Bee,
I bet your guys had a locker room though, didn't they? Here's another FACT (not perception) about our HS situation. While the girls were faced with changing in various rooms with paper covering the windows, the boys team had 4 different uniforms to choose from. How's THAT fair? The boys program was not a money maker either. Point being, lots of schools have to be FORCED toward making things equitable. Your sarcastic attempt to reduce the argument to "feelings" doesn't change the fact that dollars continue to be skewed toward boys (at least in OUR area) even when their programs produce no money. In a word - entitlement.
look within that to find the flawed analysisquote:I do stats for a living
you've taken your perception of the situation at your hs & projected it globally
oh, and no sarcasm was intended - - it was critisism intended
My daughter played softball for HS - they got new uniforms two years ago and are getting new ones this year again. They have a nice field, facility with running water, restrooms, concession stand, and use of a hitting facility that the "boys" have paid for. The softball team did chip in a small amount last year towards these payments which was greatly appreciated. It cost $150 and working bingo for parents for softball. Typically everyone has made the team because there's not the numbers there to turn away anyone.
My son played for HS team for six years. His senior year (last year) they got new uniforms for the first time since he had played there. They had NO RUNNING WATER in the concession stand until this past year, NO RESTROOMS until this past year. It costs us parent $800 year (which you could try and sell ads to cover) plus working bingo for a kid to play baseball. Mostly the high costs were due to paying for a facility for the last six years to the tune of $20,000 year that they graciously shared with softball and wrestling without any contribution until this last year. Baseball has a large number come out and used to have a freshman team, but had to cut it because the "numbers" weren't balanced in the boy/girl facts.
Again, I'm glad my daughter and friends have had the opportunities they've had. I can tell you firsthand that the boys have had to pay a price for it.
My son played for HS team for six years. His senior year (last year) they got new uniforms for the first time since he had played there. They had NO RUNNING WATER in the concession stand until this past year, NO RESTROOMS until this past year. It costs us parent $800 year (which you could try and sell ads to cover) plus working bingo for a kid to play baseball. Mostly the high costs were due to paying for a facility for the last six years to the tune of $20,000 year that they graciously shared with softball and wrestling without any contribution until this last year. Baseball has a large number come out and used to have a freshman team, but had to cut it because the "numbers" weren't balanced in the boy/girl facts.
Again, I'm glad my daughter and friends have had the opportunities they've had. I can tell you firsthand that the boys have had to pay a price for it.
lafmom
you said your son played for the HS team for 6 years. Is this a typo?
you said your son played for the HS team for 6 years. Is this a typo?
Tx - No, but he was only on varsity 5 years and only a starter for three. (8th and 9th he started JV and "sat" varsity) His 7th grade year they had a freshman team which gave him a wonderful opportunity to "show" his stuff. Freshman team was cut from program 2 years later. We're a school of about 2200 kids so having a freshman team was a great way to allow kids to "enter" the HS world of baseball.
txdad, ya gotta remember it's Kentucky 
lafmom, if vamom would project YOUR stats globally, title IX could be eliminated
lafmom, if vamom would project YOUR stats globally, title IX could be eliminated
Bee - Since this thread has already gone completely off topic. My son's HS career has actually been a fairly rare one here. Most younger kids don't get the opportunities he had (not in my area anyway). We had one kid who started as a 9th grader and he was a first round draft pick this year. We had another kid several years ago who started as an 8th grader and ended up a 1st round draft pick and now plays for the Reds. Most varsity starters are seniors with a few juniors thrown in there. It's a pretty big deal to be a soph starter, and just to be on roster if you're younger. Thus, the freshman team gives kids an opportunity to play and develope.
Va Sportsmom:
I have often wondered how reasonable people can decimate programs for boys and young men in the name of making things better for women (which most would agree was long needed and very good). After reading your latest post, I can say that it is not reasonable people at all who have done this, but only those filled with bitterness and great disdain for others.
Life will go on, but what has happened can only be described as incredibly sad. Perhaps someday things will improve in an all-around way and justice will be restored.
