My son went the JUCO route, and then in a program that Title IX killed. Therefore we went through the recruiting process three times.
If there was one thing that stood out all three times it was that you could always tell who REALLY wanted him.
One visit to a coach who views your son as a true impact player for his program will give you a whole different opinion of the recruiting process. It will make you rethink what the other coaches are saying and doing big time.
But FIT does not mean picking the program that wants you the most. Fit is very individual.
Some kids WANT to go to a program and be an impact player. Some kids want to go to a program where they will play all four years. Some kids prefer to go to a more competitive program, even though they sit on the bench 2 or 3 years.
Some folks are risk takers, some prefer a more stable choice. It has nothing to do with right or wrong, and everything to do with personal goals.
There is some risk in every program. Often more risk as the quality of the program increases. Your son is the only one who can decide how much risk he feels comfortable with.
.
Great post....reads like "The 6 commandments to recruiting"...
.
Great post....reads like "The 6 commandments to recruiting"...
.
AParent,
Agree on many good points except one. Title IX never killed any program. It can usually be traced back to school administrators who decide to support large football programs at any expense. I thank Title IX every day as my daughter, who's just as much a talented, fierce competitor as my son, has a chance to take it to the next level. Consider it part of the risk equation to which you referred. I'm not trying to divert the thread here, but your jab diluted your other good points.
Agree on many good points except one. Title IX never killed any program. It can usually be traced back to school administrators who decide to support large football programs at any expense. I thank Title IX every day as my daughter, who's just as much a talented, fierce competitor as my son, has a chance to take it to the next level. Consider it part of the risk equation to which you referred. I'm not trying to divert the thread here, but your jab diluted your other good points.
Va_Sportsmom
Give me a break. Title IX is the most misused rule in American history and has destroyed more opportunities for more male athletes and anything else could ever approach. It's an injustice and that ought to be rectified. I have daughters, as well, and I am not saying they should not have opportunities, but proportionality does not work and should never have been implemented. And if anyone does not believe that baseball scholarships are limited to 11.7 for any reason other than Title IX then they either are incredibly misinformed or just do not understand reality.
To blame it on football is even more ludicrous when football is the driving force in nearly every truly successful athletic program, with just a couple of exceptions.
Make the pie bigger if you want it done right, but don't try to tell us that Title IX has not flat out eliminated the pie for far too many male athletes in far too many sports.
To believe otherwise is simply amazing.
Give me a break. Title IX is the most misused rule in American history and has destroyed more opportunities for more male athletes and anything else could ever approach. It's an injustice and that ought to be rectified. I have daughters, as well, and I am not saying they should not have opportunities, but proportionality does not work and should never have been implemented. And if anyone does not believe that baseball scholarships are limited to 11.7 for any reason other than Title IX then they either are incredibly misinformed or just do not understand reality.
To blame it on football is even more ludicrous when football is the driving force in nearly every truly successful athletic program, with just a couple of exceptions.
Make the pie bigger if you want it done right, but don't try to tell us that Title IX has not flat out eliminated the pie for far too many male athletes in far too many sports.
To believe otherwise is simply amazing.
VA Sportsmom
Sorry but that statement was no "jab". When the baseball program was disbanded the reason given was Title IX compliance. Plain and simple.
It sure is interesting that a whole team of baseball players (of whom I think only 4 were on scholarship) was disbanded so money spent on that sport could be used to add other sports that might attract female students athletes.
Now, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against female ATHLETES. There are true female athletes and they deserve as good a chance as the male athletes.
What I am opposed to is taking female STUDENTS and offering them scholarships to BECOME ATHLETES so the numbers will be in compliance. These girls are not and will never be athletes, but they are smart enough to pick up a sport to pay for college. You may call that equity, but I do not.
When girls fill out rosters as non-scholarship athletes because they love the sport (like many boys do) then perhaps you can convince me of the NEED for more female scholarships.
I hope your daughters are never treated with as much disrespect as those boys were.
Sorry but that statement was no "jab". When the baseball program was disbanded the reason given was Title IX compliance. Plain and simple.
It sure is interesting that a whole team of baseball players (of whom I think only 4 were on scholarship) was disbanded so money spent on that sport could be used to add other sports that might attract female students athletes.
Now, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against female ATHLETES. There are true female athletes and they deserve as good a chance as the male athletes.
What I am opposed to is taking female STUDENTS and offering them scholarships to BECOME ATHLETES so the numbers will be in compliance. These girls are not and will never be athletes, but they are smart enough to pick up a sport to pay for college. You may call that equity, but I do not.
When girls fill out rosters as non-scholarship athletes because they love the sport (like many boys do) then perhaps you can convince me of the NEED for more female scholarships.
I hope your daughters are never treated with as much disrespect as those boys were.
Males have had all the breaks, thats why they need a Tile IX rule
Tell your story to the kids at Porvidence who after coming within one out of making it to the CWS get told in t October of the following fall that there will be no more baseball---what is that all about?--very simple--Title IX= Porvidence had and still has a huge female population, can e=we say party school, and thus the numbers didnt match so a baseball rpgram that is solid and a winner gets sold down the river
End Result--Ladies Handball, Rowing etc and none of those ladies ever played the sport, if we can call it a sport--it is a total disgrace
End Result--Ladies Handball, Rowing etc and none of those ladies ever played the sport, if we can call it a sport--it is a total disgrace
AParent, You hit the nail on the head!
njbb, What do you mean breaks? EVERY male that is on a baseball scholarship has EARNED that scholarship. The real harm is to the male players that have earned but cannot get a baseball scholarship simply because of Title IX.
