They make the claim that the team is being artificially inflated with poor players in order for administration not to attract the attention of Title IX enforcers.
https://reason.com/blog/2016/05/20/mizzou-womens-softball-team-says-title-i
They make the claim that the team is being artificially inflated with poor players in order for administration not to attract the attention of Title IX enforcers.
https://reason.com/blog/2016/05/20/mizzou-womens-softball-team-says-title-i
Ooh, catfight!
We know this is true. All the time there are D1 ladies running over 5 minutes, or sometimes the teams have enough decent runners and throw the title ix satisfiers in the 10k. Watching some young women get lapped time and time again as they run over 42 minutes is absolutely painful.
So women are slower than men, and fewer women dedicate themselves to athletic excellence. Should we let schools give funding to whoever they want to give it to, so that you don't have to watch slower races from people who don't train hard enough?
What is the purpose of college sports- to reward those who are most dedicated to their sport and/or to fund and develop future pros?
I love unintended consequences. It is like the robot that was built to do good, but ends up destroying the town.
Catcher Mitt Romney wrote:
They make the claim that the team is being artificially inflated with poor players in order for administration not to attract the attention of Title IX enforcers.
https://reason.com/blog/2016/05/20/mizzou-womens-softball-team-says-title-i
Explain the issue for me wrote:
So women are slower than men, and fewer women dedicate themselves to athletic excellence. Should we let schools give funding to whoever they want to give it to, so that you don't have to watch slower races from people who don't train hard enough?
What is the purpose of college sports- to reward those who are most dedicated to their sport and/or to fund and develop future pros?
Here are the answers to your questions: Yes and hell yes
Laughing at all of you male justice crusaders.
Didn't run D1? Didn't get a scholarship? Run faster.
It's a non revenue sport without Title IX their teams might end up on the chopping block.
If you have a daughter and she didn't get an athletic scholarship she didn't really try.
Quotas = socialism = FAIL
be careful what you wish for wrote:
It's a non revenue sport without Title IX their teams might end up on the chopping block.
This is a good point. The players are assuming that without Title IX, the team would be unchanged aside from dropping the less talented players from the roster. In reality, the team might not exist at all.
Anyway, why does the coach have to give playing time to the players who aren't as good? If you have some players who aren't that good, just leave them on the bench.
The equal participation rules suck but at least the fact that women's teams are flooded with benchwarmers mean men's XC and track doesn't have to be cut.
different perspective wrote:
The equal participation rules suck but at least the fact that women's teams are flooded with benchwarmers mean men's XC and track doesn't have to be cut.
There are equal participation rules in college??
I don't understand the beef. From the article:
Female athletes essentially claim that university administrators, citing Title IX, have forced the team to bring on under-qualified players. This has in turn reduced the amount of game time enjoyed by more skilled players.
If the athletes are unskilled, wouldn't they just ride the bench? You can be on a team without actually competing. Rudy never played and they made a movie about him.
RUDY WAS NOT ON SCHOLARSHIP!
There are plenty of girls who are on a college softball team who receive zero playing aside from an occasional pinch running or defensive assignment gig. I think this article is leaving out some important details.
I think the roster size complaint must be put into the proper context. The better players on the team believe the coach to be competent, and ascribe complaints against him to lesser players on the team who allegedly are on the team to mostly fulfill Title IX requirements. To the extent that some are questioning the coach's professional competence, it may be a perspective worth considering.
As to the complaint over the quality of the softball team, I think a different conclusion can be reached. If there are marginal players on a major Division 1 women's softball team (in the SEC no less, arguably the best league for softball in the country), that speaks to the relative dearth of talent in women's softball. This is not a new assertion for college women. There is little question that there remains imbalance in the quality of competition in many sports, with the outcomes entirely too top heavy. Look, is the UCONN women's basketball team a great team worthy of respect? Absolutely. Should they be beating teams in the NCAA tournament by 40 or 50 points? No - the talent at the top is simply too scarce. And the problem descends all the way down, where you have all too often a mere All-Conference player from an obscure rural high school league trying to make it at a major Division 1 softball program because she serves a purpose other than excellence.
everyone is different wrote:
And the problem descends all the way down, where you have all too often a mere All-Conference player from an obscure rural high school league trying to make it at a major Division 1 softball program because she serves a purpose other than excellence.
That's exaggerating the problem. D1 schools are not giving away scholarships to all-conference players. Only 7% of all girls playing high school or club level softball receive scholarship money from any college, let alone D1.
Title IX is a great dog whistle for unsuccessful white boys.
Hmmm..... wrote:
There are plenty of girls who are on a college softball team who receive zero playing aside from an occasional pinch running or defensive assignment gig. I think this article is leaving out some important details.
Pinch running & pinch hitting are the two most ABSURD rules in baseball/softball.....and you know it.