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.