I will close in saying that your lack of understanding of successful football programs and the resources they provide for all other programs -- male and female -- is enlightening as much as it is remarkable and, as a result, none of your views are surprising. Unfortunate, to be sure, but not surprising.
I have often wondered how reasonable people can decimate programs for boys and young men in the name of making things better for women (which most would agree was long needed and very good). After reading your latest post, I can say that it is not reasonable people at all who have done this, but only those filled with bitterness and great disdain for others.
Life will go on, but what has happened can only be described as incredibly sad. Perhaps someday things will improve in an all-around way and justice will be restored.
I will close in saying that your lack of understanding of successful football programs and the resources they provide for all other programs -- male and female -- is enlightening as much as it is remarkable and, as a result, none of your views are surprising. Unfortunate, to be sure, but not surprising.
je,
You have generalized far more about me than I have about athletics. I have kids in both HS and college athletics. In addition, I was a college athlete and my brother was in large college football pgm. And the most enlightening, I served on a board where athletic funds were allocated. I never said IX was the answer. I admit it probably overcorrected in some cases, but I can tell you from personal experience that something needed to be forced. And yes, some football programs produce money for others - the big issue is who controls the money, and historically, girls saw little of it compared to non-football boys. I also note with interest that some other posters, when out of ammo, tend to resort to personal attacks (shoot blanks, that is). They besmirch the moniker "Old Timer" with obvious parallels. Peace.
You have generalized far more about me than I have about athletics. I have kids in both HS and college athletics. In addition, I was a college athlete and my brother was in large college football pgm. And the most enlightening, I served on a board where athletic funds were allocated. I never said IX was the answer. I admit it probably overcorrected in some cases, but I can tell you from personal experience that something needed to be forced. And yes, some football programs produce money for others - the big issue is who controls the money, and historically, girls saw little of it compared to non-football boys. I also note with interest that some other posters, when out of ammo, tend to resort to personal attacks (shoot blanks, that is). They besmirch the moniker "Old Timer" with obvious parallels. Peace.
I agree with VA_Sportsmom about this one ... disagreement on this issue is based on perception and experience. No need for personal attacks.
As an aside: The NCAA talks about creating these opportunities for women in college sports. What is really happening?
Well, as the number of participants in Women's sports has increase dramatically, so has the enrollment. The same is true with men, but not to as large a degree. Women in college have jumped from 5.8 million to 8 million in the past 20 years. Men have increased from 5.1 million to 6 million, a much more gradual change.
What has been done in women's sports programs historically is a disgrace. What is currently being done to the men's programs is also a disgrace. As always, when you have competition for limited resources, everyone wants a piece of the pie and can find reasons to justify it. The rationale of the justification will depend entirely on your personal experience.
The real problem with Title IX and college sports is that there just isn't a good answer and Title IX is a bandaid with a "rob Peter to pay Paul" end effect.
It's sure not the fault of the women's programs or the women athletes.
1982, Women participation rate: 1.2% of enrollment
1982, Men participation rate: 3.8% of enrollment
2001: Women participation rate: 1.9% of enrollment
2001: Men's participation rate: 3.5% of enrollment.
Those figures are nothing to be proud of for either "camp". Women's improvement is crawling forward at a rate that is embarressing. Men are going backwards. You have a real improvement of only 0.7% for women ....
No, Title IX isn't working ... but I'm honest enough to tell you that I don't have any answer to the problem.
As an aside: The NCAA talks about creating these opportunities for women in college sports. What is really happening?
Well, as the number of participants in Women's sports has increase dramatically, so has the enrollment. The same is true with men, but not to as large a degree. Women in college have jumped from 5.8 million to 8 million in the past 20 years. Men have increased from 5.1 million to 6 million, a much more gradual change.
What has been done in women's sports programs historically is a disgrace. What is currently being done to the men's programs is also a disgrace. As always, when you have competition for limited resources, everyone wants a piece of the pie and can find reasons to justify it. The rationale of the justification will depend entirely on your personal experience.
The real problem with Title IX and college sports is that there just isn't a good answer and Title IX is a bandaid with a "rob Peter to pay Paul" end effect.