Fungo
njbb, What do you mean breaks? EVERY male that is on a baseball scholarship has EARNED that scholarship. The real harm is to the male players that have earned but cannot get a baseball scholarship simply because of Title IX.
Fungo
quote:Originally posted by VA_Sportsmom:
Consider it part of the risk equation to which you referred.
Aint that the truth!
There are many risks that exist in our lives - everyday. Including Title IX.
Socialism will never work in America.
It has - and will - continue to destroy many deserving people and programs - and perhaps that will satisfy the selfish needs of those that feel it is righteous to gain at others expense. Those that feel it is moral to correct injustice by inflicting injustice on others.
But it will fail - because socialism always fails.
Flush Title IX down the toilet - right where it belongs.
Itsinthegame you are on your way very quickly to the HSBBW Hall of fame. Your recent posts have put you over the top on the voting. Outstanding post because it is the straight up truth without the political correctness bs that I am sick of. At one of our local D-1 schools this happened. A flyer was put out asking girls that were interested in becoming part of the rowing team to come to a meeting. At the meeting they were told that they did not have to have any experience in rowing they just needed to field a team. Girls that were chosen for the team would be given a full athletic scholarship. They did and they were. How can anyone in their right mind see this as a fair and equal playing ground.
players that disappear from rosters in college....
...Finally realizing they can go to the beach in the summertime...something that they haven't done since they were 8 years old.
...Kids finally realize that there is more to life in the summertime than jockstraps and cuts and bruises and strawberries and sore arms.
...Kids finally realizing that they will actually make more money in their working lives than what they could possibly make for that "shot" at making a grand a month in the low minors; that they are truly organizational players while truly having no chance to get to the big leagues.
...Kids finally realize that being a player at a major D1 program really means that you are truly under "pressure" every year for 3/4 years with each succeeding class.
I pushed and pushed and pushed my sons because baseball, the game, was near and dear to me because it kept me out of trouble; taught me to be a team player; taught me how to win and lose and be gracious about it.
Now that 2 of my last 3 are in college, I realize what they mean when they say that they want to have "fun" without the pressure to perform.
Took me a long time, but I think that I finally figured it out.
...Finally realizing they can go to the beach in the summertime...something that they haven't done since they were 8 years old.
...Kids finally realize that there is more to life in the summertime than jockstraps and cuts and bruises and strawberries and sore arms.
...Kids finally realizing that they will actually make more money in their working lives than what they could possibly make for that "shot" at making a grand a month in the low minors; that they are truly organizational players while truly having no chance to get to the big leagues.
...Kids finally realize that being a player at a major D1 program really means that you are truly under "pressure" every year for 3/4 years with each succeeding class.
I pushed and pushed and pushed my sons because baseball, the game, was near and dear to me because it kept me out of trouble; taught me to be a team player; taught me how to win and lose and be gracious about it.
Now that 2 of my last 3 are in college, I realize what they mean when they say that they want to have "fun" without the pressure to perform.
Took me a long time, but I think that I finally figured it out.
Awesome post, BeenthereIL,awesome............
I think your are correct, Coach May.
Fair ain't always equal and equal ain't always fair.
I think your are correct, Coach May.
Fair ain't always equal and equal ain't always fair.
Just because males have recieved a lions share of the pie for years doesn't mean they have a right to continue to recieve it. Women are the majority of the student body at most schools and the deserve a equal share from the college community.
njbb:
You could not be more wrong. On a personal level, I do not care because what I want for my sons is the opportunity far more than I want the money, which I can take care of myself. But there are plenty of male opporunities that have been eliminated -- forget the scholarships -- for bs reasons. Believe what you want, but you could not be more wrong, and America will be far better when injustice like this is at long last rectified.
You could not be more wrong. On a personal level, I do not care because what I want for my sons is the opportunity far more than I want the money, which I can take care of myself. But there are plenty of male opporunities that have been eliminated -- forget the scholarships -- for bs reasons. Believe what you want, but you could not be more wrong, and America will be far better when injustice like this is at long last rectified.
equal share of what, njbb?
njbb
equal share?
Don't forget that Title IX only covers athletic scholarship funding.
It glosses over the fact that the same colleges give out art, music, band, dance and other scholarships. There are no gender equity requirments in these areas because the women are not on the short end of the stick.
Would be real interesting to see how equal the TOTAL really is.
Anyone know those figures?
equal share?
Don't forget that Title IX only covers athletic scholarship funding.
It glosses over the fact that the same colleges give out art, music, band, dance and other scholarships. There are no gender equity requirments in these areas because the women are not on the short end of the stick.
Would be real interesting to see how equal the TOTAL really is.
Anyone know those figures?
VA-Sportsmom:
In this case, you are mistaken. Title IX has done damage. I have nothing against having women's sports, but the method that has been mandated for it's implementation is terrible.
Instead of talking about feelings, look at the numbers:
The OLD days
1982, Women's NCAA sports teams, 4,776
1982, Men's NCAA sports teams, 6,843
Obviously, the situation needed some attention, but you also must consider that a MUCH higher percentage of males are interested in playing sports. I'm not talking individual cases, I'm talking numbers. The ratio that existed in 1982 wasn't right. The method to correct it is worse.
