Unload your Title IX frustration here

The lousiest, crappiest female volleyball player or pole vaulter can get a great scholarship with meals paid for...and I can barely get a 10% scholarship.

Safe to say I think it's bullshit.

Sorry, that won't fly here.

The problem is that a football player who will never get into a game gets a full scholarship and you get none, and that the 120th best footballer is more important to the AD than pretty much anyone in a sport that's not on TV regularly.

Try being a better student if you want money. Innate talent doesn't mean as much and your brain can't get a stress fracture. I didn't pay for either my bachelor's or master's and I'm a terrible runner.

Apparently, you might be a good at academics as you are at running. The previous post was about the inequity of sports scholarships between men and women rather than ways to get school paid for. Apparently, you got what you paid for with that Bachelor's Degree of yours...

Title IX is a complete joke, and always has been. The issue is that the percentage of girls interested in competitive sports is far lower than the percentage of men. Leaving football out of the discussion, it is still not "fair" by any definition.

The best short term solution would be to allow for alumni to support teams monetarily that the college wants to cut. If people want to pay to support a men's wrestling or cross-country team, then let them. All non revenue producing sports should be set up this way. Let's see how many women's bowling teams continue to exist...

---

rothermj wrote:

Apparently, you might be a good at academics as you are at running. The previous post was about the inequity of sports scholarships between men and women rather than ways to get school paid for. Apparently, you got what you paid for with that Bachelor's Degree of yours...

Title IX is a complete joke, and always has been. The issue is that the percentage of girls interested in competitive sports is far lower than the percentage of men. Leaving football out of the discussion, it is still not "fair" by any definition.

The best short term solution would be to allow for alumni to support teams monetarily that the college wants to cut. If people want to pay to support a men's wrestling or cross-country team, then let them. All non revenue producing sports should be set up this way. Let's see how many women's bowling teams continue to exist...

---

---

I love brisket wrote:

The lousiest, crappiest female volleyball player or pole vaulter can get a great scholarship with meals paid for...and I can barely get a 10% scholarship.

Safe to say I think it's bullshit.

---

[quote]rothermj wrote:

Title IX is a complete joke, and always has been.
________________________________________

Disagree on one part. Title IX , like many unions of this country started out with great intentions. However, like the current situation of many of this country's unions, many people get something for nothing. My father and his father picketed, walked the lines, and fought hard in the 40's and 50's to help make unions strong. Today, many idiots with no education, get into a union and slack. they get tenure, and they know that they can not get fired, so they work hard at not working. Sickening.
What does this have to do with Title IX? Analogy. The Title IX trailblazers fought uphill battles against male-dominated systems that did not treat many of them as equals. (easy sarcasim) But, as many women ran , swam, and fought just for equality, they probably never thought it would come to the point it is now. The title IX currently, like the current unions, are full of greedy, lazy bastards. Many of the female "athletes" that feel they should get a full scholarship can not even say they made their high school varsity team.
It has become un-bearable, and I am glad I am no longer in college, and have to deal with it.
Many women I know agree with me. Like many real female athletes, they worked hard to get their scholarships, or "packages". However, imagine how they feel after working so hard to get where they are, and see someone they knew earlier in life as a third-stringer, getting the same package, only so they can fill the Title IX quota.

While I would not have put things as bluntly as this person, I can kinda understand. I'm currently on a D1 program and our coach will take almost any girl with a heartbeat willing to run. When I was a Freshman, our men's squad was actually cut down and our womens program has grown. Its gotten to the point where there are women who don't give a crap and are just on the team for the jersey, equipment, and status. Its getting to a point where passionless uneffective female athletes are getting jerseys and equipment, and dedicated decent male runners arent even able to try out. I'm sure there are just as many passionless, talentless men out there but the tiny roster limits them from even getting anywhere near the team. They'll take a girl running 2:45 for an 800 and won't even consider a guy at 2 flat. And yea, they've cited Title 9 for the roster sizes. Theres probably a 1:30 minute spread between the worst male 5k and the best. Theres over a 4 minute spread between the best and worst female.

Be glad, the result is more physically fit and athletic potential lays on campus for you and your buddies. Unless you only like the zitty pale fatties in the physics lab.

stfu

some of the brightest kids in the country can't get shit to go to the top academic schools...they pay 50k/yr and you whine your ass off because you only get 10% tuition to run???

suck it up

Serves you right, I guess now you know how it feels to be discriminated against (for something out of your control in general).

The kids that pay for the right to go to the top schools are at least given the opportunity to attend regardless of their gender and the gender ratio of the school overall.

A lot of the top engineering schools in the country have more men than women. Should they be forced to provide "equal opportunity" by denying men admissions until the overall school ratio is equal?

There are plenty of qualified and capable men who are not even allowed on a team. If some of these guys were already financially secure and wanted to pay for all of the expenses related to being on the team (buy their own gear, pay their own travel, etc) this person would not be allowed a spot on the roster. Tell me how this helps give women more opportunities.

---

I love brisket wrote:

The lousiest, crappiest female volleyball player or pole vaulter can get a great scholarship with meals paid for...and I can barely get a 10% scholarship.

