CADad,
I know of a couple of local male s****r players who didn't get scholarships for s****r..but they are now kickers on college football teams. I do know girls who swim....couldn't get swimming scholarships, so they went towards water polo to help pay for their education (one of those "newer" sports for girls, especially in the north and east). I know both male and female gymnasts who got better offers from college diving teams than college gymnastic teams. But as far as going out for a team that requires a whole different skill? Won't say it doesn't happen (it is obvious from reading above that it has)...but OUR experience has been ONLY with girls that have given up on their sport completely in college rather than trying a new one to get a scholarship, or continuing their sport in college without athletic aid. Just like I'm sure there are many sons of posters who play baseball with academic monies only....or no aid at all due to love of the game.
Since this is a thread about players that disappear from rosters, but has slid into a Tiltle 9 thread, I have 2 stories to tell. It is about two great College baseball coaches who disappeared before their time, and it had a lot to do about Title 9. Both stories are about the distribution of money that was headed to the respective baseball programs.
1. The Division 2 coach had been at his school for close to 35 years and had never had scholarship money to give to his players. He finally got permission to award 4 partial scholarships for the baseball team, but he would have to raise the money himself. He went to work and had two golf tournaments set up and was sure that he would be able to raise the money. Then the bad news hit....he could have the scholarships, but would now have to raise the same amount for the girls softball team or it would be a no go.He went ahead, and was hot under the collar, as the girls softball coach never raised a helping finger, because she could just sit back and watch him raise enough for both programs or he would not be able to fund his scholarships. He raised the money and handed in his resignation.
2. The division 1 coach ran a fine program and had raised a couple of million dollars and had a new stadium put in. He had an old timer who went to all the home games who loved him and his program. The old timer was very wealthy and wanted to set up a trust for the baseball team before he died. He wanted to put two million into CD's that at the time were paying a little over 5% interest and have the money go to the baseball program. That would have been over $100,000 per year going into the program. The school said that they would be happy to accept the money, but that they would decide where the money would go. They wanted to put it into girls programs. The old timer told them they they could go **** in their hat. The coach took early retirement, and the old timer passed away and the money went with him.
UC Davis and UNLV
1. The Division 2 coach had been at his school for close to 35 years and had never had scholarship money to give to his players. He finally got permission to award 4 partial scholarships for the baseball team, but he would have to raise the money himself. He went to work and had two golf tournaments set up and was sure that he would be able to raise the money. Then the bad news hit....he could have the scholarships, but would now have to raise the same amount for the girls softball team or it would be a no go.He went ahead, and was hot under the collar, as the girls softball coach never raised a helping finger, because she could just sit back and watch him raise enough for both programs or he would not be able to fund his scholarships. He raised the money and handed in his resignation.
2. The division 1 coach ran a fine program and had raised a couple of million dollars and had a new stadium put in. He had an old timer who went to all the home games who loved him and his program. The old timer was very wealthy and wanted to set up a trust for the baseball team before he died. He wanted to put two million into CD's that at the time were paying a little over 5% interest and have the money go to the baseball program. That would have been over $100,000 per year going into the program. The school said that they would be happy to accept the money, but that they would decide where the money would go. They wanted to put it into girls programs. The old timer told them they they could go **** in their hat. The coach took early retirement, and the old timer passed away and the money went with him.
UC Davis and UNLV
A lot of the problem is over-zealous, or idiotic, perhaps both, institutional interpretation of Title IX.
I was once at a seminar where a case that I had tried, won, and won again on appeal, was discussed and the speaker, based upon the results in my case, gave a very draconian interpretation of the meaning of the case, advising the 200 lawyers listening to provide certain information to clients "every single time", a burdensome over-reaction if ever there was one. I went up to the speaker afterwards, introduced myself, and told her that I don't even do what she suggested, and it was my case. She just got the "deer in the headlights" look and mumbled "well....."
Few schools have been ordered by the federal government to do the things they do in the name of Title IX, but college bureaucrats afraid of their shadow go overboard, and there's nobody calling their hand. Nobody barks back like some schools are now doing over the school mascot issue.
Perhaps the old expression needs to be revised to:
"Those that can, do. Those that can't administer Title IX"
BBscout: great but sad examples!
I was once at a seminar where a case that I had tried, won, and won again on appeal, was discussed and the speaker, based upon the results in my case, gave a very draconian interpretation of the meaning of the case, advising the 200 lawyers listening to provide certain information to clients "every single time", a burdensome over-reaction if ever there was one. I went up to the speaker afterwards, introduced myself, and told her that I don't even do what she suggested, and it was my case. She just got the "deer in the headlights" look and mumbled "well....."
Few schools have been ordered by the federal government to do the things they do in the name of Title IX, but college bureaucrats afraid of their shadow go overboard, and there's nobody calling their hand. Nobody barks back like some schools are now doing over the school mascot issue.
Perhaps the old expression needs to be revised to:
"Those that can, do. Those that can't administer Title IX"
BBscout: great but sad examples!
Two things always seem to happen with Title IX discussions here --- they get emotional and they're filled with blanket statement posts.
"I know a number of programs where baseball/wrestling/gymnastics was eliminated because of Title IX."
"Girls who can't walk and chew gum at the same time are getting full rowing/dancing/handball scholarships because of Title IX."
Well, I know of a guy who tried to dry his cat off in the microwave.
For those who are concerned that balance in other areas of campus life isn't subject to the same compliance as athletics....well, let your minds be eased. Title IX isn't solely concerned with athletics. It was signed into law in the 70's because there were colleges at the time who weren't admitting female students at all, or not admitting women into certain programs. (Women are still under-represented in many advanced education programs.) There are ten areas addressed by Title IX, only one of which is athletics. And if any given university doesn't want Federal Funds, they can ignore Title IX. It isn't The Law Of The Land, but federal funding is based on compliance in all TEN areas.
