Why are Division I qualifying times for scholarships so much easier for women?

None of those times would get you a D1 scholarship.

Mencken1976 wrote:

So men low 16's, around 3.5 minutes slower than world record. That's pretty slow already.

For women low 20's? That's about 6 minutes slower than world record. Very slow, many local area women who are much older run those times.

If they were on par (using women as base) a D1 scholarship qualifying time for men would be around 18:30 for a 5k.

1) Most men and women with those times do NOT get D1 scholarships. I'm sure you can find a crap school somewhere that is trying to get a few who are even just moderately good, but typically those times don't garner D1 scholarship money.

2) Title IX is the reason women get more scholarship money...more money overall...more athletes getting the money overall.

Not even a roster spot at a decent school.

As people said, your times are off. But it is true, it's easier to get more money as a girl. This is because of Title IX, the scholarship amounts available for Men and Women have to be equal. Because football exists, and football has 81 scholarships available for the football team, other men's sports have to have smaller amounts, and women's sports have to have increased amounts.

For all sports that have both genders, like track/basketball/gymnastics/swimming etc., all of these sports have less scholarships available per men's team than women's teams. For track, it's something like 12.6 scholarships available for men's track team, and something like 17

scholarships for the women's team.

Similar situations for numbers of athletes. You can't have more male athletes at a university than female athletes. So if you cut a Women's team, or if women quit a team, you will have to cut a Men's sport, or cut some male individuals to get the numbers even again.

Women's cross country and track teams are larger to balance out for male only sports such as football which takes something like 85 full scholarships. Schools can count women 3x for XC, indoor and outdoor, so there is an incentive to carrying larger rosters, even if half the team doesn't stand a prayer of ever racing in a varsity competition.

Most teams even cheat a bit with XC. Mid D girls show up for 2 weeks of practice and run in a season opener and get counted on the roster.

That's what I thought, the web site obviously has bad information.

Women can get a scholarship by running in the low 18s for xc but only the worst teams would give men who haven't run under 15 a scholarship. Women's teams have more scholarships to give and fewer women attempt to run at a high level than men. The natural result of this is that its easier for a woman who takes the sport seriously in hs to get a scholarship

Flagpole wrote:

2) Title IX is the reason women get more scholarship money...more money overall...more athletes getting the money overall.

This is EXCEPTIONALLY wrong!

Men and women receive equal scholarship money.

Men choose to spend an incredible amount on one sport........ then convince those that participate in other sports to feel hurt and blame women to keep the status quo in place.

Title IX assures men & women receive equal $, but does not legislate how it is used.

You have to keep in mind that womens sports is much less developed than mens. Many areas have only had womens sports for a few decades and it is just less developed, if that makes sense. Also, men are naturally more aggressive and ambitious and so more men work to reach the faster times than women would. Anyone who has ran competitively knows mens running is just deeper at the moment.

just the facts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

2) Title IX is the reason women get more scholarship money...more money overall...more athletes getting the money overall.

This is EXCEPTIONALLY wrong!

Men and women receive equal scholarship money.

Men choose to spend an incredible amount on one sport........ then convince those that participate in other sports to feel hurt and blame women to keep the status quo in place.

Title IX assures men & women receive equal $, but does not legislate how it is used.

[sigh] - We are talking about track here. There is more money for women's track than there is for men...BECAUSE so much scholarship money is used in football.

Women's track teams allow 18 scholarships to use per NCAA rules, and men have 12.6 to use. So, you are wrong.

I don't say things without knowing.

Not wrong.

First, this is running site so we are referring to track where women get 50% more scholarships than men. Those limits are established by the NCAA. Yes a school can choose to provide the same number but normally schools maximize the number allowed in every sport that they field in order to be competitive.

Second, most schools interpret Title IX to require equal opportunity across the student body.

More women are attending college so more scholarships are provided. If a college is 60% female, they provide 60% of scholarships to women and 60% of roster sports to women. That sounds fair but it becomes a chicken and egg argument. There are more athletic and academic scholarships for women, so more women attend college.

just the facts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

2) Title IX is the reason women get more scholarship money...more money overall...more athletes getting the money overall.

This is EXCEPTIONALLY wrong!

Men and women receive equal scholarship money.

Men choose to spend an incredible amount on one sport........ then convince those that participate in other sports to feel hurt and blame women to keep the status quo in place.

Title IX assures men & women receive equal $, but does not legislate how it is used.

Nobody "blames women" for the lack of male scholarships. If anything we would prefer more female participation so that more male scholarships are available. What we blame is the ludicrous farce that is Title IX.

Flagpole wrote:

[sigh] - We are talking about track here. There is more money for women's track than there is for men...BECAUSE so much scholarship money is used in football.

I don't say things without knowing.

The first statement is correct. Because of FOOTBALL, not title IX.

You don't say things without knowing...................as far as you know. You offer some great points when you stay on topic and explain yourself, but when you blather-on you tend to say a lot of incorrect things.

For another poster, if men do not blame women, why is title IX mentioned? It is football siphoning the men's $. Instead of posting on a message board about title IX, consider taking a group to the AD at mid-majors and ask why so much is invested in football that loses on average $1.25 million per year, and if they are lucky enough to make a bowl game, another $750K to $1.1 million. This is where the questions should be, not title IX.

What don't you understand about how it used to be prior to Title IX? If Title IX did not exist, schools would provide double the number of male scholarships to female scholarships. The NCAA would remove the silly limit of 12.6 for male track and schools would cancel many women's sports.

just the facts wrote:

For another poster, if men do not blame women, why is title IX mentioned?

Because Title IX is the law preventing more men's scholarships. Abolish Title IX, and the number of football roster spots would be irrelevant to the equation. You take for granted that everyone supports Title IX and it should be sacrosanct but it is not so.

Hardloper wrote:

Because Title IX is the law preventing more men's scholarships. Abolish Title IX, and the number of football roster spots would be irrelevant to the equation. You take for granted that everyone supports Title IX and it should be sacrosanct but it is not so.

Maybe you don't support shared public drinking fountains either, but at some point there became a need for title IX for equality's sake. Whether you or I support it or not. The majority of men's $ is wrapped up in one sport and men sit back and accept that looking for some other target for their angst.

just the facts wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

Because Title IX is the law preventing more men's scholarships. Abolish Title IX, and the number of football roster spots would be irrelevant to the equation. You take for granted that everyone supports Title IX and it should be sacrosanct but it is not so.

Maybe you don't support shared public drinking fountains either, but at some point there became a need for title IX for equality's sake. Whether you or I support it or not. The majority of men's $ is wrapped up in one sport and men sit back and accept that looking for some other target for their angst.

Title IX isn't needed in 2020. You sound more like you're trying to provoke unnecessary hatred of football rather than promote anything like equality. Abolish or modify title IX, and we can keep football while also having more equal opportunity in other sports.

Men run faster and jump higher and throw further. Why should a university be required to provide opportunities to inferior athletes? Is it the fault of a male that he was born male? Shouldn't he be allowed to compete for a roster spot or a scholarship on a level playing field like it is in every other aspect of life? Why not create one track team and one football team and one volleyball team and one rowing team and allow everyone to compete without considering race or religion or gender?