Title IX unfair?

a woman wrote:

because of title ix it seems that women are hurting men, when in fact it's the football team hurting the smaller men's programs.

Tell that to Notre Dame, where football revenue pays for everything.

yeah wrote:

Tell that to Notre Dame, where football revenue pays for everything.

"If" football did indeed pay for everything, and not the other way around, then you wouldn't have anything to complain about would you.

It's amazing whoever said a college football program costs 6 million, and a women's xc program costs 3 million.

Must be some higher mathematics in those figures.

dunes runner wrote:

If" football did indeed pay for everything, and not the other way around, then you wouldn't have anything to complain about would you.

1. At ND, it does pay for everything. Nobody knows hoow they distribute the money, but football revenue is more than all other ND sports combined.

2. I guess it's a good thing I wasn't complaining then, isn't it?

I was pointing out that those who say that football does not pay its way are a bit selective in the examples they choose. And they tend to forget that the rich alumnus donating 5 million to his school years later usually isn't doing it because of fond memories of watching field-hockey games. If Duke's football program can make money, any one can.

This whole thread is very interesting. I was very Anti Title IX when my track program got cut. Now I'm trying to understand things.

Here's what I know.

Nobody (not Congress, not professors, not the ghost of Bear Bryant) is going to change the role or influence of college football on campus and in the budgets of athletic departments.

To argue that football's influence has to change might be philosophically pleasing, but like so many other academic pursuits, is simply mental masturbation. Let's take a hit off the Reality Pipe.

At OSU, part of the reason track got cut was because the six combined teams (M&W XC, Indoor & Outdoor) cost approximately $250,000 a year. We were flying to meets across the country, staying at nice hotels, and getting a bit of pocket change for the trip as well. Instead of scaling the program back to regional competition and cutting $100,000 or more from the budget, the whole thing got cut. Then a women's soccer team was added to the roster. That team competed regionally and travelled by bus, slept in gyms, etc. The same thing the track program could have done.

This wasn't as much a matter of a strict interpretation of Title IX as it was fiscal mismanagement. If Title IX is in place to protect women in minor sports from over-enthusiastic Athletic Directors who are building new stadiums with deficit spending, than I'm a big fan. Otherwise...

And Professor, Beaver Breath? Ouch. That hurts. Are you trying to imply something about my sexual activities? What should I call you?

I said women's BASKETBALL was $3.1 million, not women's cross-country. Big difference.

I'm in support of looking at Title IX while disregarding football. Looking at the stats, as it stands now:

91 women's scholarships, 41% of total. This means that there are about 220 scholarships in total. Of these, 129 are for men, 85 of which are for football players. That leaves 44 scholarships for men who don't play football (10 of which go to basketball players).

When football is dropped from the equation, women have 91 scholarships and men have 44. This is absolutely ridiculous if you consider the participation level of females in sports. Maybe I'm from a backward country or something, but at my high school, we'd get 20 guys going out for the basketball team compared to 7 girls. To claim that guys, in general, and girls, in general, are equally interested in sports is ludicrous. (Seriously. I won't even CONSIDER anyone who is making that claim.) The question, then, is whether the differing interest in sports should be a factor in deciding on things like scholarships, continuation of programs, etc. In my opinion, it most definitely should be. A 22-minute 5k girl who doesn't get to run college track is far less of a missed opportunity than a 16-minute 5k guy who doesn't get to run college track.

du-can wrote:

A 22-minute 5k girl who doesn't get to run college track is far less of a missed opportunity than a 16-minute 5k guy who doesn't get to run college track.

Take a hike Jack.

My tears have all dried up for the lost male sports in our country's higher institutions.

When YOU cast the blame where it belongs - the money sucking pigskin event of football instead of female sports who for so long got nothing then I will support you.

Please do your homework before you speak. 95% of all football programs don't make money. Notre Dame is the exception to the rule because they have made a deal with the devil, uhh, I mean the Pope.

I find it funny that men think they are so much more worthy of participation in extra curricular activities than females.

Cry cry cry.....it is music to my ears.

Maybe you could take a logic course or something. Is it that men think they are more worthy to participate in extracurricular activities? First of all, let's narrow it down to "sports". Isn't that what this thread is about? Second. Title IX is about people having OPPORTUNITIES to participate if they want to. Clear? I made it clear in my last post - MEN, AS A GROUP, ARE MORE INTERESTED IN SPORTS THAN WOMEN, AS A GROUP. So if they (the makers of Title IX) think that opportunities should be 50/50, they have yet to account for the fact that more men are interested in sports than women. From the fact that men are more interested than women, it follows that men are more interested in pursuing sports in college than women are. Got me? Therefore, if Title IX serves to provide equal opportunity, it should provide the same way for men and women who are equally interested. Not for a girl who runs a 22:00 5k and a guy who runs a 16:00 5k. That guy is probably more interested (trains harder, cares more) than the girl.

Now if you disagree, tell me why. Don't go off with the hyperbole and metaphor. Take my claims, tell me that they're wrong, and make new ones of your own.

