Title IX: Good, Good, but..., or Bad

[smedindy]

No, it doesn't matter. There needs to be the opportunity. Opportunity breeds participation. More and more girls and women are interested in sports than they were before Title IX. And that will keep growing and growing.

I never ever want to have my daughters denied any opportunity to play sports or dance or become engineers.

[AO]

No, it doesn't matter. There needs to be the opportunity. Opportunity breeds participation. More and more girls and women are interested in sports than they were before Title IX. And that will keep growing and growing.

I never ever want to have my daughters denied any opportunity to play sports or dance or become engineers.

What about your hypothetical sons who wanted to wrestle at university xyz before that program was cut while a rowing team with little interest from girls was maintained in order to comply with title IX? 

The fair thing to do would be to operate each program independently.  Women shouldn't have to be compared to men in the athletic realm.  It's simply not a fair competition athletically.  Women's programs have unique value.  They don't need to measure themselves according to attendance, locker room size, or number of charter flights.  Let each school make their own decisions based upon their much better understanding of the interests of the students at their school.

[smedindy]

Then you get in a perpetual catch-22 situation. No interest because of no opportunity. No opportunity because of no interest. And how do you know there's not any more interest in women's rowing than wrestling at school x? They're both niche sports. If there were opportunities for women's rowing in 1940 instead of just now, who knows how big it could have been.

Wrestling is one of those sports that has unfortunately been caught because of the inept handling of this by colleges and universities (for the most part).

[Jonny Utah]

Let me throw this out there:

Boston University women's basketball program draws little interest from anyone outside the parents and a few alumni.  Now this is a d1 program that probably costs the school about 500k a year lets say.  Boston University also has a partnership with a school system in a poor urban area of Boston called Chelsea.  BU probably spends a few million in Chelsea a year in this program.  Is title 9 helping out those kids in Chelsea that might be able to use that extra 500k that is spent on the basketball teams?  If I'm a teacher in that program, should I care about girls opportunities to play basketball in college?

Now Boston University is a private university, they can do what they want.......but in reality they can't.

Let's look at a strange situation happening in massachusetts with basically the same thing with the genders reversed.  About 20 years ago a boy in MA sued the MIAA (organization that oversees high school sports in MA) over not being able to play on the girls field hockey team.  He won, and ended up playing field hockey.  In recent years, more boys have been playing field hockey and causing kind of an issue because a few of them were all state caliber and were taking spots from girls.  Now in college these boys have no protection from title 9 because there is no Interest in men's field hockey at that level.  So I think we all have to admit that interest doesn't have anything to do with it.  It's a numbers game.

Another interesting article on a similar issue in MA right now:

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/norwood/articles/2012/01/01/miaa_to_discuss_issue_of_boys_breaking_girls_swim_records/

[AO]

Then you get in a perpetual catch-22 situation. No interest because of no opportunity. No opportunity because of no interest.

Wrestling is one of those sports that has unfortunately been caught because of the inept handling of this by colleges and universities.

Interest will always come before a certain number of varsity spots is offered in a region.  We wouldn't have title IX if there wasn't interest before opportunity.  I see title IX as an accelerant to the rise of women's athletics, not a necessary support in todays less sexist world.

The inept handling bit has been debunked previously, but even if you felt they were inept you could at least admit that it makes title IX look bad.  Would you support a reform that would not count sports without a female counterpart such as football and wrestling?  You could also eliminate the 3-prong test and still mandate a number of women's teams be fielded with a certain funding level.

[smedindy]

Utes,

Many college sports teams don't draw any interest. That's not a valid argument. Look at the D-1 attendance at mid-to-low major men's programs. Many draw flies, at best, like BU's MEN'S teams. 553 vs. Delaware. Wow. That's packing them in. The women average 389. I really can't see much of a difference - so maybe BU should cut every sport that doesn't draw anything, right? So goodbye men's hoops too. They're just as much (or even more) of a money sponge.

Shouldn't BU sponsor a robust athletics program? Why isn't that in the best interest of BU as a whole?

And yes, as a teacher you should care that your students have all of the opportunities.

Just because YOU don't have interest in something doesn't mean that others don't. It's not a zero sum game, people.

As for your other posts, that's a Massachusetts thing. It's not reflective of how other states or the NCAA handles situations. And it IS about interest, Johnny. Interest AND opportunity. Because, in the past, there were unlimited scholarships for men's sports and NOTHING for women's. Opportunity breeds interest.


AO,

Tell me Maryland's handling of athletics isn't inept. Tell me that Oklahoma's almost pulling the plug on women's hoops wasn't inept?

[Jonny Utah]

Utes,

Many college sports teams don't draw any interest. That's not a valid argument. Look at the D-1 attendance at mid-to-low major men's programs. Many draw flies, at best, like BU's MEN'S teams. 553 vs. Delaware. Wow. That's packing them in. The women average 389. I really can't see much of a difference - so maybe BU should cut every sport that doesn't draw anything, right? So goodbye men's hoops too. They're just as much (or even more) of a money sponge.