Safe to say I think it's bullshit.

---

Sign up with this site...www.getmynameout.com
If you are seeking a professional approach to gaining national exposure. Its a reputable service and many athletes have obtained scholarships using this service.

First of all - saying that Title IX is a joke, well that is not a "fact" that is just your opinion. It was one of the greatest things that ever happened to me and many girls and women as we came up through a new world of sports - so if you want to state it as your opinion, fine, but it is not a factual statement - most people and parents agree with gender equity.

The greatest thing for girls, one of the worst thing for many men. Look at, for example, Providence Baseball. That team was one of the best in the country, period. Perennial contenders. Title IX comes around, and they unexpectadly have to cut the program. What do you tell the seniors? Sorry, no season? How is that 'gender equity'. And yes, everyone wants gender equity. But at what cost? Do we want to make women as powerful as men by creating more oppurtunities for them, or do we want to make men as powerful as women by taking oppurtunities away from men?

If alumni were allowed to support sport teams, there is an inherent inequity right there - 150 years of sports for men, 30 years for women - who's alumni base is going to be larger? yeah, that's correct. This would create huge disparities in sports.

Sorry, bad point. If theres an alumni from 150 years ago still living, point him out. 30 years ago means 52 year old women, which means in around 10 years the alumni bracket will have evened out.

I've always said the Title IX model needed tweaking - not dissolved. It looks to me that women's enrollment is greater than men's. If the interest, as you state, is not equal to men's traditional sports, then the model is incorrect and needs to be changed to reflect the types of activities the females want or have an interest in. Right now we use a male model - then try to match it on the female side- and perhaps that isn't the most effective.

Womens enrollment is greater than mens because of two reasons. 1) there are more women in the population than men
2) skill jobs, such as automechanic, plumber, electricion...etc...have MUCH more men than women, and those jobs do not need to go to college. Want a better guage? More men are in the workforce than women, and take out teachers, and there are MUCH more men in the workforce than women.


Statements about women getting scholarships who are terrible athletes is just pure bullshit - funny how that gets tossed out there all the time by some ignoramus who again, didn't to their homework. Fact is, it is difficult for anyone to get an athletic scholarship, however, academic scholarships have been going to girls because they appear to be performing well in their academics.

Actually it's not bullshit. University of Michigan sent out an ad in a newspaper saying, quite literally, 'Any Michigan girl willing to participate in the sport of Crew will recieve a scholarship to this univeristy.' That has been done by numerous schools so they can get around title IX. They give out scholarships to 10-15 girls for sports like Archery, Crew, Cheerleading, etc, and it evens out a lot of things.

So please, miss, I am all for gender equity, but do not come on here accusing us of not knowing the facts, when you are the one mistaken.

And yes, the University of Michigan did do that. Sorry.

We have 100k left for women's scholarships this year but have to spread it out over 8 women. Need 4 walk-ons and 4 full ride gals...can't get the walk-on types i.e. 5'0 hj, 16.5 hh, 63 400 as they are all offered at local mid major state schools. Have offered numerous women full-tuition and can't get them as well.

Men's side- we've been tapped out since May 1 and have 49. 400, 14.6 hh, 6'6 hj waiting in line for maybe 500 bucks in books. The line is 20 deep.

The interest just isn't the same.

"If theres an alumni from 150 years ago still living, point him out."
It's called strength of tradition, asshat.

I ran D1 XC/track in the mid 1990s, when Title IX enforcement seemed to really gain steam. In my four years on the team there were frequent cuts and restrictions on the men's side and a big expansion on the women's side, of both the roster and the budget.

At the time, our coach told us that "in five years, the women's team will be funded to the maximum the NCAA allows and the men will lose all their scholarships and be lucky to get a van to take to the meets."

Sad to say he was right. And it took less than 5 years.

For those of us who would like to see an interpretation of Title IX that doesn't mean inequality for men's non revenue sports, a big opportunity was lost 4 years ago when Education Secretary Rod Paige set up a Title IX Committee to revisit the issue. That might have been our last best chance to save some of these sports, but the Committee splintered and actually issued two different sets of recommendations to the Secretary, one by the mainstream members of the group and one by a smaller, dissident group. So nothing changed. Perhaps that was the plan all along.

The part that is bullshit is the limitations imposed on other sports scholarships.

In the USA, men's college football generates 85% of the sports revenues at any given university, and 15% is generated by mens basketball.

Because of title 9, football and basket-ball get to basically keep their full load of scholarships, while track and field had to take cuts.

I think if a schools track program can generate revenue, that each individual school ought to be allowed to put that money back into their program.

Arkansas, UCLA, Forida, Oregon, what ever school can generate revenue through track and field ought to be able to channel it back into their program.

A baseball powerhouse, women's softball powerhouse, they all ought to be able to keep all their own revenues and if profitable, put it back into the program.

Other schools may think it makes the rich richer, and in a way it does, but atleast the money from fringe sports, when succesful...gets to reinvest what it achieved in new scholarships.

Until distance runners unite and speak out and get donors to hold back money to universities, write letter to universities presidents and trustees, get the public involved and make race an issue (as track and field is one of the most diverse programs) this will happen again and again...