I take it those of you who are adamantly opposed to Title IX either don't have daughters or have no interest in the ones you do have entering the sciences, technology, or engineering fields, for example....or any other young women for that matter.
As has been said before, Title IX doesn't require any school to cut men's sports in favor of women's. Schools set their own budgets and their own spin. If they want to blame an "outside force", Title IX is an easy scapegoat. Lots of people here believe it.
We often tell young ballplayers here how very many opportunities there are to play baseball in college. And there are also very many opportunities to play football or basketball in college. And not all of those football and basketball programs are the all-supporting cash cows that have been described here in the past. Football and basketball use 72% of the operating budget for men's athletics at the average D1. And 58% of those football and basketball programs operate in a deficit....they don't pay for themselves, let alone supporting everybody else.
There isn't an "equal" requirement in teams or money spent. Although I have no faith that any legislation is required to make sense, I do have faith in people's neverending abilities to misinterpret that legislation.
A school is in compliance with Title IX A school can meet this requirement if it can demonstrate any one of the following:
1. That the percentages of male and female athletes are substantially proportionate to the percentages of male and female students enrolled; OR
2. That it has a history and continuing practice of expanding athletic opportunities for the underrepresented ***; OR
3. That its athletics program fully and effectively accommodates the interests and abilities of the underrepresented ***.
So that jive we got at my son's hs that the baseball field couldn't have lights because the softball field was too close to a subdivision that objected to lights and therefore would represent a Title IX violation was either just that....jive, or some fool misinterpreting.
"I know a number of programs where baseball/wrestling/gymnastics was eliminated because of Title IX."
"Girls who can't walk and chew gum at the same time are getting full rowing/dancing/handball scholarships because of Title IX."
Well, I know of a guy who tried to dry his cat off in the microwave.
For those who are concerned that balance in other areas of campus life isn't subject to the same compliance as athletics....well, let your minds be eased. Title IX isn't solely concerned with athletics. It was signed into law in the 70's because there were colleges at the time who weren't admitting female students at all, or not admitting women into certain programs. (Women are still under-represented in many advanced education programs.) There are ten areas addressed by Title IX, only one of which is athletics. And if any given university doesn't want Federal Funds, they can ignore Title IX. It isn't The Law Of The Land, but federal funding is based on compliance in all TEN areas.
I take it those of you who are adamantly opposed to Title IX either don't have daughters or have no interest in the ones you do have entering the sciences, technology, or engineering fields, for example....or any other young women for that matter.
As has been said before, Title IX doesn't require any school to cut men's sports in favor of women's. Schools set their own budgets and their own spin. If they want to blame an "outside force", Title IX is an easy scapegoat. Lots of people here believe it.
We often tell young ballplayers here how very many opportunities there are to play baseball in college. And there are also very many opportunities to play football or basketball in college. And not all of those football and basketball programs are the all-supporting cash cows that have been described here in the past. Football and basketball use 72% of the operating budget for men's athletics at the average D1. And 58% of those football and basketball programs operate in a deficit....they don't pay for themselves, let alone supporting everybody else.
There isn't an "equal" requirement in teams or money spent. Although I have no faith that any legislation is required to make sense, I do have faith in people's neverending abilities to misinterpret that legislation.
A school is in compliance with Title IX A school can meet this requirement if it can demonstrate any one of the following:
1. That the percentages of male and female athletes are substantially proportionate to the percentages of male and female students enrolled; OR
2. That it has a history and continuing practice of expanding athletic opportunities for the underrepresented ***; OR
3. That its athletics program fully and effectively accommodates the interests and abilities of the underrepresented ***.
So that jive we got at my son's hs that the baseball field couldn't have lights because the softball field was too close to a subdivision that objected to lights and therefore would represent a Title IX violation was either just that....jive, or some fool misinterpreting.
Orlando:
I could not read all of that but I do know the following:
1. Proportionality is horrible.
2. There are no all-male colleges left in the U.S.
3. A number of all-female institutions still thrive.
4. Female college students far outnumber male college students but there are no dedicated programs to increase the number of male college students or federal legislation that would require a more balanced situation.
5. Title IX continues to destroy opportunities -- tragically and uneccesarily -- for many, many deserving and needy students.
I could not read all of that but I do know the following:
1. Proportionality is horrible.
2. There are no all-male colleges left in the U.S.
3. A number of all-female institutions still thrive.
4. Female college students far outnumber male college students but there are no dedicated programs to increase the number of male college students or federal legislation that would require a more balanced situation.
5. Title IX continues to destroy opportunities -- tragically and uneccesarily -- for many, many deserving and needy students.
"Proportionality is horrible" is an opinion. Proportionality may also be the best answer to discrimination that has been devised so far. (Please note that 'best' is not the same as 'good' or 'perfect', but the alternative would be.....?) As is pointed out to us every year during the CWS, the overwhelming majority of college athletes will be making their living in something other than sports when they graduate. For the most part, college sport is an activity like the Greek system or special-interest clubs and societies. The college experience of either *** is enhanced by participation; one does not have a greater right to participation than the other by virtue of the popularity of the sport chosen.
I am unaware of any single-*** colleges, but there certainly may be. However, under Title IX, they would not be receiving federal funds. Privately funded, I suppose there could be a college only admitting red-headed, left-handed females of Ukranian heritage.
Title IX doesn't benefit females only; by the wording it could also be used to expand the opportunites for males should a school have discriminated against men in the past.