Now jump forward to 2004
2004, Women's NCAA Championship teams, 8,948
2004, Women's "Emerging Sports" teams, 84
2004, Women's Total Sports teams, 9,032
2004, Men's Championship teams, 8,009
2004, Men's Non-Championship teams, 122
2004, Men's Total Sports teams, 8,121
Now, just looking at the data, it looks like everything is fine on the surface, Both are growing, but the women are growing faster, right???? WRONG ...
What's the rub then???
What the statistics FAIL TO MENTION is that the number of NCAA Member institutions has ALSO grown in the same time. So that great growth you are seeing in Women's sports is a product of "fudging the numbers" and the good growth you are seeing in Men's sports is totally imaginary.
In reality
The Average number of Student-Athletes per Institution is the statistic that is ignored but needs to be studied.
Year, Men, Women
1984, 254.2, 115.9
1994, 199.7, 116.7
2003, 209.2, 156.6
Average number of women's teams supported PER institution has increased by 2 in this time period.
Average number of men's teams supported PER institution has decreased by 1 in this time period.
In 6 of the past 10 years, there were a decrease in the average number of male student-athletes per institution. In that same period, there was a decrease in women's sports only once (0.1 participates less per institution in 1990-2000 verus 1998-1999)
Now, lets look at what the total number of NCAA institutions do ... They are adding and dropping sports all the time, but to disband an existing program is something that needs to be looked at. Since 1988, 1201 more men's sports programs have been disbanded at NCAA institutions than women's sports programs.
.... but I did say that sports were being added too ... it's only fair to look at the difference in the number of sports programs added for men versus the number added for women over the same period. Well, they added 1230 more sports programs for Women at NCAA institutions than they did for men.
So now, you are down to looking at the Net Change in the total number of sports programs for Men versus Women within the NCAA.
Since 1988, the Men have added 42 programs.
Since 1988, Women have added 1,971 (97.9 percent of the growth).
Narrowing the view
If you look at D1 (a much smaller sub-section), it's probably better .... and there is a reason. D1 school are (generally) bigger and they have been in the NCAA longer, they are established, so members entering or leaving have less of an impact on the "numbers".
Since 1988, in D1 ONLY ...
661 Women's sports programs added.
239 Men's sports programs dropped.
....................
Title IX is socialism at it's worst. It's political correctness run amuck.
In this case, you are mistaken. Title IX has done damage. I have nothing against having women's sports, but the method that has been mandated for it's implementation is terrible.
Instead of talking about feelings, look at the numbers:
The OLD days
1982, Women's NCAA sports teams, 4,776
1982, Men's NCAA sports teams, 6,843
Obviously, the situation needed some attention, but you also must consider that a MUCH higher percentage of males are interested in playing sports. I'm not talking individual cases, I'm talking numbers. The ratio that existed in 1982 wasn't right. The method to correct it is worse.
Now jump forward to 2004
2004, Women's NCAA Championship teams, 8,948
2004, Women's "Emerging Sports" teams, 84
2004, Women's Total Sports teams, 9,032
2004, Men's Championship teams, 8,009
2004, Men's Non-Championship teams, 122
2004, Men's Total Sports teams, 8,121
Now, just looking at the data, it looks like everything is fine on the surface, Both are growing, but the women are growing faster, right???? WRONG ...
What's the rub then???
What the statistics FAIL TO MENTION is that the number of NCAA Member institutions has ALSO grown in the same time. So that great growth you are seeing in Women's sports is a product of "fudging the numbers" and the good growth you are seeing in Men's sports is totally imaginary.
In reality
The Average number of Student-Athletes per Institution is the statistic that is ignored but needs to be studied.
Year, Men, Women
1984, 254.2, 115.9
1994, 199.7, 116.7
2003, 209.2, 156.6
Average number of women's teams supported PER institution has increased by 2 in this time period.
Average number of men's teams supported PER institution has decreased by 1 in this time period.
In 6 of the past 10 years, there were a decrease in the average number of male student-athletes per institution. In that same period, there was a decrease in women's sports only once (0.1 participates less per institution in 1990-2000 verus 1998-1999)
Now, lets look at what the total number of NCAA institutions do ... They are adding and dropping sports all the time, but to disband an existing program is something that needs to be looked at. Since 1988, 1201 more men's sports programs have been disbanded at NCAA institutions than women's sports programs.
.... but I did say that sports were being added too ... it's only fair to look at the difference in the number of sports programs added for men versus the number added for women over the same period. Well, they added 1230 more sports programs for Women at NCAA institutions than they did for men.
So now, you are down to looking at the Net Change in the total number of sports programs for Men versus Women within the NCAA.
Since 1988, the Men have added 42 programs.
Since 1988, Women have added 1,971 (97.9 percent of the growth).
Narrowing the view
If you look at D1 (a much smaller sub-section), it's probably better .... and there is a reason. D1 school are (generally) bigger and they have been in the NCAA longer, they are established, so members entering or leaving have less of an impact on the "numbers".
Since 1988, in D1 ONLY ...
661 Women's sports programs added.
239 Men's sports programs dropped.
....................
Title IX is socialism at it's worst. It's political correctness run amuck.
H3 - Thanks for the numbers. I've said before - I have a son and daughter. Glad for the opportunities my daughter/females have been given, but this should never have been done at the cost of my son/males.
