TITLE IX BULLSH*T??

you're right. football has many costs (i.e. recruiting, scholarships, coaches/staff, travel, equipment, facilities for athletes and staff, services for athletes such as training room, academic advising, eligibility/compliance, etc.). football is way more costly than cross-country or track.

most schools do bring in money from football, but nearly all spend more money than they bring in, meaning they actually lose large amounts of money to keep the football program running.

it is a very popular myth that football brings in money to athletics. the opposite is true, with the exception of some of the very TOP programs which DO actually bring in a great deal of money.

This might be because of things like...

for example, when I was in primary school (age 4 to 11), if you wanted to play football (soccer), there was no girl's team. Tough shit. You either made the boy's team, or you didn't play. Girls had the choice of 2 sports. Boys had the choice of 9. Fair? Not really, there were the same amount of boys and girls and most of us hadn't played organised sport before when we first got there. Fortunately my parents took me to things like swimming outside of school, for which I'm very grateful.

So when people get to high school, it is no wonder the pattern is how it is. It's cultural and social - girls are put off playing sports. I have been criticised so much for doing track (and being female).. "why would you want to do that?" and so on from teachers when I was in high school. Plus people like other relatives, people don't understand it - yet they understand my cousin (a boy) playing tennis and wanting to do well.

So "Nothing was stopping them from playing sports before" is hardly accurate.

I know, at the end of the day a girl can play sports if she wants to, but there are a lot of things, especially at younger ages where I think sports patterns are established which are kinda inequal.

you're right. given that women will never beat men in sports, our society benefits in no way from giving women opportunities men take for granted. given your line of biological determinism, women should just stay home and have babies b/c "anatomically" they are designed for that.

men shouldn't bother to spend time with their newborns (paternity leave: yes there is a such thing!) b/c anatomically they are not designed to give birth or breastfeed. hell, we should just abandon our kids if we want to. afterall, there is nothing about mens' "anatomical" design that equips us to nurture kids. therefore, it must be a biological truth that kids are better with their mothers and do not benefit from having us around.

(i'm packing my bags now and flying the coop.)

thanks for clarifying and taking this argument to a higher intellectual level.

brillliant wrote:

it must be a biological truth that kids are better with their mothers and do not benefit from having us around.

(i'm packing my bags now and flying the coop.)

thanks for clarifying and taking this argument to a higher intellectual level.

I'm assuming your comments are tongue and cheek, but my best guess is that no one is better off with you around.

you raise some good points.

i know my daughter never identified with sports very much, growing up and i often thought that might just be how she is. but, then about 8 years back we were watching the world cup where the US women beat China.

a few days later i come outside and see my 8 year old daughter kicking her brother\'s soccer ball around and talking about maybe playing on a team. i wondered about her sudden interest in sports, but then it occurred to me that 1)none of her friends played sports, 2) none of her female relatives played sports, and 3) she never saw females on TV or in magazines playing sports.

the US world cup may have been one of the first times she saw female athletes compete and capture everyone\'s attention.

so, i have to think culture contributes to girls being less active in sports. there just aren\'t too many female athletes that are famous and can serve as role models for girls.

this is unfortunate b/c boys benefit greatly from athletic involvement; they learn about hard work, discipline, teamwork, sportsmanship, etc. sports can build confidence and decrease risky behaviors in adolescence. girls should get the same chances.

to some extent, i think opportunity leads to interest in sports and not the other way around.

i should add that the more developed, wealthier, societies are those in which women and men are closer to \"equal\" (and, no, equal does not mean \"exactly the same\"), just something to think about.

of course the comments were tongue and cheek.

you really don\'t know anything about me, so it would be nice if you refreained from making assumptions about the type of person I am or whether or not i am worthy of a space on the earth.

maybe you are upset because I replied to the wrong post by mistake. or maybe you don\'t agree with what I have to say, and that\'s fine.

it would be more useful if you could respond by stating what you disagree with in a productive manner, but it is letsrun, so that is certainly not required.

"Same applies for schooling: people with no vote - kids stay home. If you make $100,000 plus - you get to go to the best funded schools.

We could apply this system to the purchase of food and even energy! This is great!"

Umm, this already happens with schooling, food and energy. The weakest correlation, due to oversight by the courts, is in education, but it still exists. If you doubt this is true, please consider how public and private schools are generally funded. As for food and energy, who buys your groceries and gas? It's called capitalism, for good and for evil. Rich people get better stuff, else there is no point in being rich.