The pie is finite. If offering scholarships or simply participation to female athletes has denied a male athlete a place, how is that more tragic than the previous time when female athletes were denied their place?
I am unaware of any single-*** colleges, but there certainly may be. However, under Title IX, they would not be receiving federal funds. Privately funded, I suppose there could be a college only admitting red-headed, left-handed females of Ukranian heritage.
Title IX doesn't benefit females only; by the wording it could also be used to expand the opportunites for males should a school have discriminated against men in the past.
The pie is finite. If offering scholarships or simply participation to female athletes has denied a male athlete a place, how is that more tragic than the previous time when female athletes were denied their place?
So Orlando, a past wrong justifies a current wrong? It's a concept I do not get and one that unfortunately is destroying college athletics for males.
luvbb
There are many very talented, hard working, dedicated female athletes. I agree 100%.
I will leave it at that. No use trying to continue this topic.
To each their own beliefs. I have to agree to disagree.
There are many very talented, hard working, dedicated female athletes. I agree 100%.
I will leave it at that. No use trying to continue this topic.
To each their own beliefs. I have to agree to disagree.
je,
there you go getting emotional again.
1. no fact; pure judgement
2. ever hear of Hampden-Sydney?
3. thank goodness; same for males
4. equal access, hence no legislation required
5. see Orlando above, i.e. it's a scapegoat
You may think you know, but you have no idea....
there you go getting emotional again.
1. no fact; pure judgement
2. ever hear of Hampden-Sydney?
3. thank goodness; same for males
4. equal access, hence no legislation required
5. see Orlando above, i.e. it's a scapegoat
You may think you know, but you have no idea....
Jemaz, "Wrong" is defined based on the athlete about which any given person is concerned.
And that's why I said the pie is finite --- there isn't a place for every student wanting to be a college athlete. How should the choices as to which sport survives at a college be made then?
With respect, I don't think men's college athletics are in any danger of being "destroyed". Yes, some men's sports are being eliminated at some colleges, but that doesn't translate into the wholesale destruction of men's athletics.
And that's why I said the pie is finite --- there isn't a place for every student wanting to be a college athlete. How should the choices as to which sport survives at a college be made then?
With respect, I don't think men's college athletics are in any danger of being "destroyed". Yes, some men's sports are being eliminated at some colleges, but that doesn't translate into the wholesale destruction of men's athletics.
Why heck, let's just eliminate all the potential for discrimination by opening up all sports to either gender and simply award athletic scholarships to the best athletes regardless of gender.
caldad 
What did the guy do with the hot *****?
To sportsmom, orlando, etc...
I'll never convince you, so I will not try. It's a shame nowadays, however, in far too many cases to be a son.
That said, here is what I truly advocate -- because what is important is the opportunity rather than the scholarship and (like social security) too many people without the need get scholarships based only on ability.
I would eliminate athletic scholarships at all schools in every case. I would give out zero for football or anything else.
What I would do, instead, is award scholarships to students based solely on need. Likewise, my admission standards would take into account special abilities.
The sanctity of football would thus been assured (since most of the great football players are among the most needy students)and each school could then have as many sports as desired and Title IX would be a totally meaningless issue.
The size of the pie would not longer matter and each sport -- male or female -- would thrive or whither on its own merits and the love of the game among those participating.
And Va. sportsmom, thanks for pointing out H-S. I had forgotton about that one, although my brother-in-law is a graduate. But, as you undoubtedly know, it is the last one.
As for equal access to college and the numbers of males and females actually enrolled, that is not the societel issue; the issue is what is the underlying reason for the ongoing demise and neglect of male students in our secondary schools?
Perhaps we need Title X to resolve this shortcoming.
I'll never convince you, so I will not try. It's a shame nowadays, however, in far too many cases to be a son.
That said, here is what I truly advocate -- because what is important is the opportunity rather than the scholarship and (like social security) too many people without the need get scholarships based only on ability.
I would eliminate athletic scholarships at all schools in every case. I would give out zero for football or anything else.
What I would do, instead, is award scholarships to students based solely on need. Likewise, my admission standards would take into account special abilities.
The sanctity of football would thus been assured (since most of the great football players are among the most needy students)and each school could then have as many sports as desired and Title IX would be a totally meaningless issue.
The size of the pie would not longer matter and each sport -- male or female -- would thrive or whither on its own merits and the love of the game among those participating.
And Va. sportsmom, thanks for pointing out H-S. I had forgotton about that one, although my brother-in-law is a graduate. But, as you undoubtedly know, it is the last one.
As for equal access to college and the numbers of males and females actually enrolled, that is not the societel issue; the issue is what is the underlying reason for the ongoing demise and neglect of male students in our secondary schools?
Perhaps we need Title X to resolve this shortcoming.
Yes, Orlando, pie is fine.
Anyway, does anyone know who is baking the pies?
And, we need a new microwave.
Anyway, does anyone know who is baking the pies?
And, we need a new microwave.
"I would eliminate athletic scholarships at all schools in every case. I would give out zero for football or anything else.
What I would do, instead, is award scholarships to students based solely on need. Likewise, my admission standards would take into account special abilities."
Jemaz, it already exists and is called Division III. Several articles written in Tx. in the wake of the Baylor basketball tragedies used DIII athletics as the standard of what should be happening.
What I would do, instead, is award scholarships to students based solely on need. Likewise, my admission standards would take into account special abilities."
Jemaz, it already exists and is called Division III. Several articles written in Tx. in the wake of the Baylor basketball tragedies used DIII athletics as the standard of what should be happening.
quote: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.
A classic here, that I hope wasn't missed by anyone.
Maybe the new Ms. Pooh Bah would consider elevating to Bubba's section?
