - basketball-14, cross country-33, equestrian-70, golf-11, gymnastics-17, soccer-24, softball-16, swim&dive-28, tennis-8, track&field-63, volleyball-15. These numbers are taken right off the website rosters. So excluding football, totals - Men-182 roster spots, Women-299 roster spots. Guess that's pretty equal. Wonder how this all really works. Seems like the men are in the minority here.

getting my popcorn ready, this thread is going to be a good time!

 

Men's hockey is a revenue sport at many institutions, but getting a good handle on the data is difficult, since many D1 programs are at non-D1 schools. D1 schools almost broke even in 2011, but looking NCAA-wide, there was a $4.5 million profit.

 

Killing two posts with one stone:

Football is not excluded from Title IX. If it was, we probably wouldn't be having this debate. There has been discussion, much discussion, of late to exclude it, but it is still part of the calculation. So, throw the football roster spots back in, and see what you get.

And just to put out some baseline data--this is the data set for expenses for all NCAA institutions, in total.

 

It is as follows: Year, Men's Expenses, Women's Expenses, (Women's Expenses as a percentage of Men's.) The second line (aside from 2007) shows the percentage increase for both categories. The formatting may end up weird, so bear with me.

 

2007, $3,830,579,364; $2,122,430,690 (55.41%)

2008, $4,161,247,459; $2,297,717,468 (55.22%)

        (8.63%)            (8.26%)

2009, $4,313,90,0718; $2,374,899,159 (55.05%)

        (3.67%)            (3.36%)

2010, $4,600,027,624; $2,548,709,020 (55.41%)

        (6.63%)            (7.32%)

2011, $5,007,952,591; $2,743,853,687 (54.79%)

        (8.87%)            (7.76%)

       
       

126 players on the roster. Now there are 308 men's spots and 299 women's spots. Pretty close.

I go back to my previous statement. Maybe they should take the sports that sustain themselves out of the equation. Man, that's a lot of people on a football team!!!  How can it be that there is a 55 man roster limit on an NFL team, but 126 on a college team? 

Out of curiosity, I looked up a couple other programs. Alabama has 100 on their roster, Auburn has 96 and Florida has 90.

 

Now, if Title IX didn't apply to revenue sports, what would prevent schools from cutting all non-revenue sports, and only focusing on those that could operate in the black?

The solution isn't to EXCLUDE football from Title IX but to reclassify football as a men's AND women's sport.  You probably couldn't find on NCAA football coach that wouldn't scholarship a female player if she were the best kicker (or running back for that matter) available.  Football has never excluded women from trying out.  Go to any college website and you'll see MEN'S basketball and WOMEN'S basketball but for football its just called Football.  Problem solved. Now bring back men's track/tennis/golf/etc.

 

So, the goal is to be dishonest about it.

From a rising HS senior who's an athlete and sports editor of her school newspaper (at a school that's big on girls in sports): "No matter how hard we try, we'll never have equal interest in girls' and boys' sports. That goes for participants ... and fans. It is what it is."

 

Maybe not PC, RJM ... but real.

 

Title IX accounts for that. If participation on both sides is proportional to interest, Title IX compliance is achieved.

"If participation on both sides is proportional to interest, Title IX compliance is achieved."

 

How is that measured, Matt?

 

It's a qualitative assessment of the institution in question to determine if the interest is met in proportion with and in accordance with the abilities of the population. So, if you're looking for a universal metric, there isn't one. It's situationally-dependent, and the institution gets to choose if it wants this method of compliance analysis.

       
       

Because Title IX is about proportionally funding programs for men and women. If the NCAA isn't funding football or basketball, then they shouldn't be included in the calculations.

We had a situation at our HS and the same thing at another HS right near us. At our school, the baseball team needed a concession stand and press box. The school didn't have the money, so the baseball parents went out and raised $80,000 to build what they needed. Not sure how it came up, but bottom line is, Title IX said this couldn't be built unless $80,000 was also spent on the girls softball program. None of the money came from public funds. The baseball parents literally had to return the money to all the people who made donations. This is part of where I think things get a little overboard. If private funds are raised, why can't they be used?  If the girls softball parents didn't want to go raise money for their program, isn't that their prerogative?  Why should the boys program be penalized for taking initiative?  Why should they be forced to give up their dream of better facilities or raise money for a group who doesn't care enough to do it themselves?

Same principle with the programs that can sustain themselves. No public funds provided, no counting in Title IX.

A. Again, it is not about funding. Funding can be an indicator of non-compliance, but it is never a determining factor.

B. It's based on an institution's compliance, not a sanctioning body or individual sports. Title IX has nothing to do with the NCAA. It has nothing to do with individual sports. If football is part of an institution, which it is, it is part of the Title IX calculation.

C. Your story doesn't hold water. The "problem" and "remedy" in your story don't jive. There is not some authority that states that money must be returned to donors. Hell, assuming a Title IX issue in the story, which is possible, the remedy would be to conduct proportional activities that would substantially meet the standard the institution uses for compliance.

