Title IX is Ruining the Olympcs

Nothing but excuses. In case you were unaware --likely-- the rest of the world doesn't give anywhere near as many T&F scholarships as the U.S. does.

Also sports that are popular in the United States are not olympic sports. It's no secret that the vast majority of the top athletes in the United States either play football, basketball, or baseball. Basketball is the only sport that actually attracts top American male talent and ta-da basketball is doing exceedingly well. Taking this into consideration the men are actually doing decently well.

Women in the United States however prefer a wider diversity of sports, all of which are olympic sports with the exception of softball. This isn't necessarily a title XII problem but a culture "problem". Most Americans don't care about olympic sports, except every four years.

^this^ the op's biggest concern should be that many of our country's best male athletes are only focusing on the big three, football, basketball and baseball.

and..and.. wrote:

Also sports that are popular in the United States are not olympic sports. It's no secret that the vast majority of the top athletes in the United States either play football, basketball, or baseball. Basketball is the only sport that actually attracts top American male talent and ta-da basketball is doing exceedingly well. Taking this into consideration the men are actually doing decently well.

Women in the United States however prefer a wider diversity of sports, all of which are olympic sports with the exception of softball. This isn't necessarily a title XII problem but a culture "problem". Most Americans don't care about olympic sports, except every four years.

I am not a fan of the way TItle IX is interpreted and implemented, but men's sports have expanded since its inception.

There is nothing that says a male wanting to become an Olympian has to go the college route. Men's gymnastics is virtually non-existent in colleges (and the women in college are not the ones you see at the Games) and yet the men do well (not at this Olympics but they did well at worlds).

The women win medals because of a much shallower talent pool. Many countries do not put any resources into women's sports at all.

The men who are passed over due to Title IX aren't possible medal winners. I don't like Title IX either, but the very few NCAA men with Olympic talent are treated fine.

I am going to have to agree with the OP here.

Title IX and the exploitation of title IX is hurting men's track and field.

Many colleges are completely cutting their men's track programs. They often cite title IX but they really just want to put the money into the bigger sports.

The opportunity for development has decreased.

While there are always opportunities for top athletes, the next tier are not getting a shot.

They are the ones who push them in practice and fill up lanes and provide competition at meets.

US men's track is on a bad trend at the developmental level.

I never understood how the answer to giving women equity in sports in general was to reduce opportunity for men in certain sports.

The argument can be made for either viewpoint now, but what about 20 years from now? There are only so many universities with men's track teams, and if the recent trends continue it could be very detrimental to the sport at the Olympic level down the road.

If things continue on their current path, there may need to be some intervention to give opportunities back to men. Avoid this by tightening up the enforcement of title IX now.

We should move away from school based sports- period. They should all be club level. If the school wants to sponsor or lend their name to a club, so be it. But no scholarships or grants in aid.

marrakech express wrote:

The men who are passed over due to Title IX aren't possible medal winners. I don't like Title IX either, but the very few NCAA men with Olympic talent are treated fine.

I would disagree.

Title IX's greatest impact on men's sports is the elimination of the developmental phases. That tall lanky kid who ran 4:40 at Podunkville High School because that's as fast as he needed to run to win the small school championship isn't going to get the chance to be the next Jim Ryun.

Actually, there's even been faster kids that have dropped out of collegiate sports because they got tired of being treated like crap. When I coached we had more than a few kids who could run 14 minute 5k's and 3:50 1500's as freshmen and sophomores but eventually dropped out because they were having to either work at a part time job during school and/or go into debt, and all because of the scholarship restrictions brought about by Title IX.

I like the club level idea, but explain how that would work.

First, you need facilities.

Without track programs, colleges wouldn't need to maintain tracks and wouldn't allow clubs to use their tracks.

or maybe they would charge fees.

Then you would need coaches and organizers.

Colleges provide a lot and have efficiencies for this.

Athletes would not only not get scholarships but would have to come up with money for fees and equipment.

It would be a tough transition.

I don't care much for the NCAA but it is a nice established system to develop track.

But the opportuniites for men are being taken away and it is beginning to show.

Aquafina wrote:

We should move away from school based sports- period. They should all be club level. If the school wants to sponsor or lend their name to a club, so be it. But no scholarships or grants in aid.

here here. At some point athletic scholarships will be outlawed and we will look back and scratch our heads and say together 'wtf were we thinking?'

$2 billion is awarded in athletic scholarships. Insane.

The only male track athletes negatively affected by Title IX are so far from being olympic level athletes that it renders this post completely useless. Every single blue chip prospect will be able to find a scholarship.

Believe me, I understand it must be frustrating to lose your track team, but let's be honest, no one who is left without a scholarship is relevant to our international success.

This is all without pointing out the fact that we're ahead in the overall medal count because of our women.

agip wrote:

here here. At some point athletic scholarships will be outlawed and we will look back and scratch our heads and say together 'wtf were we thinking?'

That's actually "hear, hear"--you know, as in "listen to what this person is saying"?

I'm not one of the grammarnazis on this board, but I've been seeing this one a lot recently (even in "The New Yorker"!) and it's starting to bother me.

I used to be very skeptical of the notion Title IX is hurting men's track and field at the national and international level, but I now am inclined to agree with the initial poster's views. I try to get to college track meets often (former Div. 1 scholarship runner from 30 years ago), and field event coaches consistently tell me that elimination or marginalization of men's programs really hurts the sport. The fact is that greater numbers of participants really help, especially with late bloomers. And the numbers have been drastically reduced.