Shouldn't BU sponsor a robust athletics program? Why isn't that in the best interest of BU as a whole?

And yes, as a teacher you should care that your students have all of the opportunities.

Just because YOU don't have interest in something doesn't mean that others don't. It's not a zero sum game, people.

As for your other posts, that's a Massachusetts thing. It's not reflective of how other states or the NCAA handles situations. And it IS about interest, Johnny. Interest AND opportunity. Because, in the past, there were unlimited scholarships for men's sports and NOTHING for women's. Opportunity breeds interest.


AO,

Tell me Maryland's handling of athletics isn't inept. Tell me that Oklahoma's almost pulling the plug on women's hoops wasn't inept?

Well BU has a problem attracting male students as it is, but part of my point is that they aren't able to do what they want with their own money.  And high school boys in MA are able to play sports because the state gives them the opportunity.  What would a high school,in MN say if a boy wanted to play a sport that he didn't have the chance to play?  Too bad, there isn't enough in interest? 

In MA we have had a few high school girls do well on boys hockey teams, especially at goalie over the past 25 years.  Shouldn't we let those girls play on boys teams if they are good enough, even if there are two teams?  Surely they could argue the competition is better and would give them a better opportunity for their future.

I'm going off on a little tangent I know, but I think the lines need to be redrawn a little.

And I think schools like BU want that d1 men's program for the hope that a magic NCAA tourney draw brings some money their way.

[AO]

Smed:  How can you not see a difference between a 1500 average and a 389 average?  Not to mention the BU men getting paid for playing in front of 9000 at texas, 5000 at Boston College and 8000 at Villanova?

I don't know much about maryland or oklahoma athletic directors but I do know many different decisions would be made without title IX.  You can't take from one and give to another without taking from one.

[Jonny Utah]

Utes,

Many college sports teams don't draw any interest. That's not a valid argument. Look at the D-1 attendance at mid-to-low major men's programs. Many draw flies, at best, like BU's MEN'S teams. 553 vs. Delaware. Wow. That's packing them in. The women average 389. I really can't see much of a difference - so maybe BU should cut every sport that doesn't draw anything, right? So goodbye men's hoops too. They're just as much (or even more) of a money sponge.

Shouldn't BU sponsor a robust athletics program? Why isn't that in the best interest of BU as a whole?

And yes, as a teacher you should care that your students have all of the opportunities.

Just because YOU don't have interest in something doesn't mean that others don't. It's not a zero sum game, people.

As for your other posts, that's a Massachusetts thing. It's not reflective of how other states or the NCAA handles situations. And it IS about interest, Johnny. Interest AND opportunity. Because, in the past, there were unlimited scholarships for men's sports and NOTHING for women's. Opportunity breeds interest.


AO,

Tell me Maryland's handling of athletics isn't inept. Tell me that Oklahoma's almost pulling the plug on women's hoops wasn't inept?

What if BU said they were cutting 20 women's scholarships and 5 men's scholarships for sports, but we're going to add 30 women's scholarships for their teaching program, and 10 for men in the teaching program.  They would be in violation of title 9, but would they be taking opportunities from women?  Or just taking away opportunities from women in an area where there is no interest.  What if they can show that there is more interest in that teaching program for women?  Aren't there women and men being left out of scholarship money there?

[smedindy]

Smed:  How can you not see a difference between a 1500 average and a 389 average?  Not to mention the BU men getting paid for playing in front of 9000 at texas, 5000 at Boston College and 8000 at Villanova?

I don't know much about maryland or oklahoma athletic directors but I do know many different decisions would be made without title IX.  You can't take from one and give to another without taking from one.

AO,

The 1500 average includes the Harvard and Northerastern games, which are rivalry. And pay-for-play games are contra indicators of interest. If there was interest, they wouldn't need pay-for-play games. How many people in Boston realized that BU lost to Quinnipiac? I think parents and alums, much like the women.

You don't HAVE to take from one. But you can choose to cut the bloat, which fraidy-cat athletics directors have not done because you need that 13th assistant coach.

Utes,

That makes no sense. Again, it's about opportunity, which creates interest. So in your world, it'd be like it was in the old days, where there was no opportunity, thus no interest, thus no opportunity. So you can answer to my daughters then why they don't have a soccer team, because someone said girls don't want to play sports which is only true because there was no team. My sister LIVED that, dude.

[Gray Fox]

Not exactly Title IX, but.......
  http://oxyathletics.com/sports/mbkb/2011-12/releases/20120102a18rma

[AO]

Smed:  How can you not see a difference between a 1500 average and a 389 average?  Not to mention the BU men getting paid for playing in front of 9000 at texas, 5000 at Boston College and 8000 at Villanova?

I don't know much about maryland or oklahoma athletic directors but I do know many different decisions would be made without title IX.  You can't take from one and give to another without taking from one.