HHH,
I do stats for a living and your analysis fatally flawed. Be happy to discuss offline since this thread is already too diverted and I know how stats put poeple to sleep. Bottom line - administrators have options other than reducing men's programs. AParent says IX was cited as the reason for scrapping men's baseball. That's administrators hiding behind the fact that they rejected the other options. It is indeed as disgrace that administrators resort to things like manufacturing women's handball programs to balance the ridiculous number of football scholarships, but IX isn't forcing them to do it. There's plenty of gold-plating they refuse to touch. Sure men have historically shown higher numbers interested in sports. Wonder why? For one, there was potential payoff like college scholarships. Now that HS girls have that option, they're demand is growing too. It's not just "feelings". Until recently, one of our HS girls teams had no locker room and had to change into their parent-purchased uniforms in THE CAFETERIA. Not too many girls attracted to THAT option. Of course the demand and growth are compressed into recent years. I'm not saying abuses aren't happening in trying to comply with IX, but I have sons and daughters in HS and now college athletics and it doesn't compare to the abuses and neglect the girls have suffered(and still do). Do we need a separate thread here? I was getting bored comparing rosters year to year anyway...
I do stats for a living and your analysis fatally flawed. Be happy to discuss offline since this thread is already too diverted and I know how stats put poeple to sleep. Bottom line - administrators have options other than reducing men's programs. AParent says IX was cited as the reason for scrapping men's baseball. That's administrators hiding behind the fact that they rejected the other options. It is indeed as disgrace that administrators resort to things like manufacturing women's handball programs to balance the ridiculous number of football scholarships, but IX isn't forcing them to do it. There's plenty of gold-plating they refuse to touch. Sure men have historically shown higher numbers interested in sports. Wonder why? For one, there was potential payoff like college scholarships. Now that HS girls have that option, they're demand is growing too. It's not just "feelings". Until recently, one of our HS girls teams had no locker room and had to change into their parent-purchased uniforms in THE CAFETERIA. Not too many girls attracted to THAT option. Of course the demand and growth are compressed into recent years. I'm not saying abuses aren't happening in trying to comply with IX, but I have sons and daughters in HS and now college athletics and it doesn't compare to the abuses and neglect the girls have suffered(and still do). Do we need a separate thread here? I was getting bored comparing rosters year to year anyway...
quote:one of our HS girls teams had no locker room and had to change into their parent-purchased uniforms in THE CAFETERIA.
Va Mom - "PERCEPTION RULES" - I can only imagine how they FELT!
with the exception of football, all our hs uniforms & equipment are purchased with parent funds -
as are those of most local DIII/NAIA baseball programs in this area
and . . . our hs didn't even have a cafeteria till last yr
ps - our hs was forced to decline a donation of lights for the baseball field, because it would leave the girls field unlighted - and the world would be out of balance??
Bee,
I bet your guys had a locker room though, didn't they? Here's another FACT (not perception) about our HS situation. While the girls were faced with changing in various rooms with paper covering the windows, the boys team had 4 different uniforms to choose from. How's THAT fair? The boys program was not a money maker either. Point being, lots of schools have to be FORCED toward making things equitable. Your sarcastic attempt to reduce the argument to "feelings" doesn't change the fact that dollars continue to be skewed toward boys (at least in OUR area) even when their programs produce no money. In a word - entitlement.
I bet your guys had a locker room though, didn't they? Here's another FACT (not perception) about our HS situation. While the girls were faced with changing in various rooms with paper covering the windows, the boys team had 4 different uniforms to choose from. How's THAT fair? The boys program was not a money maker either. Point being, lots of schools have to be FORCED toward making things equitable. Your sarcastic attempt to reduce the argument to "feelings" doesn't change the fact that dollars continue to be skewed toward boys (at least in OUR area) even when their programs produce no money. In a word - entitlement.
look within that to find the flawed analysisquote:I do stats for a living
you've taken your perception of the situation at your hs & projected it globally
oh, and no sarcasm was intended - - it was critisism intended
My daughter played softball for HS - they got new uniforms two years ago and are getting new ones this year again. They have a nice field, facility with running water, restrooms, concession stand, and use of a hitting facility that the "boys" have paid for. The softball team did chip in a small amount last year towards these payments which was greatly appreciated. It cost $150 and working bingo for parents for softball. Typically everyone has made the team because there's not the numbers there to turn away anyone.
My son played for HS team for six years. His senior year (last year) they got new uniforms for the first time since he had played there. They had NO RUNNING WATER in the concession stand until this past year, NO RESTROOMS until this past year. It costs us parent $800 year (which you could try and sell ads to cover) plus working bingo for a kid to play baseball. Mostly the high costs were due to paying for a facility for the last six years to the tune of $20,000 year that they graciously shared with softball and wrestling without any contribution until this last year. Baseball has a large number come out and used to have a freshman team, but had to cut it because the "numbers" weren't balanced in the boy/girl facts.
Again, I'm glad my daughter and friends have had the opportunities they've had. I can tell you firsthand that the boys have had to pay a price for it.
My son played for HS team for six years. His senior year (last year) they got new uniforms for the first time since he had played there. They had NO RUNNING WATER in the concession stand until this past year, NO RESTROOMS until this past year. It costs us parent $800 year (which you could try and sell ads to cover) plus working bingo for a kid to play baseball. Mostly the high costs were due to paying for a facility for the last six years to the tune of $20,000 year that they graciously shared with softball and wrestling without any contribution until this last year. Baseball has a large number come out and used to have a freshman team, but had to cut it because the "numbers" weren't balanced in the boy/girl facts.
Again, I'm glad my daughter and friends have had the opportunities they've had. I can tell you firsthand that the boys have had to pay a price for it.
lafmom
you said your son played for the HS team for 6 years. Is this a typo?
you said your son played for the HS team for 6 years. Is this a typo?
