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

Typical response from someone with a position to defend.

I personally know this coach, as well as a few players of the team that were cut. Just because you think incorrectly that T9 never plays a role does not mean factual incidents like this never occur.

Heck all one needs to do it look up this subject on google to find a ton of examples, but you sound like you would dismiss them all as being hearsay and disgruntled coaches.

Here are only two of hundreds.

http://www.spaceprojects.com/TitleIX/

http://onlyagame.wbur.org/2012/06/23/title-ix-men

So just because you've never seen it, that means it has never happened? Get off your high-horse please!

For those of you who may never have seen it, John Stossel did an interesting piece on Title 9 within the body of a show called "The Top 10 Politicians' Promises Gone Wrong".

The part about T9 starts at the 12:00 minute mark of part one;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yabCzpXoGTQ

and finishes after 2:10 near the beginning of part two;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzfheyuOTTA

`

Equestrian has long been considered a club sport, probably due to expense. I don't really see the problem here..

I'll be more specific. It's about equal athletic scholarship opportunities (excluding football) and equal funding for each gender's cumulative sports (oncangina in excluding football). It's really not hard to tell which posters don't have daughters who are/were athletes. They have a screw the women attitude and have believed the rumors and lies about Title IX.

I'm not PC at all. Title IX is not about fan interest in sports. It's about athletic opportunity. From an academic standpoint my daughter may not have been accepted to an elite law school without Title IX. The originator of Title IX graduated PBK and wasn't accepted to one med school. So she went to law school and changed the world.

I think that's a little offensive RJM.  I don't think anyone is saying "screw the women".  I think what people are saying is that there is more interest in sports on the part of men than women.  Not fan interest, participant interest.  Women should be able to play sports.  However, there should not be sports created with little or no interest from women at the expense of men's sports where there is a lot of interest. 

As I said earlier in regard to wrestling, every school in Georgia has a wrestling program, but no schools offer it.  It is not because there is no participant interest in wrestling.  There are thousands and thousands of kids who wrestle in HS.  But there is a 70 person women's equestrian team at Georgia.  I guarantee there are not near the number of girls interested in equestrian that there are boys that have spent 4-8 years wrestling, but now have no where to go. 

After looking at the football rosters, I'm thinking those need to be cut back to make opportunities for people in other sports.  90+ kids on a football team is overboard in my opinion.  And getting over 100 to 126, like Georgia, is bordering on the ridiculous.  Cut the roster down to 70 or 75 and you can offer one or two other sports.

Anyway, please don't say that anyone who disagrees with how Title IX is being implemented is a member of the he-man women haters club and just trying to screw the women over.  That just isn't the case. 

Heck with the mentality RJM is expressing, one could say "we know which posters don't have sons" or "we know which posters have daughters and have a screw the men attitude".

Instead it is more that women and men have different interests. As one example I suspect there are more women in drama than men, but I do not expect the college to reduce womens opportunities at the expense of men in that area. The John Stossel piece I linked above touches upon this. 

As to your perspective on wrestling, you might find this interesting;

http://www.spaceprojects.com/TitleIX/

`

There is no high horse. The facts of the story do not match the manner of enforcement of Title IX.

Do you have anything with facts, or just conjecture?

Here's the thing. There's this argument that keeps reappearing, here and other places, that there isn't the same interest in girl's/women's sports as in boy's/men's. Yet, no one has brought forth any data to support it.

See what you said above.  I think you answered your own question.  Men's sports isn't growing at a higher rate because there is an overwhelming amount of interest in women's sports.  There is legislation that has been in effect for 41 years mandating equal participation and funding for men's and women's sports.  If men's sports are STILL growing at a faster rate, the only reason it could be is because there is not the same participation interest on the part of the women.

The problem with the way you are trying to discredit critics of T9 is to claim the high ground without facts, yet demand the other side provide something other than conjecture.

This despite first hand knowledge, and links that essentially repeat the same problems others experience. Yet you are dismissive by using terms like "former disgruntled coaches", as if what they have to say is automatically suspect. If an college administrator says your team is being cut to comply with T9, how is that conjecture?

You have been provided with various examples and links to examples of the ills of T9, and as of yet, I do not believe you have acknowledged a single one. Nor have you mentioned even a single negative aspect of T9.

