Title Nine Sucks

For an enlightening discussion on this topic the board on mactrack.net gives a pretty good idea where track is headed with regards to the future of the sport, the criminal neglect USATF gives to college programs, the coaches of these conferences and their responsibilities to promote the sport, and the other issues such as football, Title IX and budgets. Probably more than anything, it's a discussion with some validity because as you will see many of the contributors are current MAC coaches. It is an eye opener, as well as a pretty depressing outlook (especially Masback's letter---I had to read it twice to believe he would actually send something so pathetic out.)

I sincerely hope in 20-30 years track is not in the same boat the MAC is in now, but when you think about it, what positive indications would lead anyone to believe that the entire sport is not headed this way?

Title 9 sucks wrote:

I just wanted to take the time to say title nine sucks. Go ahead make a case for it all you want its great for girls..So blah blah blah. Just let me tell you as a runner directly affected by this stupid ridiculos title I think it blows. Thats all now go ahead make a case for title nine and how great it is....but it screwed me and I hate it.

With tons of love to title nine

Mr. Simpleton,

We at the university did not force you out due to Title IX. It was your piss poor work in the classroom. Look at you fool. You do not spell ridiculous "rediculos". Are an idiot. We wish you the best of luck in those local community 5K's where you can tell everyone how an athlete as great as yourself was cheated by the system.

16x wrote:

This tiresome topic is not worth responding to. When people have a "victim" mentality they don't want to look at facts. They want to cry for help.

16x is so hot!

I am not a big fan of how Title Nine is used. The law title nine is a good law but the way the schools enforce that law, by cutting back of guy athletics, is not right. I was a college athlete hurt by Title Nine. Instead of increasing the oppotunities for women our school cut back the guys programs to leve off the palying surface. This is the easiest way for school to give equal opportunity for men and women. If you can't fund for more women's sports, you have to cut back on the guys sports. Everything has to be equal and why spend money when you can cut back on things and put that money into something else like a women's tennis, volleyball, hockey, basketball, and so forth. The law itself is good but it is not enforced in the right way. So I have a question since I didn't get the same opportunity as a volleball woman athlete is that going against Title Nine??? Just wondering.

JXZ wrote:

I also would like to know why you think women are getting compensated for what I assume you mean past inequities. It is a given that women still get the short end on and money spent on women?s sports in general even with, at least in California, most of the universities are primarily women. Something as much a 60/40 ratio in some universities ,and that is being addressed but you can make people go to college. So where is this compensation?

The second thing is there a quality distance runner in the US that can not get a scholarship? It seems like it is the 15:30 5k guys who are whining the loudest.

First, I would like you to point out any wording in my previous post that said that I felt women were being "compensated". When you look at individual sports (I don't care about total numbers, I am looking out for TRACK AND FIELD here) women get more scholarships, period. I am not one of these assholes saying that women don't deserve to compete in collegiate athletics, I just feel that men deserve the same opportunities in each sport. Schools should not have to add scholarshiped women's bowling and crew to compensate for football. Give us 15 women's and 15 men's track scholarships (instead of the 18 and 12 the NCAA allows) and everyone should be happy.

Here is a situation, let me know if it sounds fair to you. At the school I coach at I was told that in 2 years, I have to have 3 more women's XC runners than men's, that's total, not just scholarshiped. This means that I may have to TURN AWAY walk on men, so that our school can be in compliance with Title IX restrictions. That's right, if a kid comes to me and asks if he can run, I have to tell him no so that we are Title IX compliant. This student will actually make the university money because he will be paying full tuition, but I have to tell him to go somewhere else. How is this possibly giving equal opportunity?

Well what sport will take the hit in order for the total numbers to add up. Men already get most of the money and most of the scholarships. A question for those who really may know does the football player who runs track or throws or jumps and has a full football ride count against the track scholarship usage or just total team numbers?

Where in Title IX does it say that total numbers have to add up? It says no one (man or woman) can be descriminated against by a federaly funded organization. How does that mean that there has to be equil numbers? I will agree that men's sports do get a majority of the budgitary money, but they do not get "most of the scholarships." And, no, a scholarshiped football player does not count for both sports scholarship wise, but they do count for total numbers.

Title 9 the law does not say how the lead agency develops regulations to enforce the law. At least to the best of my knowing.

I had a 1:59 kid iin high school. No great shakes, but he just started running , had tremendous potential and was a great kid to boot.

Didn't compete much because the HS didn't have a boys team. Coach at a D1 talks to the kid and asks him to come, no aid of course. The kid goes and 3 weeks into the cross season the coach tells him he has to cut him because of gender equity issues.