It's sure not the fault of the women's programs or the women athletes.
1982, Women participation rate: 1.2% of enrollment
1982, Men participation rate: 3.8% of enrollment
2001: Women participation rate: 1.9% of enrollment
2001: Men's participation rate: 3.5% of enrollment.
Those figures are nothing to be proud of for either "camp". Women's improvement is crawling forward at a rate that is embarressing. Men are going backwards. You have a real improvement of only 0.7% for women ....
No, Title IX isn't working ... but I'm honest enough to tell you that I don't have any answer to the problem.
hhh,
you got the numbers out there, but I'm not following your conclusions
"mens programs going backwards?"
well - - with their funding withdrawn & many programs cancelled, I can follow that one
"Women's improvement is crawling" - - how did you conclude that?
given the increased opportunities and funding for them in the past 25 yrs the agrument sure could be made that a "max-out saturation point" was reached, and then pushed beyond by inventing more sports and getting regular girl students to fill those rosters - -
or is there some TARGET % you're shooting for??
should the % be the same??
you got the numbers out there, but I'm not following your conclusions
"mens programs going backwards?"
well - - with their funding withdrawn & many programs cancelled, I can follow that one
"Women's improvement is crawling" - - how did you conclude that?
given the increased opportunities and funding for them in the past 25 yrs the agrument sure could be made that a "max-out saturation point" was reached, and then pushed beyond by inventing more sports and getting regular girl students to fill those rosters - -
or is there some TARGET % you're shooting for??
should the % be the same??
VAMom
Did your cheerleaders have uniforms? How about the band members? Or the dance squad? If you want spending equity don't just point out sports - those other programs cost money too. There will be no equity until they examine all activies rather than focus only on sports.
I have never seen a situation where 150 girls show up at walk-on try outs for a college solftball team just hoping to get a chance to play. Have you? I have seen that in mens baseball.
Fact: In most colleges playing mens sports is very competitive. Many will try out, only a few will get to play.
Fact: In most colleges 100% of the women who WANT to play sports will get to, and most will get a scholarship. None will have to give up the dream.
Did your cheerleaders have uniforms? How about the band members? Or the dance squad? If you want spending equity don't just point out sports - those other programs cost money too. There will be no equity until they examine all activies rather than focus only on sports.
I have never seen a situation where 150 girls show up at walk-on try outs for a college solftball team just hoping to get a chance to play. Have you? I have seen that in mens baseball.
Fact: In most colleges playing mens sports is very competitive. Many will try out, only a few will get to play.
Fact: In most colleges 100% of the women who WANT to play sports will get to, and most will get a scholarship. None will have to give up the dream.
Just a note...
The womens programs under TITLE IX are so sparsely filled by incoming freshmen at UC California schools that scholarships are being offered to girls who have never played a sport in HS just to fill the numbers needed to continue to justify the programs.
Recently spoke to one student who told us how students are using the ruse of going out for a team to get into the University of California - Berkeley and once admitted then drop off the team, in order to get accepted for admission.
As I understand it this subterfuge is an accepted practice and encouraged to avoid the numbers game being employed to assure the correct percentages for diversity.
Anytime you set up a program that enhances the chances of one group over another you will find that the group that suffers from the restrictions will find a way to nullify it.
The womens programs under TITLE IX are so sparsely filled by incoming freshmen at UC California schools that scholarships are being offered to girls who have never played a sport in HS just to fill the numbers needed to continue to justify the programs.
Recently spoke to one student who told us how students are using the ruse of going out for a team to get into the University of California - Berkeley and once admitted then drop off the team, in order to get accepted for admission.
As I understand it this subterfuge is an accepted practice and encouraged to avoid the numbers game being employed to assure the correct percentages for diversity.
Anytime you set up a program that enhances the chances of one group over another you will find that the group that suffers from the restrictions will find a way to nullify it.
Title IX is a federal law.
Federal laws don't go away.
They get worse.
Don't matter how many times you cut the pie, everyone's piece is always smaller....................
Football and the ladies got a big piece and baseball got a sliver.............
About the same way at grandma's house.
Federal laws don't go away.
They get worse.