With full credit to John Petrulis a/k/a
BeenthereIL..............
And a big TOUCHE to FormerObserver, too! 
I have been reading (and observing) this thread with great interest, and have come to just one conclusion: I both agree and disagree with just about every post here, with the glaring exception of Beenthere's---An A+ classic!!
I have been reading (and observing) this thread with great interest, and have come to just one conclusion: I both agree and disagree with just about every post here, with the glaring exception of Beenthere's---An A+ classic!!
PAMOM,
And for those who've been here for years and longer than me they can appreciate just how true your statement is:
I have been reading (and observing) this thread with great interest, and have come to just one conclusion: I both agree and disagree with just about every post here, with the glaring exception of Beenthere's---An A+ classic!!
Beenthere was about as intense as anyone could have been on this site. His revelation indeed Ephiphany is all the more amazing if you've "beenhere" a while.
And for those who've been here for years and longer than me they can appreciate just how true your statement is:
I have been reading (and observing) this thread with great interest, and have come to just one conclusion: I both agree and disagree with just about every post here, with the glaring exception of Beenthere's---An A+ classic!!
Beenthere was about as intense as anyone could have been on this site. His revelation indeed Ephiphany is all the more amazing if you've "beenhere" a while.
I've stayed out of this one for all this time, especially once Title IX took over the thread, to wait for the right time to jump in with a story.
I had to do a story about a D-I school's athletic budget and, because I wanted hard numbers, had to go to the university president to get them. Inevitably, Title IX came up.
This president, who was not a big sports person, was very quick to point out the non-sports impacts of the law. But when it came to the sports, the whole discussion was not about head-count sports, but money proprotionality.
This particular school's football program broke even and the men's basketball team made money. The women's team was in the red, but generating revenue. One other sport at the school also generated significant revenue (not baseball).
But the money the president talked about wasn't that. It was alumni giving. The women's sports at this school weren't generating a tenth of the alumni funds the men's teams were. And two sports the school had to kill were STILL bringing in more athlete-generated money than nearly all of the women's sports they had, though that giving was cut drastically. But the president had to kill the sports based on the recommendations of the school's legal team, based on what they thought would be the interpretation of the courts and the expense of potential litigation.
To add to that long-ago conversation, at my son's school right now (and it wasn't the school about which I did the story), only one team has a booster club. It's not football and it's not a women's sport. It's baseball.
I had to do a story about a D-I school's athletic budget and, because I wanted hard numbers, had to go to the university president to get them. Inevitably, Title IX came up.
This president, who was not a big sports person, was very quick to point out the non-sports impacts of the law. But when it came to the sports, the whole discussion was not about head-count sports, but money proprotionality.
This particular school's football program broke even and the men's basketball team made money. The women's team was in the red, but generating revenue. One other sport at the school also generated significant revenue (not baseball).
But the money the president talked about wasn't that. It was alumni giving. The women's sports at this school weren't generating a tenth of the alumni funds the men's teams were. And two sports the school had to kill were STILL bringing in more athlete-generated money than nearly all of the women's sports they had, though that giving was cut drastically. But the president had to kill the sports based on the recommendations of the school's legal team, based on what they thought would be the interpretation of the courts and the expense of potential litigation.
To add to that long-ago conversation, at my son's school right now (and it wasn't the school about which I did the story), only one team has a booster club. It's not football and it's not a women's sport. It's baseball.
VA,
Does it surprise you that the men's sports that have existed for many generations would produce more alumni than the recent women's sports? More alumni=more dollars. Here's something further to ponder as a fellow Virginian... Just one generation ago, when I was looking toward my college education, UVA (just an example - not that you were referring to them) was out of the question for me. Even though it's a public institution, they barred women from anything but nursing school (not my major). It seems unlikely to me that schools like that would get any money, for athletics or otherwise, from women who couldn't even apply there. And we're talking PUBLIC institutions. Simple math.
Does it surprise you that the men's sports that have existed for many generations would produce more alumni than the recent women's sports? More alumni=more dollars. Here's something further to ponder as a fellow Virginian... Just one generation ago, when I was looking toward my college education, UVA (just an example - not that you were referring to them) was out of the question for me. Even though it's a public institution, they barred women from anything but nursing school (not my major). It seems unlikely to me that schools like that would get any money, for athletics or otherwise, from women who couldn't even apply there. And we're talking PUBLIC institutions. Simple math.
PAMom,
Good post. Beenthere's response is a classic and should go down in HSBBW history as one of the best.
I too have been watching this thread, interesting.
VA,
I liked your post. My understanding is that, no matter how large and how successful their individual programs are, they cannot exist without alumni giving. The way I see it, this is the key for retaining programs at any private or public university, it's time to stop putting blame on Title IX.
Our HS booster club raised money to fund a new batting cage, which we fenced in and locked. We had to remove the lock, due to Title IX, the girls softball was entitled to use the facilities. We got nothing in return for the use of "our" cages. The baseball parents were up in arms, I couldn't of care less. If we had made an improvemnt for everyone, I was ok with that, being the fundraising chairperson. Besides, our girls softball team has done better overall than our baseball team has ever done, more power to 'em
Good post. Beenthere's response is a classic and should go down in HSBBW history as one of the best.
I too have been watching this thread, interesting.
VA,
I liked your post. My understanding is that, no matter how large and how successful their individual programs are, they cannot exist without alumni giving. The way I see it, this is the key for retaining programs at any private or public university, it's time to stop putting blame on Title IX.