Tx - No, but he was only on varsity 5 years and only a starter for three. (8th and 9th he started JV and "sat" varsity) His 7th grade year they had a freshman team which gave him a wonderful opportunity to "show" his stuff. Freshman team was cut from program 2 years later. We're a school of about 2200 kids so having a freshman team was a great way to allow kids to "enter" the HS world of baseball.
txdad, ya gotta remember it's Kentucky
lafmom, if vamom would project YOUR stats globally, title IX could be eliminated
lafmom, if vamom would project YOUR stats globally, title IX could be eliminated
Bee - Since this thread has already gone completely off topic. My son's HS career has actually been a fairly rare one here. Most younger kids don't get the opportunities he had (not in my area anyway). We had one kid who started as a 9th grader and he was a first round draft pick this year. We had another kid several years ago who started as an 8th grader and ended up a 1st round draft pick and now plays for the Reds. Most varsity starters are seniors with a few juniors thrown in there. It's a pretty big deal to be a soph starter, and just to be on roster if you're younger. Thus, the freshman team gives kids an opportunity to play and develope.
Va Sportsmom:
I have often wondered how reasonable people can decimate programs for boys and young men in the name of making things better for women (which most would agree was long needed and very good). After reading your latest post, I can say that it is not reasonable people at all who have done this, but only those filled with bitterness and great disdain for others.
Life will go on, but what has happened can only be described as incredibly sad. Perhaps someday things will improve in an all-around way and justice will be restored.
I will close in saying that your lack of understanding of successful football programs and the resources they provide for all other programs -- male and female -- is enlightening as much as it is remarkable and, as a result, none of your views are surprising. Unfortunate, to be sure, but not surprising.
I have often wondered how reasonable people can decimate programs for boys and young men in the name of making things better for women (which most would agree was long needed and very good). After reading your latest post, I can say that it is not reasonable people at all who have done this, but only those filled with bitterness and great disdain for others.
Life will go on, but what has happened can only be described as incredibly sad. Perhaps someday things will improve in an all-around way and justice will be restored.
I will close in saying that your lack of understanding of successful football programs and the resources they provide for all other programs -- male and female -- is enlightening as much as it is remarkable and, as a result, none of your views are surprising. Unfortunate, to be sure, but not surprising.
je,
You have generalized far more about me than I have about athletics. I have kids in both HS and college athletics. In addition, I was a college athlete and my brother was in large college football pgm. And the most enlightening, I served on a board where athletic funds were allocated. I never said IX was the answer. I admit it probably overcorrected in some cases, but I can tell you from personal experience that something needed to be forced. And yes, some football programs produce money for others - the big issue is who controls the money, and historically, girls saw little of it compared to non-football boys. I also note with interest that some other posters, when out of ammo, tend to resort to personal attacks (shoot blanks, that is). They besmirch the moniker "Old Timer" with obvious parallels. Peace.
You have generalized far more about me than I have about athletics. I have kids in both HS and college athletics. In addition, I was a college athlete and my brother was in large college football pgm. And the most enlightening, I served on a board where athletic funds were allocated. I never said IX was the answer. I admit it probably overcorrected in some cases, but I can tell you from personal experience that something needed to be forced. And yes, some football programs produce money for others - the big issue is who controls the money, and historically, girls saw little of it compared to non-football boys. I also note with interest that some other posters, when out of ammo, tend to resort to personal attacks (shoot blanks, that is). They besmirch the moniker "Old Timer" with obvious parallels. Peace.
I agree with VA_Sportsmom about this one ... disagreement on this issue is based on perception and experience. No need for personal attacks.
As an aside: The NCAA talks about creating these opportunities for women in college sports. What is really happening?
Well, as the number of participants in Women's sports has increase dramatically, so has the enrollment. The same is true with men, but not to as large a degree. Women in college have jumped from 5.8 million to 8 million in the past 20 years. Men have increased from 5.1 million to 6 million, a much more gradual change.
What has been done in women's sports programs historically is a disgrace. What is currently being done to the men's programs is also a disgrace. As always, when you have competition for limited resources, everyone wants a piece of the pie and can find reasons to justify it. The rationale of the justification will depend entirely on your personal experience.
The real problem with Title IX and college sports is that there just isn't a good answer and Title IX is a bandaid with a "rob Peter to pay Paul" end effect.
It's sure not the fault of the women's programs or the women athletes.
1982, Women participation rate: 1.2% of enrollment
1982, Men participation rate: 3.8% of enrollment
2001: Women participation rate: 1.9% of enrollment
2001: Men's participation rate: 3.5% of enrollment.
Those figures are nothing to be proud of for either "camp". Women's improvement is crawling forward at a rate that is embarressing. Men are going backwards. You have a real improvement of only 0.7% for women ....
No, Title IX isn't working ... but I'm honest enough to tell you that I don't have any answer to the problem.
As an aside: The NCAA talks about creating these opportunities for women in college sports. What is really happening?
Well, as the number of participants in Women's sports has increase dramatically, so has the enrollment. The same is true with men, but not to as large a degree. Women in college have jumped from 5.8 million to 8 million in the past 20 years. Men have increased from 5.1 million to 6 million, a much more gradual change.
What has been done in women's sports programs historically is a disgrace. What is currently being done to the men's programs is also a disgrace. As always, when you have competition for limited resources, everyone wants a piece of the pie and can find reasons to justify it. The rationale of the justification will depend entirely on your personal experience.