Don't matter how many times you cut the pie, everyone's piece is always smaller....................
Football and the ladies got a big piece and baseball got a sliver.............
About the same way at grandma's house.
Bee ...
Good question ... According to the Mandate within the legislation, the participation rates should reflect the percentages of women on campus. What has been happening over the past 20+ years is that the number of men on campus has been increasing and the number of male student-athletes has been decreasing. That's a loss.
NOW, I agree with AParent ... we've got a problem with that too, but this isn't a black (you're wrong) and white (I'm right) situation. Instead it's a muddled sea of goat poop. Gender equity, if adopted as a goal in sports should extend to all segments of the college campus including the music and arts departments. If you don't have it there, then why force it in the sports world.
Example: UT-Chat has adopted a policy that team sizes for women's sports will be unlimited in order to encourage participation ... so now, they may have a 150 member Softball (or S****r) team. Obviously, the don't get any more coaches .. the NCAA specifies how many can "dress" for an away game ... it's just playing numbers. Most of those 150 have no meaningful chance of actually playing the sport. Meanwhile, they have "capped" the sizes of the men's teams, limiting participation in order to get nearer to "gender equity". Bad move. It's meaningless.
On the other side: I don't want to see the women's teams have to use cast off or non-existant facilities or having to live on the dregs of what's left over in the athletic budget after taking care of the "guys" ....
All of this could be solved by reasonable people taking reasonable actions. They could look at their campus and make the adjustments. All would be fine, but as soon as you introduce legislation, then all "reasonable people" run for the exits and the only people left are those who are biased one way or another.
There is an answer: Get more money into the colleges. That way, they can do both and meet the needs of both populations. Now, I'll leave it to you bright people to figure out how to run the printing presses ......
Good question ... According to the Mandate within the legislation, the participation rates should reflect the percentages of women on campus. What has been happening over the past 20+ years is that the number of men on campus has been increasing and the number of male student-athletes has been decreasing. That's a loss.
NOW, I agree with AParent ... we've got a problem with that too, but this isn't a black (you're wrong) and white (I'm right) situation. Instead it's a muddled sea of goat poop. Gender equity, if adopted as a goal in sports should extend to all segments of the college campus including the music and arts departments. If you don't have it there, then why force it in the sports world.
Example: UT-Chat has adopted a policy that team sizes for women's sports will be unlimited in order to encourage participation ... so now, they may have a 150 member Softball (or S****r) team. Obviously, the don't get any more coaches .. the NCAA specifies how many can "dress" for an away game ... it's just playing numbers. Most of those 150 have no meaningful chance of actually playing the sport. Meanwhile, they have "capped" the sizes of the men's teams, limiting participation in order to get nearer to "gender equity". Bad move. It's meaningless.
On the other side: I don't want to see the women's teams have to use cast off or non-existant facilities or having to live on the dregs of what's left over in the athletic budget after taking care of the "guys" ....
All of this could be solved by reasonable people taking reasonable actions. They could look at their campus and make the adjustments. All would be fine, but as soon as you introduce legislation, then all "reasonable people" run for the exits and the only people left are those who are biased one way or another.
There is an answer: Get more money into the colleges. That way, they can do both and meet the needs of both populations. Now, I'll leave it to you bright people to figure out how to run the printing presses ......
so - some guys in washington set a target participation % - - I don't see where that % relates in any way to the number of lady athletes that actually WISH TO PARTICIPATEquote:According to the Mandate within the legislation, the participation rates should reflect the percentages of women on campus
you just described most mid-major and below NCAA & NAIAquote:I don't want to see thewomen'steams have to use cast off or non-existant facilities or having to live on the dregs of what's left over in the athletic budget
- MENS COLLEGE BASEBALL programs
can you provide an example of the use of a "non-existant faciltiy"??
or would those be the faciities of title IX dis-manteled mens programs?? (non-existent)
BeenthereIL.....your post was outstanding, honest, and a reminder that we are all lifetime learners!!
Bee: I agree that in MANY schools the Men's baseball team has terrible facilities.