As for Title IX, I'm all for it. It is not at all clear to me why a school's demographics should not be reflected in its athletic teams and scholarship allocations. The NCAA and its member schools should consider adding, and fully funding, new sports where women would wish to compete and generate interest. Perhaps intercollegiate dance and ice skating would be a good place to start. Perhaps a greater emphasis on women's gymnastics. There are many unrealized opportunities for women to generate revenue and interest in sport, they just don't happen to be in areas that are currently a focus for the NCAA.

The thing you fail to understand is how close to the mark you are here. The political influence of the wealthy in America is far and away above that of the average person. In politics, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and people who have more money can squeak a hell of a lot louder than the rest of us. I'm not necessarily saying this is a bad thing - after all, with wealth comes benefits (I'm sure you'll disagree with me on that point). However, the bottom line is what you are presenting here as a sarcastic idea is in fact the reality of the situation, and hey, it's working for the U.S. I think it's pretty obvious that while everyone is granted the same BASIC rights, freedom to vote, etc etc, A LOT of what people get in life comes down to how productive they are - as it should. In a capitalist system (the one on which all the ideals of our country is founded), the best, most capable, most productive, etc etc (and yes a little bit of luck plays a role) get the best stuff. And this is how it should be in college sports. If you have a guys team where all the runners are under 15 mintues and a girls team where all the runners are at 22 minutes (extreme example, obviously) load the guys up with money. If you have a guys team where all the guys are chugging out 16:30s, and a girls team where the girls are running the same thing, by all means, give the girls more money (In both cases of course reserving a certain amount of money for recruiting for the weaker team, because after all if they can't get SOME talent they can never improve, but you understand the idea).

studmuffin:

We are a democracy. Bottom line. Voting privy has nothing to do with productivity or wealth. Educational opportunity has nothing to do with productivity and wealth. Scholarship standards are determined by each university - so they can decide how they want, and who they want them to go to. They just can't go over the NCAA alloted number.

I could tear apart your theory even further if you wish.

Why do DII and DIII schools even have sports if they have no scholarships? Because they consider them educational opportunities and thus, these opportunities are governed by laws that govern equality in education.

are you a DII or DIII athlete by any chance?

I recently published an article on gender differences in competitiveness in running. The data address many of the points raised in this thread. Below is the abstract of the article. If you'd like the full PDF article, just email me (deaner@neuro.duke.edu) and I will send it. (It's not available for free on the web unless your college/university subscribes.)

Best wishes,

Rob

http://www.ehbonline.org/article/PIIS1090513805000334/abstract

Volume 27, Issue 1, Pages 63-84 (January 2006)

Evolution and Human Behavior

More males run fast: A stable sex difference in competitiveness in U.S. distance runners

Robert O. Deaner

Received 30 December 2004; accepted 19 April 2005 published online 2 November 2005.

Abstract

Sex differences in competitiveness are well established, but it is unknown if they originate from sociocultural conditions or evolved predispositions. Testing these hypotheses requires a quantifiable sex difference in competitiveness and the application of a powerful sociocultural manipulation to eliminate it. Study 1 reviews previous work showing that more male distance runners are motivated by competition and maintain large training volumes, suggesting that more males should run fast relative to sex-specific world-class standards. I then use two independent statistical approaches to demonstrate that, in matched populations of male and female U.S. runners, two to four times as many males as females ran relatively fast in 2003. Study 2 investigates whether the growth in opportunities and incentives for female athletes in the past 30 years is eliminating this sex difference. I first show that there was a marked increase in the number of fast female runners in the 1970s and early 1980s, a period during which female participation increased dramatically. However, I found no indication of an absolute or relative increase in the number of fast female distance runners since the mid-1980s. These findings therefore support the hypothesis that sex differences in competitiveness partly reflect evolved predispositions.