AO,

The 1500 average includes the Harvard and Northerastern games, which are rivalry. And pay-for-play games are contra indicators of interest. If there was interest, they wouldn't need pay-for-play games. How many people in Boston realized that BU lost to Quinnipiac? I think parents and alums, much like the women.

You don't HAVE to take from one. But you can choose to cut the bloat, which fraidy-cat athletics directors have not done because you need that 13th assistant coach.

Utes,

That makes no sense. Again, it's about opportunity, which creates interest. So in your world, it'd be like it was in the old days, where there was no opportunity, thus no interest, thus no opportunity. So you can answer to my daughters then why they don't have a soccer team, because someone said girls don't want to play sports which is only true because there was no team. My sister LIVED that, dude.

The BU women also played Northeastern and Harvard?  With crowds of 364 at home and 556 at Harvard.  How is getting paid to play a contra-indicator compared to the women?  How much would the women have been paid to play the Texas women?  We're comparing men versus women, not BU versus Texas.  This was part of my point in a previous post.  Stop trying to compare the men and women.  The women lose those comparisons.  They're separate and unequal but both still valuable.

Cut the bloat?  What if you cut the bloat and still have to cut wrestling?  Especially at places like BU that don't have the millions in football/men's basketball profit to pay for as much of the women's scholarships.

[Jonny Utah]

Smed:  How can you not see a difference between a 1500 average and a 389 average?  Not to mention the BU men getting paid for playing in front of 9000 at texas, 5000 at Boston College and 8000 at Villanova?

I don't know much about maryland or oklahoma athletic directors but I do know many different decisions would be made without title IX.  You can't take from one and give to another without taking from one.

AO,

The 1500 average includes the Harvard and Northerastern games, which are rivalry. And pay-for-play games are contra indicators of interest. If there was interest, they wouldn't need pay-for-play games. How many people in Boston realized that BU lost to Quinnipiac? I think parents and alums, much like the women.

You don't HAVE to take from one. But you can choose to cut the bloat, which fraidy-cat athletics directors have not done because you need that 13th assistant coach.

Utes,

That makes no sense. Again, it's about opportunity, which creates interest. So in your world, it'd be like it was in the old days, where there was no opportunity, thus no interest, thus no opportunity. So you can answer to my daughters then why they don't have a soccer team, because someone said girls don't want to play sports which is only true because there was no team. My sister LIVED that, dude.

Opportunity doesn't always create interest.  If you look at that article I liked to, there isn't enough interest in these boys sports so they don't have teams.  Girls have opportunities at these schools that boys don't have.  Should these schools add boys swimming and field hockey teams in the hope that one day there is enough interest?

And the girls hockey example has nothing to do with either.  It has to do with being the best at the sport you love regardless of gender.  Should girls have to play softball even if they want to play baseball?  Let's face the fact that we have girls play softball because they simply won't find enough talent to be competitive in the Sport of baseball.  It is also the reason why we have different size basketballs.  We set up different rules and sports because of physical gender differences, but we want to apply the same title9 rules to everyone.

[emma17]

Smed:  How can you not see a difference between a 1500 average and a 389 average?  Not to mention the BU men getting paid for playing in front of 9000 at texas, 5000 at Boston College and 8000 at Villanova?

I don't know much about maryland or oklahoma athletic directors but I do know many different decisions would be made without title IX.  You can't take from one and give to another without taking from one.

AO,

The 1500 average includes the Harvard and Northerastern games, which are rivalry. And pay-for-play games are contra indicators of interest. If there was interest, they wouldn't need pay-for-play games. How many people in Boston realized that BU lost to Quinnipiac? I think parents and alums, much like the women.

You don't HAVE to take from one. But you can choose to cut the bloat, which fraidy-cat athletics directors have not done because you need that 13th assistant coach.

Utes,

That makes no sense. Again, it's about opportunity, which creates interest. So in your world, it'd be like it was in the old days, where there was no opportunity, thus no interest, thus no opportunity. So you can answer to my daughters then why they don't have a soccer team, because someone said girls don't want to play sports which is only true because there was no team. My sister LIVED that, dude.

Smed, I'm not well versed in Title IX so my post may seem uniformed.  Doesn't this come down to supply and demand?  Back in the 70's there weren't as many women going to college.  I don't imagine girls youth sports were as big as they are today either.  There has been a natural societal evolution where more girls showed interest in participating in sports.  That coupled with significantly more women attending college creates a natural incentive for high schools and colleges to offer women's sports.  If a college doesn't feel that fielding women's teams in some sports would be beneficial to their mission, can't women simply choose to go elsewhere?  It just seems that with so many women attending college today, and so many women wanting to participate in sports, that schools will naturally make program available to attract them. 
An over simplification?

[frank uible]

When the marketplace fails to produce an outcome favorable to certain persons, some of those persons often turn to the practice of politics in an attempt to get their way.