We on the other side of the discussion can acknowledge that T9 has helped females, even though it is at the expense of males. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that a pie large enough to feed X amount of people, cannot suddenly feed double the amount without someone going hungry. So your claim that mens teams are not axed because of T9, and instead it is due to budget shortfalls, is either obtuse or disingenuous.

Here is another site you will probably loathe, but if you want to hear the other side of the coin, try reading through it and see what conclusions you come up with.

http://savingsports.org/

`

Now you're ignorant and wrong. I have a son and a daughter. Both play(ed) college baseball/softball.

The biggest problem facing college sports is not Title IX. It's dwindling revenues. But it's easier for the Neanderthals to blame it on Title IX rather than think through the issues. Private colleges that are not elite are having troublederailing student. A mediocre college degree is not worth 200K. States are struggling with budgets. It affects the state schools. The first things analyzed for cutting are areas in the red. This includes many college sports. Baseball has two issues that makes it a target; 1) areas where cold weather is an issue and 2) at the D1 level the season runs way past the end of the school year. 

Someone mentioned the size of college football rosters. They get 84 scholarships. Anyone else is paying their own way. But major college football is a money generator. The power goes to those who bring in the bucks. Money talks.

I don't doubt that overall revenues are an issue at colleges across the country.  It would be interesting to know how many women's sports are cut vs. men's sports because of this. 

And I am not a Neanderthal RJM.  I think that should be enough of the name calling.  No one from the side of questioning Title IX's effectiveness is calling anyone names.  At least I haven't.

Ignorant,,,wrong?

I never said you were in this situation, as just about anyone who comes to this site has a son. So please, a little common sense.

I merely pointed out that if we were to take the attitude you did in assuming "screw the women", it could be reversed to say the opposite or something close thereof. It was certainly not meant to describe your exact situation, just an opposite attitude IF we were to use the same sweeping generalization as you did in your earlier post.

Clear now?

What is your view on the Stossel video and or some of the websites I've linked?

I would hope you checked them out, rather than assume you know everything there is to know about T9 since you support it.

`

Matt,

I'm not sure anyone here wants to dismantle Title IX and the good things it has accomplished. Well, maybe the part that pertains to baseball or athletics. I just can't, with any common sense, figure out why softball would be kept while baseball is dropped.  They are similar sports, one for males, one for females. Neither is a revenue producer at 99% of the schools. I'm all for what is fair! Is it fair that a young boy can grow up playing baseball, work his rear end off to get as good as possible, and lose out because his college decided to drop baseball and pick up rowing?  I'm not against rowing, but I know for a fact that a girl in our town, a good basketball player, was offered a rowing scholarship. Her dad laughed about that and she went out east to play basketball at a smaller school. She had never rowed a boat in her life. To me, that is going over board to equalize opportunity. The kid that has played and worked on baseball his whole life is out.  The girl who has never rowed a boat in her life, is in!  How can that be fair?

At this point it seems as if we are talking past each other. My goal is to have a reasoned discussion, but you are making it very difficult with your intractable position of not giving an inch. This is not a debate meet where scoring points is the goal. Try acknowledging a few of the ills of T9, and others might find you more credible. To say it has never played a roll in any mens programs being cut is absurd.

I am not against giving girls opportunities, but I also do not believe it should come at the expense of boys either.

You have continued to ignore my specific example of which I have first hand knowledge of where the mens FIU tennis team was abolished due to T9. This is not from just one source being the coach(which you assailed as a "former disgruntled coach"), but also several of the players on that team. I am not sure what better proof I could personally offer, but it would seem as if nothing is good enough for you.

I guess you think the John Stossel piece had no research behind it, and the different people interviewed(expect the one supporting T9) had no credibility either?

As to your claimed evidence, how on earth do we know where those figures came from? Even if we were to assume they are correct, it still does not mean T9 is not a factor involved in the cuts to mens teams. Sure the college admin might publicly say T9 was not a factor, that it was strictly budgetary. Are they any more credible than those who said it was a factor?

We already know that womens teams have exploded since the 70's, and with limited resources, if a mens team is axed, you cannot say with a straight face that T9 had nothing to do with it.

`

Do you have anything of substance to say, or are you going to just keep repeating assertions with no evidence? Quoting someone claiming that someone told them something is not evidence.

