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.
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