Our HS booster club raised money to fund a new batting cage, which we fenced in and locked. We had to remove the lock, due to Title IX, the girls softball was entitled to use the facilities. We got nothing in return for the use of "our" cages. The baseball parents were up in arms, I couldn't of care less. If we had made an improvemnt for everyone, I was ok with that, being the fundraising chairperson. Besides, our girls softball team has done better overall than our baseball team has ever done, more power to 'em
quote:That said, here is what I truly advocate -- because what is important is the opportunity rather than the scholarship and (like social security) too many people without the need get scholarships based only on ability.
I would eliminate athletic scholarships at all schools in every case. I would give out zero for football or anything else.
What I would do, instead, is award scholarships to students based solely on need. Likewise, my admission standards would take into account special abilities.
Jim, I have a similar idea that I've been advocating for a while now. Rather than eliminating all athletic scholarships, I would do away with the concept of the Head Count sport and the guaranteed full ride.
IMO, the combination of full ride scholarships and 85 scholarship athletes allows football coaches the luxury of recruiting some questionable characters and academic risks (although the new reforms do address this somewhat). I truly feel that athletes who are on partial athletic awards and have a portion of their attendance funded by academic, merit or need based sources have more "ownership" in their experience and tend to be there for the proper reason....the education.
Regardless of your views on Title IX...one thing most should agree on is that College baseball suffers from serious underfunding under the current system.
Ron:
Very well stated. I like your thinking.
TPM
While there is merit in what you say, I will point out that it is impossible to contribute to a program that does not exist. Many of the programs that have been eliminated at colleges as a result of Title IX had enough private financial support to continue to thrive. Because of Title IX officials at those schools would not accept that support, and thus the worst evil of Title IX was exposed.
What I try to do is not even think about it because all it does is make me very sad.
Very well stated. I like your thinking.
TPM
While there is merit in what you say, I will point out that it is impossible to contribute to a program that does not exist. Many of the programs that have been eliminated at colleges as a result of Title IX had enough private financial support to continue to thrive. Because of Title IX officials at those schools would not accept that support, and thus the worst evil of Title IX was exposed.
What I try to do is not even think about it because all it does is make me very sad.
Socialism, regardless of its moral justifications - and regardless of its means of implementation - always fails.
Despite all the mumbo jumbo - the fact is that Title IX has inflicted severe damage on thousands of deserving young men.
In many cases - it is actually used as a weapon by those who believe inflicting injustice to correct past injustice is morally relative.
I pity all of them - and feel sorry for the young men that have been smashed by this disgraceful legislation.
We have all - in some way - allowed this disgrace to happen - and now we reap what we have sown.
Remember - No whining allowed.
As VA_sportsmom so accurately put it - consider it part of the "risk equation".
I love that that perspective.
Its an "in your face - deal with it" approach - that is honest in its presentation and so perfectly depicts Title IX"
Despite all the mumbo jumbo - the fact is that Title IX has inflicted severe damage on thousands of deserving young men.
In many cases - it is actually used as a weapon by those who believe inflicting injustice to correct past injustice is morally relative.
I pity all of them - and feel sorry for the young men that have been smashed by this disgraceful legislation.
We have all - in some way - allowed this disgrace to happen - and now we reap what we have sown.
Remember - No whining allowed.
As VA_sportsmom so accurately put it - consider it part of the "risk equation".
I love that that perspective.
Its an "in your face - deal with it" approach - that is honest in its presentation and so perfectly depicts Title IX"
..not to get off the subject, but was thinking about a couple of players not on the roster, that might have earned a spot this fall, if they had stayed...........
You like to use the word "socialism" even though the subject here isn't the collective ownership of the means of production, no organized working class is involved, and Title IX hardly represents a welfare state, no matter how far you stretch your own interpretation. Do you use the word only to be inflammatory?
Or is it just 'spin'? What you're calling socialism, I would call "equal opportunity". (Horrors! What an anti-American concept!!) Why are you so dismayed by women students and women student athletes, and so willing to blame the legislation that promoted them for what comes down to a school's own budget decisions?
San Diego State elected to reduce their budget deficit by eliminating the men's volleyball team. The adminstration of the school (not "Title IX") made this decision rather than make any cuts in the school's $5 million football budget. I'll bet you can find a way to make that Title IX and women's sports' fault, though.....and maybe take it all the way to communism.
Check under your bed, its.....boo!
Or is it just 'spin'? What you're calling socialism, I would call "equal opportunity". (Horrors! What an anti-American concept!!) Why are you so dismayed by women students and women student athletes, and so willing to blame the legislation that promoted them for what comes down to a school's own budget decisions?
San Diego State elected to reduce their budget deficit by eliminating the men's volleyball team. The adminstration of the school (not "Title IX") made this decision rather than make any cuts in the school's $5 million football budget. I'll bet you can find a way to make that Title IX and women's sports' fault, though.....and maybe take it all the way to communism.
Check under your bed, its.....boo!
To steal an old broadcaster's line, here's the rest of the story:
The president's point was that any and all sports programs that could show a profit or break even should be exempt from Title IX, because, theoretically, it could operate like any club on campus -- meaning it could be self-sustaining. The Title IX stardards would then be applied to the rest of the programs.
Then, still using any profits from these exempt teams, the schools would decide how many and at what levels it would fund its remaining programs. Revenue generation and alumni support would be part of the formula, as well as interest, fairness, etc.
Clearly, it put pressure on football and basketball programs. But it was a carrot and at the same time a warning, which I thought would be fair.
To answer you, Vasportsmom, without naming this school (it's not in our state, BTW), this president didn't give me all the numbers I wanted. They were just the big ones, which showed the total athletic department was in the red, but by a small enough figure it was deemed acceptable.