The real problem with Title IX and college sports is that there just isn't a good answer and Title IX is a bandaid with a "rob Peter to pay Paul" end effect.
It's sure not the fault of the women's programs or the women athletes.
1982, Women participation rate: 1.2% of enrollment
1982, Men participation rate: 3.8% of enrollment
2001: Women participation rate: 1.9% of enrollment
2001: Men's participation rate: 3.5% of enrollment.
Those figures are nothing to be proud of for either "camp". Women's improvement is crawling forward at a rate that is embarressing. Men are going backwards. You have a real improvement of only 0.7% for women ....
No, Title IX isn't working ... but I'm honest enough to tell you that I don't have any answer to the problem.
hhh,
you got the numbers out there, but I'm not following your conclusions
"mens programs going backwards?"
well - - with their funding withdrawn & many programs cancelled, I can follow that one
"Women's improvement is crawling" - - how did you conclude that?
given the increased opportunities and funding for them in the past 25 yrs the agrument sure could be made that a "max-out saturation point" was reached, and then pushed beyond by inventing more sports and getting regular girl students to fill those rosters - -
or is there some TARGET % you're shooting for??
should the % be the same??
you got the numbers out there, but I'm not following your conclusions
"mens programs going backwards?"
well - - with their funding withdrawn & many programs cancelled, I can follow that one
"Women's improvement is crawling" - - how did you conclude that?
given the increased opportunities and funding for them in the past 25 yrs the agrument sure could be made that a "max-out saturation point" was reached, and then pushed beyond by inventing more sports and getting regular girl students to fill those rosters - -
or is there some TARGET % you're shooting for??
should the % be the same??
VAMom
Did your cheerleaders have uniforms? How about the band members? Or the dance squad? If you want spending equity don't just point out sports - those other programs cost money too. There will be no equity until they examine all activies rather than focus only on sports.
I have never seen a situation where 150 girls show up at walk-on try outs for a college solftball team just hoping to get a chance to play. Have you? I have seen that in mens baseball.
Fact: In most colleges playing mens sports is very competitive. Many will try out, only a few will get to play.
Fact: In most colleges 100% of the women who WANT to play sports will get to, and most will get a scholarship. None will have to give up the dream.
Did your cheerleaders have uniforms? How about the band members? Or the dance squad? If you want spending equity don't just point out sports - those other programs cost money too. There will be no equity until they examine all activies rather than focus only on sports.
I have never seen a situation where 150 girls show up at walk-on try outs for a college solftball team just hoping to get a chance to play. Have you? I have seen that in mens baseball.
Fact: In most colleges playing mens sports is very competitive. Many will try out, only a few will get to play.
Fact: In most colleges 100% of the women who WANT to play sports will get to, and most will get a scholarship. None will have to give up the dream.
Just a note...
The womens programs under TITLE IX are so sparsely filled by incoming freshmen at UC California schools that scholarships are being offered to girls who have never played a sport in HS just to fill the numbers needed to continue to justify the programs.
Recently spoke to one student who told us how students are using the ruse of going out for a team to get into the University of California - Berkeley and once admitted then drop off the team, in order to get accepted for admission.
As I understand it this subterfuge is an accepted practice and encouraged to avoid the numbers game being employed to assure the correct percentages for diversity.
Anytime you set up a program that enhances the chances of one group over another you will find that the group that suffers from the restrictions will find a way to nullify it.
The womens programs under TITLE IX are so sparsely filled by incoming freshmen at UC California schools that scholarships are being offered to girls who have never played a sport in HS just to fill the numbers needed to continue to justify the programs.
Recently spoke to one student who told us how students are using the ruse of going out for a team to get into the University of California - Berkeley and once admitted then drop off the team, in order to get accepted for admission.
As I understand it this subterfuge is an accepted practice and encouraged to avoid the numbers game being employed to assure the correct percentages for diversity.
Anytime you set up a program that enhances the chances of one group over another you will find that the group that suffers from the restrictions will find a way to nullify it.
Title IX is a federal law.
Federal laws don't go away.
They get worse.
Don't matter how many times you cut the pie, everyone's piece is always smaller....................
Football and the ladies got a big piece and baseball got a sliver.............
About the same way at grandma's house.
Federal laws don't go away.
They get worse.
Don't matter how many times you cut the pie, everyone's piece is always smaller....................
Football and the ladies got a big piece and baseball got a sliver.............
About the same way at grandma's house.
Bee ...
Good question ... According to the Mandate within the legislation, the participation rates should reflect the percentages of women on campus. What has been happening over the past 20+ years is that the number of men on campus has been increasing and the number of male student-athletes has been decreasing. That's a loss.
NOW, I agree with AParent ... we've got a problem with that too, but this isn't a black (you're wrong) and white (I'm right) situation. Instead it's a muddled sea of goat poop. Gender equity, if adopted as a goal in sports should extend to all segments of the college campus including the music and arts departments. If you don't have it there, then why force it in the sports world.
Example: UT-Chat has adopted a policy that team sizes for women's sports will be unlimited in order to encourage participation ... so now, they may have a 150 member Softball (or S****r) team. Obviously, the don't get any more coaches .. the NCAA specifies how many can "dress" for an away game ... it's just playing numbers. Most of those 150 have no meaningful chance of actually playing the sport. Meanwhile, they have "capped" the sizes of the men's teams, limiting participation in order to get nearer to "gender equity". Bad move. It's meaningless.