I would bet that if you went to those same schools, half of them had new softball fields (because of Title IX) and at the other half, the softball fields double as the practice field for the football team and look like the lower 40 acres on grandpa's farm.
No ... Title IX isn't right. It should never have been passed.
For every story that you can relate about excesses like what exists at UC-Berkley, there is a horror story in women's college athletics concerning terrible facilities and conditions.
You have to look institution-by-institution to rectify things. It can't be blanket legislation. Quotas don't work. Unfortunately, relying on the A.D.'s to correct things didn't work either. This is ENTIRELY a question of who is holding the political power and who is holding the purse strings ... It AIN'T baseball, that's for sure.
................
Go to one of the men's programs that have "capped" participation rates and tell the 35+ players who showed up for open tryouts that the baseball team not only doesn't have any slots, but will have to red-shirt 2 players in order to meet the participation rate guidelines of the University. Then walk to the softball field and tell the 12 players who showed up for open tryouts that there are 2, maybe 3 open slots because the school couldn't find the players it wanted and it has to expand it's roster in order to off-set the numbers in the men's program.
That's the real world.
Take care of all of your athletes. Provide them decent facilities. Don't have the volleyball team travel in a converted grade-school bus while the football team has it's own luxury bus. Also don't try to balance the participation rates. Women are not as interested in participating in sports as men. We all know that.
If you want to rant about Title IX, fine ... but I'm tired of the topic. I'm opposed to it. I do not think it has been beneficial to anyone. I believe that the participation rate for women would have increased regardless of Title IX.
The only positive thing that it has accomplished is to improve the facilities at some schools who take it seriously. That improvement was necessary and long overdue. The negatives are too numerous to enumerate.
On the lighter side: What the heck is an "Emerging Sport" anyway ... is it like the "X" games ??? Are we going to have a Women's skate-boarding D1 National Championship on ESPN, watching them do back flips in the pipe???
I would bet that if you went to those same schools, half of them had new softball fields (because of Title IX) and at the other half, the softball fields double as the practice field for the football team and look like the lower 40 acres on grandpa's farm.
No ... Title IX isn't right. It should never have been passed.
For every story that you can relate about excesses like what exists at UC-Berkley, there is a horror story in women's college athletics concerning terrible facilities and conditions.
You have to look institution-by-institution to rectify things. It can't be blanket legislation. Quotas don't work. Unfortunately, relying on the A.D.'s to correct things didn't work either. This is ENTIRELY a question of who is holding the political power and who is holding the purse strings ... It AIN'T baseball, that's for sure.
................
Go to one of the men's programs that have "capped" participation rates and tell the 35+ players who showed up for open tryouts that the baseball team not only doesn't have any slots, but will have to red-shirt 2 players in order to meet the participation rate guidelines of the University. Then walk to the softball field and tell the 12 players who showed up for open tryouts that there are 2, maybe 3 open slots because the school couldn't find the players it wanted and it has to expand it's roster in order to off-set the numbers in the men's program.
That's the real world.
Take care of all of your athletes. Provide them decent facilities. Don't have the volleyball team travel in a converted grade-school bus while the football team has it's own luxury bus. Also don't try to balance the participation rates. Women are not as interested in participating in sports as men. We all know that.
If you want to rant about Title IX, fine ... but I'm tired of the topic. I'm opposed to it. I do not think it has been beneficial to anyone. I believe that the participation rate for women would have increased regardless of Title IX.
The only positive thing that it has accomplished is to improve the facilities at some schools who take it seriously. That improvement was necessary and long overdue. The negatives are too numerous to enumerate.
On the lighter side: What the heck is an "Emerging Sport" anyway ... is it like the "X" games ??? Are we going to have a Women's skate-boarding D1 National Championship on ESPN, watching them do back flips in the pipe???
AParent,
Not meant to be a post either pro or con Title IX....but this is in reference to your statement:
"Fact: In most colleges 100% of the women who want to play sports will get to, and most will get scholarships. None will have to give up the dream."
I'm not going to get into a statistical analysis of Title IX and its effect on college sports (frankly, all those numbers zone me out....I know....I'm such a girl, math, duh!