The president's point on alumni giving was that with money specifically earmarked for athletics, men's sports vastly outperformed women's sports by virtually every measuring method: Total, percentage of participation; name it. Any other way of giving could not be reasonably measured, since those funds went to the general fund and could not be determined whether it was influenced by academics, athletics or something else.
The president's point was that any and all sports programs that could show a profit or break even should be exempt from Title IX, because, theoretically, it could operate like any club on campus -- meaning it could be self-sustaining. The Title IX stardards would then be applied to the rest of the programs.
Then, still using any profits from these exempt teams, the schools would decide how many and at what levels it would fund its remaining programs. Revenue generation and alumni support would be part of the formula, as well as interest, fairness, etc.
Clearly, it put pressure on football and basketball programs. But it was a carrot and at the same time a warning, which I thought would be fair.
To answer you, Vasportsmom, without naming this school (it's not in our state, BTW), this president didn't give me all the numbers I wanted. They were just the big ones, which showed the total athletic department was in the red, but by a small enough figure it was deemed acceptable.
The president's point on alumni giving was that with money specifically earmarked for athletics, men's sports vastly outperformed women's sports by virtually every measuring method: Total, percentage of participation; name it. Any other way of giving could not be reasonably measured, since those funds went to the general fund and could not be determined whether it was influenced by academics, athletics or something else.
Orlando and ladies,
I've read most of the posts here. In general, I don't think any posts expressed oposition to women having fair and realistic opportunities in athletics.
I think many are opposed to the manner in which Title IX direcly or indirectly achieves the intended results.
I have read that, prior to Title IX, 13 baseball scholarships were permitted.
After football received it's full complement, other male athletic programs were reallocated resulting in a 10% DECREASE in baseball scholarships giving the now famous 11.7.
What I believe is being discussed is the results of a socialistic policy. Something is being taken from one group and allocated to another.
The results occur because athletic budgets were likely static. So, when female programs were added, male programs were reduced accordingly.
It is well accepted that capitalisitc economies produce far larger econcomic output than socialistic models.
Some of us prefer that the economic pie become larger, as well as, athletic programs, thereby providing fair opportunities to males and females.
Our current results are that if you are a football player, you have a full ride, basketball players and male and female, a full ride, for the full roster, and baseball teams get 11.7 or about 1/3 per player on average (other male programs were reallocated also.
The words socialism and communism have negative connotations because, as policies, their long-term results are usually negative. This is so, particularly, in our society because we are (usetowas) a capitalistic economy.
For those that are strong capitalists, they see "equal opportunity" as a potential deterioration of a capitalistic system.
85 football scholarhships, 10-12 (whatever it is) basketball scholarships and 11.7 baseball scholarships is not "equal opportunity".
We see this same logic in employment, education enrollment, and in other areas.
That some must be punished to make it "equal" for others does not make it "equal" for everyone.
So, I would ask, at lunch, do you prefer to split the bill "equally", or do you prefer for everyone to "pay their own way"?
Do you like for the policy to be announced before the meal, during, or after?
Do you order the same meal under all the policies?
Socialism
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods(scholarhips) is owned collectively(NCAA and member schools) OR by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy (scholarships).
Communism
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property (scholarships) and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members(schools).
A system of government in which the state (NCAA) plans and controls the economy (scholarships)and a single, often authoritarian (NCAA) party holds power, "claiming" to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods (scholarships) are "equally" shared by the people.
It does not seem difficult to me to "stretch" the definition of socialism and and communism to the NCAA.
I've read most of the posts here. In general, I don't think any posts expressed oposition to women having fair and realistic opportunities in athletics.
I think many are opposed to the manner in which Title IX direcly or indirectly achieves the intended results.
I have read that, prior to Title IX, 13 baseball scholarships were permitted.
After football received it's full complement, other male athletic programs were reallocated resulting in a 10% DECREASE in baseball scholarships giving the now famous 11.7.
quote:the word "socialism" even though the subject here isn't the collective ownership of the means of production, no organized working class is involved, and Title IX hardly represents a welfare state
What I believe is being discussed is the results of a socialistic policy. Something is being taken from one group and allocated to another.
The results occur because athletic budgets were likely static. So, when female programs were added, male programs were reduced accordingly.
It is well accepted that capitalisitc economies produce far larger econcomic output than socialistic models.
Some of us prefer that the economic pie become larger, as well as, athletic programs, thereby providing fair opportunities to males and females.
Our current results are that if you are a football player, you have a full ride, basketball players and male and female, a full ride, for the full roster, and baseball teams get 11.7 or about 1/3 per player on average (other male programs were reallocated also.
The words socialism and communism have negative connotations because, as policies, their long-term results are usually negative. This is so, particularly, in our society because we are (usetowas) a capitalistic economy.
For those that are strong capitalists, they see "equal opportunity" as a potential deterioration of a capitalistic system.
85 football scholarhships, 10-12 (whatever it is) basketball scholarships and 11.7 baseball scholarships is not "equal opportunity".
We see this same logic in employment, education enrollment, and in other areas.
That some must be punished to make it "equal" for others does not make it "equal" for everyone.
So, I would ask, at lunch, do you prefer to split the bill "equally", or do you prefer for everyone to "pay their own way"?
Do you like for the policy to be announced before the meal, during, or after?
Do you order the same meal under all the policies?
Socialism
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods(scholarhips) is owned collectively(NCAA and member schools) OR by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy (scholarships).
Communism
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property (scholarships) and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members(schools).
A system of government in which the state (NCAA) plans and controls the economy (scholarships)and a single, often authoritarian (NCAA) party holds power, "claiming" to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods (scholarships) are "equally" shared by the people.
It does not seem difficult to me to "stretch" the definition of socialism and and communism to the NCAA.