On the other side: I don't want to see the women's teams have to use cast off or non-existant facilities or having to live on the dregs of what's left over in the athletic budget after taking care of the "guys" ....
All of this could be solved by reasonable people taking reasonable actions. They could look at their campus and make the adjustments. All would be fine, but as soon as you introduce legislation, then all "reasonable people" run for the exits and the only people left are those who are biased one way or another.
There is an answer: Get more money into the colleges. That way, they can do both and meet the needs of both populations. Now, I'll leave it to you bright people to figure out how to run the printing presses ......
Good question ... According to the Mandate within the legislation, the participation rates should reflect the percentages of women on campus. What has been happening over the past 20+ years is that the number of men on campus has been increasing and the number of male student-athletes has been decreasing. That's a loss.
NOW, I agree with AParent ... we've got a problem with that too, but this isn't a black (you're wrong) and white (I'm right) situation. Instead it's a muddled sea of goat poop. Gender equity, if adopted as a goal in sports should extend to all segments of the college campus including the music and arts departments. If you don't have it there, then why force it in the sports world.
Example: UT-Chat has adopted a policy that team sizes for women's sports will be unlimited in order to encourage participation ... so now, they may have a 150 member Softball (or S****r) team. Obviously, the don't get any more coaches .. the NCAA specifies how many can "dress" for an away game ... it's just playing numbers. Most of those 150 have no meaningful chance of actually playing the sport. Meanwhile, they have "capped" the sizes of the men's teams, limiting participation in order to get nearer to "gender equity". Bad move. It's meaningless.
On the other side: I don't want to see the women's teams have to use cast off or non-existant facilities or having to live on the dregs of what's left over in the athletic budget after taking care of the "guys" ....
All of this could be solved by reasonable people taking reasonable actions. They could look at their campus and make the adjustments. All would be fine, but as soon as you introduce legislation, then all "reasonable people" run for the exits and the only people left are those who are biased one way or another.
There is an answer: Get more money into the colleges. That way, they can do both and meet the needs of both populations. Now, I'll leave it to you bright people to figure out how to run the printing presses ......
so - some guys in washington set a target participation % - - I don't see where that % relates in any way to the number of lady athletes that actually WISH TO PARTICIPATEquote:According to the Mandate within the legislation, the participation rates should reflect the percentages of women on campus
you just described most mid-major and below NCAA & NAIAquote:I don't want to see thewomen'steams have to use cast off or non-existant facilities or having to live on the dregs of what's left over in the athletic budget
- MENS COLLEGE BASEBALL programs
can you provide an example of the use of a "non-existant faciltiy"??
or would those be the faciities of title IX dis-manteled mens programs?? (non-existent)
BeenthereIL.....your post was outstanding, honest, and a reminder that we are all lifetime learners!!
Bee: I agree that in MANY schools the Men's baseball team has terrible facilities.
I would bet that if you went to those same schools, half of them had new softball fields (because of Title IX) and at the other half, the softball fields double as the practice field for the football team and look like the lower 40 acres on grandpa's farm.
No ... Title IX isn't right. It should never have been passed.
For every story that you can relate about excesses like what exists at UC-Berkley, there is a horror story in women's college athletics concerning terrible facilities and conditions.
You have to look institution-by-institution to rectify things. It can't be blanket legislation. Quotas don't work. Unfortunately, relying on the A.D.'s to correct things didn't work either. This is ENTIRELY a question of who is holding the political power and who is holding the purse strings ... It AIN'T baseball, that's for sure.
................
Go to one of the men's programs that have "capped" participation rates and tell the 35+ players who showed up for open tryouts that the baseball team not only doesn't have any slots, but will have to red-shirt 2 players in order to meet the participation rate guidelines of the University. Then walk to the softball field and tell the 12 players who showed up for open tryouts that there are 2, maybe 3 open slots because the school couldn't find the players it wanted and it has to expand it's roster in order to off-set the numbers in the men's program.
That's the real world.
Take care of all of your athletes. Provide them decent facilities. Don't have the volleyball team travel in a converted grade-school bus while the football team has it's own luxury bus. Also don't try to balance the participation rates. Women are not as interested in participating in sports as men. We all know that.
If you want to rant about Title IX, fine ... but I'm tired of the topic. I'm opposed to it. I do not think it has been beneficial to anyone. I believe that the participation rate for women would have increased regardless of Title IX.
The only positive thing that it has accomplished is to improve the facilities at some schools who take it seriously. That improvement was necessary and long overdue. The negatives are too numerous to enumerate.
On the lighter side: What the heck is an "Emerging Sport" anyway ... is it like the "X" games ??? Are we going to have a Women's skate-boarding D1 National Championship on ESPN, watching them do back flips in the pipe???
I would bet that if you went to those same schools, half of them had new softball fields (because of Title IX) and at the other half, the softball fields double as the practice field for the football team and look like the lower 40 acres on grandpa's farm.
No ... Title IX isn't right. It should never have been passed.
For every story that you can relate about excesses like what exists at UC-Berkley, there is a horror story in women's college athletics concerning terrible facilities and conditions.
You have to look institution-by-institution to rectify things. It can't be blanket legislation. Quotas don't work. Unfortunately, relying on the A.D.'s to correct things didn't work either. This is ENTIRELY a question of who is holding the political power and who is holding the purse strings ... It AIN'T baseball, that's for sure.
................