Kid is left at a good school educationally, but now has no place to compete. as a 400-800 type, it's not that he can go out and do it on his own. That sucks.

Is it any suprise that an XC coach would cut a 400/800 meter runner from an XC team and I wonder if gender equity was the issue because it was 3 weeks into the season and all the counting had already been done long before he was allowed to be on the team. A 1:59 kid does not have tremendous potential at best he is average and average does not cut it in D1 or at least it should not. And yes he can go out and do it himself if he wants to.

JXZ wrote:

A 1:59 kid does not have tremendous potential at best he is average and average does not cut it in D1 or at least it should not.

this attitude is so full of shit... I was a 2:01/4:31/10:02 HS runner, went to W&M in the mid 80s. I only ran one year but hovered around 7-9th runner on the XC team - ahead of many more highly recruited runners. Guys I beat in Fr year wound up on the top 7 in their later years.

In my situation, although a more talented runner than my times indicate, I was, admittedly, a very lazy runner and didn't work as hard or as focused as I should have. There were others on the team that simply worked their nuts off and they wound up being solid, if not spectacular, contributors to the XC and Track teams - placing at league championships, etc. These are the sort of runners that wind up "cut" from teams because of the resultant Title IX roster limitations. These "average" runners are the lifeblood of every D1 track program - it's the rare Stanford/CU/Mich/Etc that can afford to rely solely upon recruited athletes to fill out their squad.

My school had a certain number of guys it could have on the cross country and track team. UMD does a very good job recruiting athletes and they are all average, well good D-2 runners. I know that UMD could have been a lot better if we didn't have to deal with Title IX. Every year some runner who had good potential would be left off the roster. We could only have 13-15 guys on our team. So every year we would lose one to three good runners that could have probably contributed to the team later in there college career, but instead we lose them. We would have the occasional ones stick it out and train with the team even though they were not given a roster spot and they turned out to be good runners for our program. Good leaders and people but Title IX is the reason why UMD can't keep runners in the program. Track is the same too. We get good numbers but can only allow so many athletes on the team. It sucks.

Stanford does have walk ons and some if not quite a few less than spectacular runners. I think Stanford takes almost anyone who has some ability but they just don't make the travel team. That is because they manage their programs well and are well funded. Something most of the colleges who are having problems do not do well. As for the 1:59 well I was harsh but note the rest of the statement he had to already counted as a member of the team before the cut.

Stanford does have a open door policy. Everyone who wants to run and practice on the team can but the ones who get recruited and can contribute get the attention by the coach and get to travel.

JXZ wrote:

Is it any suprise that an XC coach would cut a 400/800 meter runner from an XC team and I wonder if gender equity was the issue because it was 3 weeks into the season and all the counting had already been done long before he was allowed to be on the team. A 1:59 kid does not have tremendous potential at best he is average and average does not cut it in D1 or at least it should not. And yes he can go out and do it himself if he wants to.

1) Yes gender equity is an issue, no all the counting is not done 3 weeks in.

2) Yes he can go out and do it himself, isnt that the same thing they told women in the 60's?

I have a question for you JXZ, do you agree proportionality is wrong? Yes or No?

16x wrote:

This tiresome topic is not worth responding to. When people have a "victim" mentality they don't want to look at facts. They want to cry for help.

I heard this in 1972 when Title IX came out only it was from the men in the "old Boy's club" saying it about women.

Youve come a long way baby, your every bit the smug ass "old Boy" now!

proportionality is wrong? Yes or No?

Yes I believe it provides a less the optimal result. But it is the only metric that can be measured with little distortion. The men in charge can not be trusted at all, all the money that go to womens sports would be diverted to the football program just like what is happing to the mens programs.

2) Yes he can go out and do it himself, isnt that the same thing they told women in the 60's?

When were women permitted to run Boston? No it is not the same thing rules do not prevent him from running his ability does. He could always go to a D2 or D3 team and run his heart out. Women in the 60's did not have that choice. Nor could they go to all colleges or enter many (men only) programs if they were allowed to attend the college. That is what really drove title 9 not athletics. I know professors even to this day are steamed thay are required to teach women or have tham in the workplace.

1) Yes gender equity is an issue, no all the counting is not done 3 weeks in.

I thought it was done well before the season started. You got to figure that a 400 800 guy who runs XC is not going to be all that fast at 8000 meters. At best he is probably going to run in the 51's to 52's or so in the 400, not really D1 material there either. So in a perfect world where everyones needs are met he would have a coach but this is not a perfect world.

Academic Advisors are also worthless