Wow. I hope you stretched well before that excersize, FO
I'm of the opinion that the logic at work here is more along the lines that Title IX is evil, socialism is evil, therefore Title IX = socialism.
Capitalism is, however, based on individual ownership and a free market and requires, therefore, individual rights. That is exactly what we're talking about here: individual rights.
What we're not talking about is 'from each according to abilities; to each according to needs'. It's all about abilities.
And I must say my flabber is completely gasted by your notion that "strong capitalists...see " 'equal opportunity' as a potential deterioration of a capitalistic system." I take it, then, that the reason you'd buy into "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" is because the word "men" was used....and that you have objections to the Civil Rights Act as a whole, given that Title IX was an ammendment to that act.
Any society that denies an arbitrary group of its citizens rights (in this discussion, women) is destined for upheaval. Perhaps you remember the '60's.
Again, the administrations of the schools make their own decisions about compliance. I would suggest some research on Title IX rather than simply buying into the gossip about it.
Again:
I'm of the opinion that the logic at work here is more along the lines that Title IX is evil, socialism is evil, therefore Title IX = socialism.
Capitalism is, however, based on individual ownership and a free market and requires, therefore, individual rights. That is exactly what we're talking about here: individual rights.
What we're not talking about is 'from each according to abilities; to each according to needs'. It's all about abilities.
And I must say my flabber is completely gasted by your notion that "strong capitalists...see " 'equal opportunity' as a potential deterioration of a capitalistic system." I take it, then, that the reason you'd buy into "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" is because the word "men" was used....and that you have objections to the Civil Rights Act as a whole, given that Title IX was an ammendment to that act.
Any society that denies an arbitrary group of its citizens rights (in this discussion, women) is destined for upheaval. Perhaps you remember the '60's.
Again, the administrations of the schools make their own decisions about compliance. I would suggest some research on Title IX rather than simply buying into the gossip about it.
Again:
Fair
Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial: a fair mediator.
Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions.
Consistent with rules, logic, or ethics
Equal is not always fair and fair is not always equal.
Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial: a fair mediator.
Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions.
Consistent with rules, logic, or ethics
Equal is not always fair and fair is not always equal.
Interesting conversation IMO.
A few things.
I didnt call Title IX evil. Nor did I call socialism evil. I did suggest that both are disgraceful failures.
Because I disagree with Title IX automatically means that I have something against equal opportunities for women athletes? That sounds like something Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy might say. LOL
Fact is - That line of debate may work with politicians - just doesnt work with me.
Slapping Title IX on the back of the Civil Rights Act means nothing to me - nor does it infer anything about my view on the Civils Rights Act.
Title IX implementation - IMO - has all the characteristics of a mindless socialist act. We will never agree on this.
Title IX presents administrators - in many many cases - with the following options. Cut men's sports - or be sued and have an endless ACLU protest in front of your university. Plus a nasty media blitz. Nice choice.
Title IX is a politician's solution - with a dose of politically correct activism sprinkled in IMO. Need I say more.
As for individual rights - maybe for female athletes - but not for male athletes. Not any more anyway. And yes - I agree - upheaval of this mess is long overdue.
Lastly - if we really want to be true to ourselves - then we should implement Title IX 100%. Look at the makeup of the student body - and mimic - identically - that profile for each and every team that university funds.
If the university student body is made up 50-50 men and women - and each group is further comprised of 20% Irish, 20% Italian, 20% African American etc.. - Mimic it exactly. Othewise - Title IX remains nothing more than a politically correct legal weapon.
BTW - I have no "skin in this game" - just thoughts about it.
A few things.
I didnt call Title IX evil. Nor did I call socialism evil. I did suggest that both are disgraceful failures.
Because I disagree with Title IX automatically means that I have something against equal opportunities for women athletes? That sounds like something Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy might say. LOL
Fact is - That line of debate may work with politicians - just doesnt work with me.
Slapping Title IX on the back of the Civil Rights Act means nothing to me - nor does it infer anything about my view on the Civils Rights Act.
Title IX implementation - IMO - has all the characteristics of a mindless socialist act. We will never agree on this.
Title IX presents administrators - in many many cases - with the following options. Cut men's sports - or be sued and have an endless ACLU protest in front of your university. Plus a nasty media blitz. Nice choice.
Title IX is a politician's solution - with a dose of politically correct activism sprinkled in IMO. Need I say more.
As for individual rights - maybe for female athletes - but not for male athletes. Not any more anyway. And yes - I agree - upheaval of this mess is long overdue.
Lastly - if we really want to be true to ourselves - then we should implement Title IX 100%. Look at the makeup of the student body - and mimic - identically - that profile for each and every team that university funds.
If the university student body is made up 50-50 men and women - and each group is further comprised of 20% Irish, 20% Italian, 20% African American etc.. - Mimic it exactly. Othewise - Title IX remains nothing more than a politically correct legal weapon.
BTW - I have no "skin in this game" - just thoughts about it.
One paragraph really does say it all....and what it says is you have no concept of what Title IX compliance requires:
"Lastly - if we really want to be true to ourselves - then we should implement Title IX 100%. Look at the makeup of the student body - and mimic - identically - that profile for each and every team that university funds."
The law and the courts have repeatedly upheld that Title IX is not a quota system. Please re-read (if you ever read) the three-prongs of compliance I posted earlier. Any ONE is acceptable and each offers a broad range of decisions and methods of compliance for the administrations.
Last year, the Government Accounting Office published a report on the progress of Title IX, and it revealed some interesting facts -
Men receive $179 million more in athletic scholarships than women do
72% of the D1 programs have added women's programs without cutting men's
Teams have been cut...and added. For example, 120 new men's s****r teams have been added. And 56 men's gymnastic teams have been cut. Of course, over that same time period, 100 women's gymnastic teams were cut.