)) As the parent of a girl freshman college athlete...I politely disagree with your generalization and over-simplified statement. I guess my question to you would be...to what "dream" are you referring? Going to college for an education, or playing your sport as a collegiate athlete while gaining an education? I'm assuming playing your sport as a collegiate athlete, since you stated your son's program was cut by his school and he transferred to a different school in order to continue playing baseball. My daughter has many former high school team mates who never did find the college to pursue their athletic dream. She also has many current college team mates who are not receiving any scholarship to play their sport in college and pursue their dreams. Your statement makes it sound like just because you are a girl, and just because you "participate" in a sport, and just because you'd like to continue it in college...you will get a scholarship at a college to do so. IMO, in addition to being a false and blanket statement, it negates the very hard work, sweat and tears that alot of women collegiate athletes put into their sports. If one of the fall-outs from Title IX is that sort of thinking and mis-guided rationale....then I will cast the first strike against it, for it obviously has done more harm in discrediting women's athletics, whether rightfully so or not..
I agree that we have some problems here, and we probably do not have the right solution in place to deal with the problem. I don't know what the answer is here....and I don't pretend to, but I just wish we wouldn't use "generalizations" in either defense or attack of Title IX, because they are sometimes hurtful. It is obvious from many of these posts that this topic has pressed on some nerves....perhaps rightfully so. But remember, MANY female college athletes deserve the respect that you wish to be given your sons for the amount of hard work they put in.
If I have mis-interpreted, I apologize. If nothing else I have learned from this thread, I can now add HighHardHeat's "a muddled sea of goat poop" to my vocab!
Not meant to be a post either pro or con Title IX....but this is in reference to your statement:
"Fact: In most colleges 100% of the women who want to play sports will get to, and most will get scholarships. None will have to give up the dream."
I'm not going to get into a statistical analysis of Title IX and its effect on college sports (frankly, all those numbers zone me out....I know....I'm such a girl, math, duh!
)) As the parent of a girl freshman college athlete...I politely disagree with your generalization and over-simplified statement. I guess my question to you would be...to what "dream" are you referring? Going to college for an education, or playing your sport as a collegiate athlete while gaining an education? I'm assuming playing your sport as a collegiate athlete, since you stated your son's program was cut by his school and he transferred to a different school in order to continue playing baseball. My daughter has many former high school team mates who never did find the college to pursue their athletic dream. She also has many current college team mates who are not receiving any scholarship to play their sport in college and pursue their dreams. Your statement makes it sound like just because you are a girl, and just because you "participate" in a sport, and just because you'd like to continue it in college...you will get a scholarship at a college to do so. IMO, in addition to being a false and blanket statement, it negates the very hard work, sweat and tears that alot of women collegiate athletes put into their sports. If one of the fall-outs from Title IX is that sort of thinking and mis-guided rationale....then I will cast the first strike against it, for it obviously has done more harm in discrediting women's athletics, whether rightfully so or not.. I agree that we have some problems here, and we probably do not have the right solution in place to deal with the problem. I don't know what the answer is here....and I don't pretend to, but I just wish we wouldn't use "generalizations" in either defense or attack of Title IX, because they are sometimes hurtful. It is obvious from many of these posts that this topic has pressed on some nerves....perhaps rightfully so. But remember, MANY female college athletes deserve the respect that you wish to be given your sons for the amount of hard work they put in.
If I have mis-interpreted, I apologize. If nothing else I have learned from this thread, I can now add HighHardHeat's "a muddled sea of goat poop" to my vocab!
luvbb,
You've raised some good points. Just because a school has to fill slots in women's sports doesn't mean they need more players in the sports that women have traditionally participated in. Does a softball player who doesn't get a scholarship accept a rowing scholarship to attend that school or look for another school where they can play the sport they want to play? To me this is just one more strike against Title IX.
You've raised some good points. Just because a school has to fill slots in women's sports doesn't mean they need more players in the sports that women have traditionally participated in. Does a softball player who doesn't get a scholarship accept a rowing scholarship to attend that school or look for another school where they can play the sport they want to play? To me this is just one more strike against Title IX.