Keywords: Evolutionary psychology, Motivation, Athletics, Sports, Social change

Ideally, in a pure democracy, yes, the franchise has nothign to do with productivity or wealth, and neither would educational opportunity. But in functional reality, wealth does affect political influence (beyond a simple vote, if you can wrap your mind around that) and access to educational opportunity. Is this right? Yes and no. We have a representative democracy for the simple reason that we couldn't trust the masses to make informed political decisions, simply because the masses are not politicaly informed nor are the majority of Americans even capable of understanding the issues at hand. That's why when you vote you elect representatives to the House and the Senate - so they can vote for you. People with more money are often (not always, obviously we are speaking in generalities here) more intelligent and\or more capable, and so their ability to buy political influence (through lobbyists, etc) is justified by their (presumed) superior understanding of the political system. You think this isn't the way it was intended to be? You are mistaken. Democracy in America, as it was intended by the founding fathers, was an Elite democracy, simply because they believed that democracy is a fragile thing that couldn't be entrusted entirely to the uneducated masses without a protective system in place. And they were right. While we have made progress since then in making sure that the idea of "freedom and equality" under the law has been expanded to encompass all races, etc, this idea of an elite democracy has not been extinguised. Fact. As for educational opportunity having nothing to do with productivity and wealth, again, this is touchy. After all, if someone is poor, but equally capable to someone who is rich, they should be allowed to receive the same education. However, at some point on down the line, someone has to pay for education, especially at elite institutions. Educational opportunities cost money, and if we want to educate the poor people too, we have to have a certain number of people who can their own way entirely, in order to free up resources for the poor. So while poor people also have equal access in theory, in reality, the money still has to come from somewhere. Unfortunately, I think this is a tragedy - the cost of higher education in America has been inflated absurdly, and as you can tell from my above posts, I really believe in the most qualified people (students) getting what they deserve (in this case, a great education). However, because of the limitations of the Real World, things don't always work out the way they ideally should (as you seem to think they do). So, I stand by my point that the most qualified athletes, male or female, should be the ones getting the scholarships.

Actually, no, I'm a DI athlete. I was recruited by my team but we do not have scholarship money. By this argument I could say that as long as a women's team exists, it doesn't matter if they have any scholarship money or not, because the opportunity is there.

It's not new news but girls out perform boys in grade, middle, high school and college.

Based on the gender theory that the superior gender should receive more funding (sports- males) (education/grades - females) than what we can do is simply spend more time and resources education girls and women than boys and men, because they appear to not be as intelligent.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/31/60minutes/main527678.shtml

that's solved!

muffinstud:

you spent a great deal of time exlaining things that I have known longer than you have been alive.

If you don't approve of injustice and elitism, then applaud Title IX amendment and those laws that attempt to make us all equal to some degree.

just to stir things up a bit more, West Virginia got rid of its men's cross country and track and field teams a few years back, leaving just the women out on the trails. there is a big name university that fits the bill you claimed we could not find 5 of. I only overheard this info today, who knows what we could find with a little research. All this shows is the OPPORTUNITY is not there for all men. I agree, adding sports for women is a great idea, give them opportunities they never had before, but when men's programs start getting dropped from an athletic department, thats when you have to start questioning the practice of a law. that's all, not a big deal, just a little work on it to ADD programs for women (which i think everybody on this thread can agree that's what title IX was intended to do), not take away from mens programs (the backlash of bad practice)

I am not involved in this argument and do plan to do so, but isn't it ironic that when WVU announced the $2 million(guess) cuts of XC/Track/Rifle on Tuesday, they also announced the $3 million (guess) renovations to the football stadium on Friday. Title IX? I think not.

legally blond wrote:

muffinstud:

you spent a great deal of time exlaining things that I have known longer than you have been alive.

If you don't approve of injustice and elitism, then applaud Title IX amendment and those laws that attempt to make us all equal to some degree.

It may be true that I spend a great deal of time explaining things you have known longer than I have been alive. Congratulations, you have acheived at least a marginally above average educational level. However, these are all points you seem to have neglected in your arguments throughout this thread. And for the most part, I am fine with the injustices and elitism, because I think it's a safer way for society to be run. One of the few areas I disagree with it is in the area of post secondary education; however, I don't think Title IX functions as it should to level the playing field in this regard. Furthermore, in response to women outperforming men in school, so therefore they should be the ones going on to get a college degree (sorry, I don't recall the exact wording of that comment): This is exactly what's happening. More women than men attend college, and this is a trend that is expected to continue in the future, with the proportion of women to men at most schools moving into the 60-40 range and beyond. You are stating facts, but I fail to see at this point how you are furthering your arguments in favor of Title IX.

legally blond wrote:

won't be the last I'm sure. What do you want to talk about now?

You two make a cute couple...

LB has had an attitude for years on letsrun.com!

Title 9 has very good intentions, but college athletic departments have made attempts to comply with it in the worst possible way. There are much better ways to help the proportionality of womens sports scholarships, even with increasing mens scholarships in sports like track, xc, and swimming. An example of this could be reducing the number of scholarships for a football team. 80 full ride scholarships is way too many, as many of these players will not make any significant contribution to the team. I think that the 60 scholarships that 1-AA football has would be reasonable. Also, maybe there needs to be a spending cap on football and basketball, which would free up space for both womens sports, and minor mens sports. Just adding my two cents.