Title IX simply requires that school-created funds are allocated in a non-discriminatory manner (ooops, that sounds, I don't know, "fair"?). But the demand for athletic places exceeds the compacity. Think about the number of hs athletes....do you really think they can all continue their sport in college?
The schools make the decisions. If they want to keep their bloated football and basketball budgets (58% of which operate in a deficit), then they bloody well will, and cry "Title IX" when it means there's no money left for wrestling. And you believe them.
It's much like the early days of desegregation, when communities chose to close things like public swimming pools rather than allow them to be desegregated. The wrong is in those administrations' decisions, not the law.
"Lastly - if we really want to be true to ourselves - then we should implement Title IX 100%. Look at the makeup of the student body - and mimic - identically - that profile for each and every team that university funds."
The law and the courts have repeatedly upheld that Title IX is not a quota system. Please re-read (if you ever read) the three-prongs of compliance I posted earlier. Any ONE is acceptable and each offers a broad range of decisions and methods of compliance for the administrations.
Last year, the Government Accounting Office published a report on the progress of Title IX, and it revealed some interesting facts -
Men receive $179 million more in athletic scholarships than women do
72% of the D1 programs have added women's programs without cutting men's
Teams have been cut...and added. For example, 120 new men's s****r teams have been added. And 56 men's gymnastic teams have been cut. Of course, over that same time period, 100 women's gymnastic teams were cut.
Title IX simply requires that school-created funds are allocated in a non-discriminatory manner (ooops, that sounds, I don't know, "fair"?). But the demand for athletic places exceeds the compacity. Think about the number of hs athletes....do you really think they can all continue their sport in college?
The schools make the decisions. If they want to keep their bloated football and basketball budgets (58% of which operate in a deficit), then they bloody well will, and cry "Title IX" when it means there's no money left for wrestling. And you believe them.
It's much like the early days of desegregation, when communities chose to close things like public swimming pools rather than allow them to be desegregated. The wrong is in those administrations' decisions, not the law.
quote:Originally posted by Orlando:
"One paragraph really does say it all....and what it says is you have no concept of what Title IX compliance requires:"
Betcha I do. LOL
"The law and the courts have repeatedly upheld that Title IX is not a quota system. Please re-read (if you ever read) the three-prongs of compliance I posted earlier. Any ONE is acceptable and each offers a broad range of decisions and methods of compliance for the administrations."
Nonsense. Doesnt work that way in real life.
Plus - it is a quota system - and everyone knows it. So much for the courts.
"Last year, the Government Accounting Office published a report on the progress of Title IX, and it revealed some interesting facts -
Men receive $179 million more in athletic scholarships than women do."
So what? - That is just a factoid.
Subtract football and then we can talk.
"72% of the D1 programs have added women's programs without cutting men's."
What about the other 28% - is that cool?
28% - according to the GAO - get hammered to even out the social order. No sale. Sorry.
"Teams have been cut...and added. For example, 120 new men's s****r teams have been added. And 56 men's gymnastic teams have been cut. Of course, over that same time period, 100 women's gymnastic teams were cut."
You may be missing a bunch of hack jobs on men's sports - but Ill let that go.
"Title IX simply requires that school-created funds are allocated in a non-discriminatory manner (ooops, that sounds, I don't know, "fair"?). But the demand for athletic places exceeds the compacity. Think about the number of hs athletes....do you really think they can all continue their sport in college?"
I agree. If they are men and talented at their sport - they may still be s*** out of luck.
"The schools make the decisions. If they want to keep their bloated football and basketball budgets (58% of which operate in a deficit), then they bloody well will, and cry "Title IX" when it means there's no money left for wrestling. And you believe them."
IMO - That is the ultimate beauty of this legal ploy. It's the colleges fault that they are stuck with the responsibility of implementing and enforcing socialist policy. Very smart lawyers IMO.
"It's much like the early days of desegregation, when communities chose to close things like public swimming pools rather than allow them to be desegregated. The wrong is in those administrations' decisions, not the law."
No way that analogy works - not even close.
Like I said before - if Title IX is true to its intent - it will make sure we have absolutely perfect representation - across the board.
s*x, religion, nationality - height - weight etc.....
You cant have a little bit of socialism.
You either buy the whole loaf - or leave it on the shelf.
Picking out the slices you like - and cramming them down the throat of young male athletes - isnt equity. Its revenge. Its destructive - and it is sad. IMO
Well, you're right about one thing. It's sad. But I can't imagine we're referring to the same thing. 
If Title IX is the best this country can do to provide opportunity to female athletes - we should all be ashamed and embarassed.
Inflicting injustice on others to correct past injustice isnt a solution - it is revenge.
And as I said before - knee jerk socialist policies never work. And that - IMO - is precisely what Title IX is.
The first "requirement" of Title IX compliance you listed previously says it all. It isnt just socialism - it is a bad attempt at socialism.
The second and third requirements are weasel legal language - and are absolutely meaningless to me. Let the lawyers, activists and College Boards hack away at that blob of junk language.
P.S. I think we are boring many of the readers - but I am enjoying the to and fro
Inflicting injustice on others to correct past injustice isnt a solution - it is revenge.
And as I said before - knee jerk socialist policies never work. And that - IMO - is precisely what Title IX is.
The first "requirement" of Title IX compliance you listed previously says it all. It isnt just socialism - it is a bad attempt at socialism.
The second and third requirements are weasel legal language - and are absolutely meaningless to me. Let the lawyers, activists and College Boards hack away at that blob of junk language.
P.S. I think we are boring many of the readers - but I am enjoying the to and fro