That is one of the biggest problems of Title IX but it's created based on how the finances of a school work.  The baseball parents raised the $80,000 for the new concession stand but they have to turn that money into the school.  Once that money is turned in it now becomes "owned" by the school to be used as seen fit.  Now realistically the school is going to let the group who raised the money spend it but legally if the school wants to take that money and spend it on the drama club they can because it is now their money.  That would be a very dumb move on the school's part but they can actually do that.

 

So once the money is turned over into the school and it's spent on the new concession stand it falls under Title IX.  A huge amount of money has been spent on a male sport so an equivalent amount needs to be spent on a female sport.  It doesn't have to be exactly $80K but it has to be pretty close.  It doesn't matter who raised it and it doesn't matter what it's earmarked for - there has to be an equivalent spent on females.

 

Now one way people think they can get around it is they get someone to build the concession stand for them using the money by not turning it in. That won't work either because any change to facilities or added facilities become property of the school system.  So once again a brand spanking new building was built for a male sport but what did a female sport get that's equivalent?  Nothing and that's where Title IX gets you and frustrates everyone.

 

But the thing is there isn't a Title IX police force.  You could go 20 years and never follow anything that falls under T9 and nothing will happen to you UNTIL someone complains in court.  This is where you can sorta get around T9 IF the people in charge can convince those wanting to invoke T9 as being violated.  There is nothing wrong with having the baseball team raise / build a concession stand as long as their is a plan in place to build the softball team one (or something they may need).  There has to be some logic that comes with T9 in that you can't just come out and raise an extra $80K in one year because that's "fair".  The purpose of T9 is not be hold down male sports but to build female.  People aren't patient enough to let equality happen.  They see something happen for male sports and want to jump on the bandwagon without doing the same work to get the same thing.

 

Maybe not the best example but here is where equality can happen.  When I was in Kentucky it got to the point where my baseball team would go on a spring break trip every other year while the softball team went on the other years we didn't go.  We would raise money and go somewhere and then the next year softball raised their money and went somewhere while we stayed home.  That is equality and that complies with T9.

That's the problem. The school couldn't produce proportional funding and the baseball program was told they couldn't build their facilities. The donors gave their money to the BASEBALL program, not some to baseball and some to softball. So the only ethical thing to do would be to give it back. Or wait for the school or softball team to come up with the money to spend on their facilities and that would not happen in the foreseeable future. So the money was returned.

I think Title IX served its purpose in providing opportunities to women's sports. But I think in trying to find "equity", something uglier has reared it's ugly head. Same with "quotas" in hiring and same with unions. Good solutions at a particular period in history. But once those inequities are addressed, the remedy should go away.

And that's part of the problem Coach. If the baseball team wants to raise money for something, they can't go out and solicit money to be put into a school fund and not really know where it's going. These parents went out and raised the money specifically for the baseball program, not even thinking about the Title IX implications.

I think what you said is probably what happened. Law suit filed for the same thing at another school, so our school decided the same thing Title IX wise. They weren't going to be able to put that kind of money towards the girls programs, so the parents kept the money and returned it to the donors. I just think it's a shame.

 

And how has it served its purpose? Male athletic participation is growing at a higher rate than females. Females still have not reached the level of HS participation that males had when Title IX was enacted.

       
       

My guess?  Supply and demand. If rules are in place to create equity, and after 41 years, there is still not equity, maybe there just isn't as much of a demand for women's sports as men's. if you can't legislate it into action after 41 years, maybe it just can't happen and the law needs to be nullified or amended to match reality.

And maybe if it is not feasible to attain equal numbers after 41 years of legislation, that is why you see people complain that men's sports are being phased out in order to obtain an equal balance that just isn't there.

I don't necessarily believe that T9 has outlived it's usefulness but like with most everything over time people have used the court system to skew the purpose of what it was intended for.  Back when T9 was first implemented I really doubt that anyone had a clue that it could be used to block what bballman is talking about in terms of raising money.  But over time it has and that's where people get upset / frustrated with it.

 

You can't force equality - history has shown it will never work but it can work if given time.  Female interest in sports is nowhere near what male interest in sports is but compared to where it was 30 years ago it's made humongous strides.  So in that regard has T9 been successful?  I believe it has because there are more opportunities for females but there are those who believe its not successful because it's not the same opportunities as men.

 

If you get a small percentage of girls at a high school who want to create a team (pick whatever sport you want).  They hold a meeting and let's say they need 20 girls to create the team and only 12 show interest.  What do you do? Have you complied with T9?  The interest isn't there so some people will say this complies with T9 but there are those who believe the team should be created JUST for the 12 although it's probably destined to fail due to lack of interest / support.

 

Over time through court rulings the interpretation of T9 has been skewed so much that it becomes handcuffing like in bballman's situation.  I believe T9 has been a great benefit for female athletes but it has also been used for personal / political / selfish means to get an agenda passed.  That is the sad part.