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

Scholar Expert wrote:

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?

Sorry for breaking my promise, but come on, I HAD to respond to this.

Instead of one track team, why don't you accept that football players are superior male athletes and distance runners are not worthy of any $. Quit whining, hit the weight room, and join the football team if you are not an inferior athlete.

Hardloper wrote:

Title IX isn't needed in 2020.

After reading "Scholar Expert's" post, I'm not sure that I agree.

Equality of opportunity means any individual can be offered a scholarship or roster spot if the athletic program believes they are worthy of one regardless of the allocation of scholarships in other sports. Analyses that show football programs "lose money" ignore their impact on admissions. College football players should get scholarships because they earn money for the school and drive enrollment. These scholarships shouldn't also require other men's sports to reduce opportunities, but they do thanks to archaic laws like title IX in place.

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.

You're right. The problem is football teams are absurdly big and most Americans never think about how the 100+ man football roster with 85 scholarships is screwing all the other sports. Its on the telly and Americans want to be entertained and not think too hard. The other option would be to not count football for title ix purposes since there is no equivalent women's team - or to require institutions to have mens and womens football with equal size rosters and 85 scholarships. The latter would upset the status quo and would upset the football watching audience who are probably the most resistant to change as they are largely part of the last holdouts still subscribing to cable tv demographic and many universities, motivated by economics would fight this as it would be expensive for them. Women's football wouldn't be any more popular than women's basketball, maybe even less since there isn't high school women's football to draw an audience and would cost universities a lot of money.

Hardloper wrote:

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.

Universities would fight this. Those that are willing to shell out for 40 track scholarships would crush universities that don't have the resources for half that many and even those who could afford 40 would fight because now they have to pay more for a non revenue sport. Only football and basketball and only at a few programs actually make money. The rest of the sports are just to draw students by making the school look good.

just the facts wrote:

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.

No, the point of the argument is that because Title IX is forcing equality, schools literally have to lower their standards just to give out more female scholarships, whereas men are fighting for them. The school wouldn't be giving out those female scholarships in the first place if it weren't for the regulation.

I've seen this on my college team, where men are fighting just to make the team whereas there's always 3-4 girls that make the team but have absolutely no shot at making conference. If schools could just allocate their money to the people who deserve it, and make it a fair meritocracy then people wouldn't be arguing.

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.

I do not know why male XC and T&F athletes over the years come on here and get mad at female XC and T&F athletes. The issue is the Am. football team with their 105 men roster and 85 athletic grants. American college football used to have unlimited rosters and 150 athletic grants. The quality of Am. football does not decrease with fewer athletic grants. A college football team needs about 60 men. If there were thirty athletic grants for Am. football, we would not see decrease in quality of play. T&F does need more athletic grants, especially for men. Both genders need 25 for T&F. College T&F athletes, men & women should work together to get to 25 with 45 roster spots for each gender. The pot of gold is the Am. football program. Guys, stop coming on here getting mad at your female cousins and sisters!

Does football drive enrollment though? Is the University of Maryland's enrollment down because their football team is bad? How about across the border at George Mason U which doesn't have a football team? I'll agree that a good football does allow a college to be selective because it is one of the bottom factors for a student in where to attend. For instance if a student was accepted into only Bowling Green State U and the OSU (not to be confused by OSU, its the OSU) and for my argument's sake lets just say the student wants to study X, which is ranked 71st at the OSU and 64th at BGSU, basically equal, walk on the golf team (he's a slightly above average hs golfer who has been offered a walk on spot at both which is why these are the only 2 considered), toured both campuses and liked both equally, etc. it might come down to which has the better football team as to which school he'll select as top choice.

For some D3 and small schools having sports teams drives enrollment because the athletes are going to go somewhere they can play their sport - having a bunch of teams helps as the school actually does get more applicants and can be more selective as a top student who plays a sport will select that school over one ranked better where he can't walk on.

Kvothe wrote:

Does football drive enrollment though?

Of course it does

Hardloper wrote:

Kvothe wrote:

Does football drive enrollment though?

Of course it does

It gets students to apply or consider the school, but I don't know about actually driving enrollmment. Its not like a school just adds 3000 more students because applications spiked. It may allow for some more selectivity, but that is all.

Kvothe wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

Of course it does

It gets students to apply or consider the school, but I don't know about actually driving enrollmment. Its not like a school just adds 3000 more students because applications spiked. It may allow for some more selectivity, but that is all.

Not in the short term but in the long term, yes. Schools can expand or charge more money due to increased demand.

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.

You write "Men choose to" like all men universally agreed that the NCAA should divvy up scholarships the way they did. How many people were in on that decision at the NCAA, and were they all men? I'd guess that some women were part of that decision too when it happened. If it were up to me, a man, if there are 17 scholarships in women's track and field, there should be 17 in men's track and field, 17 in men's football, and 17 in a women's only sport to balance the men's football. I don't know what women's only sport the might be. Maybe women's flag football? That seems popular locally at the high school level at least. I don't agree with the dozens and dozens of scholarships to football BS .

Right now women's tri is the only women only sport in the NCAA. There aren't even 30 programs and a lot of them are at schools you wouldn't think. Cheerleading is predominantly women though. Maybe the best idea would be get more interest in tri, make cheerleading an ncaa sport, and cut down both the size and number of scholarships offered to football teams. Football has like 4 strings anyways, I bet only a few xc teams have 28 guys.

You missed a few sports.

Men's track gets less scholarship money than women's track due to Title IX. Doesn't matter the reason why Title IX means there is less money available to men in track than for women. Also, (I know you directed this comment at another poster, but just to clarify), I am not blaming women for Title IX. I think it's a good rule. The fact is though, that Title IX is the reason there are fewer track scholarships available to men than women -- as declared by the NCAA. 12.6 scholarships available max to the men and 18 for women.

Flagpole wrote:Men's track gets less scholarship money than women's track due to Title IX. Doesn't matter the reason why Title IX means there is less money available to men in track than for women. Also, (I know you directed this comment at another poster, but just to clarify), I am not blaming women for Title IX. I think it's a good rule. The fact is though, that Title IX is the reason there are fewer track scholarships available to men than women -- as declared by the NCAA. 12.6 scholarships available max to the men and 18 for women.

This is why women get more scholarships for track/XC than men. Very simple really.

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.

Why are you using the time gap instead of the percentage difference when looking at comparable performances? That's faulty logic.

I've even seen cases where guys had their girlfriend join the D1 varsity program so they could run a 22 minute 5k at a home meet.

My admin loves it when I add borderline talent women to my roster who would be better off at a mid major or lower division program. Since they count 3 times (XC/indoor/outdoor) for Title IX purposes, you can see the "cha-ching" in the eyes of my sport admin when I show him my incoming womens numbers every year. In fact I know thats important than winning to my admin. We call them "Niners" and I have my volunteer "coach" them. Cost of doing business.