Now that I have instructions from you on how to respond I am so grateful.

First of all, from your interpretation of Title IX I can see that you have little knowledge of the amendment as it was written. It is not a "sport" amendment, it addresses extra curricular activities. This doesn't necessarily mean sports. got it?

So, if you think (based on that 20 year research project that you did I'm sure) that WOMEN AREN'T AS INTERESTED IN SPORTS AS MEN, then let me see.......the answer would be to find out WHAT they are most interested in, and offer those extra curricular activities in equal numbers to the ones you offer for males since they make up 51% of the population. It might be dance, or cooking competitions, syncronized swimming events, it does not have to be a varsity sport. What does have to be created is equal extra curricular activities.

Your arguments are old and ragged. You will have to come up with new ones. I can tell you think you are so wise, but you have not done your homework on this topic. Go back three spaces and try again.

16x wrote:

My tears have all dried up for the lost male sports in our country's higher institutions.

When YOU cast the blame where it belongs - the money sucking pigskin event of football instead of female sports who for so long got nothing then I will support you.

Please do your homework before you speak. 95% of all football programs don't make money. Notre Dame is the exception to the rule because they have made a deal with the devil, uhh, I mean the Pope.

I find it funny that men think they are so much more worthy of participation in extra curricular activities than females.

Cry cry cry.....it is music to my ears.

Very well said.

I never said or implied that Title IX was only about sports. I said THIS THREAD IS ABOUT SPORTS. No one here cares about what Title IX affects except running. If they want to find what women want to do with their lives outside of sports and offer that, that's fine. I'm all for it. Creating dance programs, cooking competitions, and syncho. swimming events wouldn't subtract from men's scholarships and eliminate men's programs.

Regarding the 20 year research project: I don't have to do a 20-year research project to determine that men are more interested in sports than women (generally). I also don't have to do a 20-year research project to claim that a) there are 50 states in the United States, b) men are in general taller than women, or c) women generally have longer hair than men. These things are obvious. Tell me if you think that women are equally interested in sports. I honestly don't think you can.

No, I don't know everything about Title IX and the history of its implementation. I don't even know all that much. I'm just presenting what I think is a rational argument. It is irrational for the NCAA and NCAA programs to try to present the same number of opportunities - in varsity sports - for men and for women.

[quote]du-can wrote:

No one here cares about what Title IX affects except running.

Tell me if you think that women are equally interested in sports. I honestly don't think you can.

No, I don't know everything about Title IX and the history of its implementation. I don't even know all that much. I'm just presenting what I think is a rational argument. quote]

Well you don't speak for eveyone, and I care.

Women are equally interested in educational opportunities which is what the amendment was written about and just happened to include sports.

Yes, you seem to know very little about the topic and yet you claim your arguments are rational. There is nothing rational about creating more opportunities to participate in extra curricular opportunities for a population that represents only 1/2 of the human race.

what's your agruement... is it that boys make more money and should deserve better treatment.. why don't we drop all programs that lose money.. what good are they if they don't make money...

and again why does duke need 85 scholarships... pro teams do with much less

"Men's teams accounted for 98 percent of total revenue and 43.9% of expense."

Basketball team made $9.3 million and spent $4.8 million.

Football team (yes, the 3-year losing streak football team) had $6.4 million in revenue and $6.3 million expenses. Now if Duke's horrible football team, which also has to spend much more in scholarship money than any other school (at $37,000 per scholarship, 85 scholarships), can make money, I would guess almost every Division 1 football team makes money.

Women's basketball - by far the top-grossing women's sport - made only $65 000 to compare with $3.1 million in expense. (Remember, this is the #1 ranked women's basketball team in the NCAA.)

Now let's compare men's non-football and basketball sports with women's sports.

Women's sports - basketball included - had a total revenue of $65 000, and a total expense of $8 million.

Other men's teams had a revenue of $321 000 and an expense of $1.6 million.

Now this is just pure empirical data. I'd like to hear what any of you guys will surmise from this regarding Title IX.

Fact: Very few football teams make money. this is not arguable, but a fact. However, this does not take into account donations due to football, enrollments up due to exposure of teams, etc., but in sheer money collected versus money spent, most lose money.

Fact: Football has to be part of the equation whether we want it to or not.

Simplistic but to help clarify: I have a son & a daughter and give them each $150. My son spends all his money on a $150 cd player (football). My daughter spends her money on a $50 cd player and 7 cds (X-C, tennis, etc.). Now, my son is mad at my daughter because she has more diversity in her purchases instead ofbeing mad at the people who made the decision for him to spend all his money in one place.

P.S. -- To the kid evaluating how fast someone runs is relevent, get a life! Some consider 16:00 a pitiful attempt just as you consider 22:00 to be pitiful. Using this as your guide, most people consider running to be so wimpy that it should be thrown out period, especially X-C. "You fags already have track", is many's answer, so please think before you quantify efforts as worthy or not.

Just the Facts.

You got your stuff together. I'd marry you in a minute.