Your hypocrisy is amazing. You expect someone to accept hearsay, but assail hard facts. You claim others have agendas, yet all of your cites are agenda-driven (I suggest you Google J Robinson.) You keep claiming that there's this effect of Title IX, but have yet to provide any substance (your whole argument is "yeah, but...") It's sadly humorous that you claim you want a reasoned discussion, yet have thrown reason out the window.

Now I mean no personal offense when I say this, so try to look beyond the criticism and understand I genuinely do not think you are being reasonable. On the one hand you say your view is factual, but you will not accept a personal example I have repeated several times. Yet you are not even willing to say what you would accept. The mens FIU tennis team existed, and now does not.  Now you might want to pretend the HC just made up the story about T9, as presumably he is the only one the admin told this to. What I don't get, unless you are being intentionally obtuse, is why you would readily accept it being because of budget cuts, but not because of T9. If I had not heard it from the horses mouth, I'd be willing to accept either explanation. Granted I'd be suspicious if that was the only reason, since T9 and budget shortfalls go hand in hand. Still you are like a petulant child who says T9 is never at fault, and anyone who says differently does not have facts to prove it.

I'm tempted to call coach Lehman's and see if I can give you his number and let you speak to him, but aside from the absurdity of such a request, I suspect based on your behavior thus far, you'd still dismiss what he had to say as hearsay.

I guess only a certificate from the commission on T9 saying teams are axed because of it would suffice. Since we know that no such thing exists, you can just deny it ever happens with nothing to back up your claim that T9 is never at fault.

What you don't get is what an actual source is. For the third time, you saying that someone said that someone told them it was due to Title IX is not credible evidence--and that's all you have.

Don't compare me to a petulant child. I don't rely on rumors to make opinions. I deal with fact, and fact only.

Matt, how much more direct can you get than Coach Lehman at FIU?  This happened to him and his team.  Coach Lehman directly told Vector.  That makes it second hand that Vector told us? 

Go back and read the articles Vector provided.  There are statements from people DIRECTLY involved in programs being cut due to Title IX.  Say what you want about the benefits - and there are many.  But you can't deny what some of the consequences of it are.

Shoot, even RJM, an ardent supporter of Title IX, said she didn't like what happened at my son's HS as a result of Title IX.  And just to clarify about that situation.  Title IX didn't make the parents give that money back to the donors.  Title IX, and the interpretation of the school administrators, told the baseball team they couldn't use the money solely for the baseball facilities unless an equal amount was spent on the girls facilities.  The parents then choose to give the money back since it was raised with the expectation of improving the Baseball program.  It was the ethical thing to do.

I call them like I see them, and you clearly are acting in a manner not becoming of someone who wants to engage in a reasoned discussion. Every one of the programs that claim to have been cut due to T9 in reports, TV specials etc. are just dismissed by you as rumors/hearsay.

Yet you undoubtedly latch onto budget cuts when that is the stated reason by the same type of sources. It is the classic example of hearing only what you want to, and ignoring the rest.

Then you have the temerity to claim to have posted facts and figures backing up your position. In all your posts you only posted some budget figures in an edited post from 2 days ago, and without even a source of where those figures came from. As I said before, even if we took those figures at face value, it still does not prove that mens teams were cut due to strictly budget cuts, having nothing to do with T9. So you want everyone who does not blindly agree with you to accept your so called facts, and change their minds. Yet you dismiss everything else as rumor and are unwilling to open your mind, even a smidge.

Frankly I have no desire to continue this tit for tat with you considering your aforementioned type of denials/posting.

Don't assume I'm a women because I'm defending Title IX. I'm not. I have a daughter that didn't get stiffed in terms of opportunity athletically and academically because Title IX fixed something that was very wrong.

In terms of my defense of boys teams doing fundraisers don't think I'm defending the boys. I've seen girls do fundraisers and have to place the money in a general fund too. I believe any team that does fundraisers should be able to keep the money for their program. It has nothing to do with gender.

When we raised money to improve the baseball facilities we got the softball parents involved (son was on baseball team/daughter had graduated). In a cooperative effort both teams got the same improvements. The real problem was we wanted to do more and had the resources. But the school district's union stopped us from doing any of the work ourselves or using donated outside labor.

Sorry RJM, my bad.  And yes, it is unfair on both sides at times.  Suppose you went to the girls softball team, offered the opportunity to improve their facilities so the boys could do theirs and they turned you down?  Would it be right that now the boys couldn't do it?  Or, go the opposite way, what if the girls wanted to do it and the boys didn't?  I wonder what would happen? 