Go to one of the men's programs that have "capped" participation rates and tell the 35+ players who showed up for open tryouts that the baseball team not only doesn't have any slots, but will have to red-shirt 2 players in order to meet the participation rate guidelines of the University. Then walk to the softball field and tell the 12 players who showed up for open tryouts that there are 2, maybe 3 open slots because the school couldn't find the players it wanted and it has to expand it's roster in order to off-set the numbers in the men's program.
That's the real world.
Take care of all of your athletes. Provide them decent facilities. Don't have the volleyball team travel in a converted grade-school bus while the football team has it's own luxury bus. Also don't try to balance the participation rates. Women are not as interested in participating in sports as men. We all know that.
If you want to rant about Title IX, fine ... but I'm tired of the topic. I'm opposed to it. I do not think it has been beneficial to anyone. I believe that the participation rate for women would have increased regardless of Title IX.
The only positive thing that it has accomplished is to improve the facilities at some schools who take it seriously. That improvement was necessary and long overdue. The negatives are too numerous to enumerate.
On the lighter side: What the heck is an "Emerging Sport" anyway ... is it like the "X" games ??? Are we going to have a Women's skate-boarding D1 National Championship on ESPN, watching them do back flips in the pipe???
AParent,
Not meant to be a post either pro or con Title IX....but this is in reference to your statement:
"Fact: In most colleges 100% of the women who want to play sports will get to, and most will get scholarships. None will have to give up the dream."
I'm not going to get into a statistical analysis of Title IX and its effect on college sports (frankly, all those numbers zone me out....I know....I'm such a girl, math, duh!
)) As the parent of a girl freshman college athlete...I politely disagree with your generalization and over-simplified statement. I guess my question to you would be...to what "dream" are you referring? Going to college for an education, or playing your sport as a collegiate athlete while gaining an education? I'm assuming playing your sport as a collegiate athlete, since you stated your son's program was cut by his school and he transferred to a different school in order to continue playing baseball. My daughter has many former high school team mates who never did find the college to pursue their athletic dream. She also has many current college team mates who are not receiving any scholarship to play their sport in college and pursue their dreams. Your statement makes it sound like just because you are a girl, and just because you "participate" in a sport, and just because you'd like to continue it in college...you will get a scholarship at a college to do so. IMO, in addition to being a false and blanket statement, it negates the very hard work, sweat and tears that alot of women collegiate athletes put into their sports. If one of the fall-outs from Title IX is that sort of thinking and mis-guided rationale....then I will cast the first strike against it, for it obviously has done more harm in discrediting women's athletics, whether rightfully so or not..
I agree that we have some problems here, and we probably do not have the right solution in place to deal with the problem. I don't know what the answer is here....and I don't pretend to, but I just wish we wouldn't use "generalizations" in either defense or attack of Title IX, because they are sometimes hurtful. It is obvious from many of these posts that this topic has pressed on some nerves....perhaps rightfully so. But remember, MANY female college athletes deserve the respect that you wish to be given your sons for the amount of hard work they put in.
If I have mis-interpreted, I apologize. If nothing else I have learned from this thread, I can now add HighHardHeat's "a muddled sea of goat poop" to my vocab!
Not meant to be a post either pro or con Title IX....but this is in reference to your statement:
"Fact: In most colleges 100% of the women who want to play sports will get to, and most will get scholarships. None will have to give up the dream."
I'm not going to get into a statistical analysis of Title IX and its effect on college sports (frankly, all those numbers zone me out....I know....I'm such a girl, math, duh!
)) As the parent of a girl freshman college athlete...I politely disagree with your generalization and over-simplified statement. I guess my question to you would be...to what "dream" are you referring? Going to college for an education, or playing your sport as a collegiate athlete while gaining an education? I'm assuming playing your sport as a collegiate athlete, since you stated your son's program was cut by his school and he transferred to a different school in order to continue playing baseball. My daughter has many former high school team mates who never did find the college to pursue their athletic dream. She also has many current college team mates who are not receiving any scholarship to play their sport in college and pursue their dreams. Your statement makes it sound like just because you are a girl, and just because you "participate" in a sport, and just because you'd like to continue it in college...you will get a scholarship at a college to do so. IMO, in addition to being a false and blanket statement, it negates the very hard work, sweat and tears that alot of women collegiate athletes put into their sports. If one of the fall-outs from Title IX is that sort of thinking and mis-guided rationale....then I will cast the first strike against it, for it obviously has done more harm in discrediting women's athletics, whether rightfully so or not.. I agree that we have some problems here, and we probably do not have the right solution in place to deal with the problem. I don't know what the answer is here....and I don't pretend to, but I just wish we wouldn't use "generalizations" in either defense or attack of Title IX, because they are sometimes hurtful. It is obvious from many of these posts that this topic has pressed on some nerves....perhaps rightfully so. But remember, MANY female college athletes deserve the respect that you wish to be given your sons for the amount of hard work they put in.
If I have mis-interpreted, I apologize. If nothing else I have learned from this thread, I can now add HighHardHeat's "a muddled sea of goat poop" to my vocab!
luvbb,
You've raised some good points. Just because a school has to fill slots in women's sports doesn't mean they need more players in the sports that women have traditionally participated in. Does a softball player who doesn't get a scholarship accept a rowing scholarship to attend that school or look for another school where they can play the sport they want to play? To me this is just one more strike against Title IX.
You've raised some good points. Just because a school has to fill slots in women's sports doesn't mean they need more players in the sports that women have traditionally participated in. Does a softball player who doesn't get a scholarship accept a rowing scholarship to attend that school or look for another school where they can play the sport they want to play? To me this is just one more strike against Title IX.