This takes the initiative right out of people.  Why go out and raise money to better a program you are interested in?  Just live with what you have or wait for the government to take care of you.  Ugh.

That is the very definition of hearsay. The primary source is not the coach, it would be the anonymous administrator. That doesn't make it second-hand, it makes it third-hand.

This is where the numbers are from: http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/

You have not provided one primary source to support your assertions, and quite frankly, I really don't have time to deal with someone who insists on having a "reasoned discussion" without even knowing what reasoning is. Not to mention, you misstate what I have said and ignored at least two other posts in which I have data points.

We are clearly wasting our time as it does not matter what coach might say publicly that his team was cut, because if the admin says it was due to budget, it would not be 2nd hand or hearsay to Matt. However if they said they were told it was due to T9, it is worthless according to Matt.

I didn't even start this thread with the primary intent to debate T9, but obviously this is something Matt seized upon. Instead I'm hoping some people with knowledge of which baseball programs have been cut due to T9 will list the schools. Needless to say they will not need a sworn affidavit from the college administration to post the info.

`

This thread forced me to do my own research, and having done so, its easy to see why Vector and Matt each think the other is not listening. Here’s where I land:

• Title IX was well intended and has definitely benefited women. That’s good.
• It has not in the aggregate caused a drop in men’s participation in college sports. That’s good.
• Some colleges have failed to execute the law as outlined, and have, in fact, cut men’s sports in an effort to comply. That’s bad.
• Proponents of the law do not acknowledge this happens. They point to data and the language of the law … and refuse to acknowledge first-hand observations, believing them to be biased or uninformed. That’s naïve.

Many, many good laws have unintended consequences. This is one. Does that make it a bad law? No. but the unintended consequences are still very real.

You will never see a college administrator admit that a male sport was/is cut due to Title IX. Admitting such a thing would instantly throw that case into court and the school would lose.

I got to thinking and I'm surprised it didn't become an issue at my school. Last year (beginning of 2012) they installed new batting cages at the baseball and softball fields. They're really nice. But they put one cage up at the softball field and put two up at the baseball field. Surprised somebody hasn't sued yet..

The attached links provide some facts about Providence College eliminating its baseball program in 1998.  To my knowledge, and I am a PC baseball alum, it was one of if not the first College to cut a baseball program.  The articles include quotes from the PC administration.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/19/sports/baseball-the-other-side-of-title-ix.html

http://articles.philly.com/199...ll-program-villanova

I looked up Towson. Only 39.9 percent of the students are male. The have lax and football. Is this typical for colleges which have base anted or considered eliminating baseball? 

in other words there are multiple factors at work here. Males at many colleges are a minority, yet the colleges are fielding teams with significant rosters. Bugs me to see LAX teams growing but baseball teams diminishing, but as has been pointed out by others, the percentage of LAX players with financial resources may well be greater than baseball players.

As a female who went too high school in the 70s, I am personally aware of the impact of Title IX. I was on the first varsity track team at my high school. We didn't even have a coach of our own, the coach of the men's track team just had to put up with us. 

My son goes to a small high school of 400 students. The girls are equally involved in sports, and you can see it in the prom pictures. Fit and confident young ladies.

Title IX is not the enemy. Take a look at declining enrollment of males in college as a percent of the total student population, the growth of LAX, and yes, the dreaded huge football roster. How many colleges are cutting baseball but keeping LAX? How many colleges which are cutting baseball have males making up less than 50 percent of their students? And how many cut baseball but keep football? 

There are many factors at work. 

Twotex ... The numbers on personal success stories of girls who grew up playing sports and dimishimg participation in bad habits (alcohol, drugs, sex, etc.) since Title IX are significant. Regardless of gender, success in sports breeds confidence. Now the girls are in on it too. 

Whoever compared college football to the NFL doesn't understand. The college team is stuck with who they have their roster; NFL teams can go sign new players throughout the season.

And having worked college football, I can tell you it's not uncommon for a football injury report to have more players than an entire baseball roster...

This is a way to get colleges to pay for education for students when they can't in other ways. 0nly 80 is allowed at D1, not everyone gets full.  Most likely many of these players wouldn't even get opportunities if not for football.

BTW, baseball at all D1 programs is no more than 35. So I would imagine that is why the count may be off,  you can't go by numbers from rosters that probably are not correct.