Should Title IX be modified or stay in it's present form?

[The Rube]

Re: Should Title IX be modified or stay in it's present form?

Me? Oversimplify? I would guess at the vast majority of high schools the AD's do their best to give everybody a shot at the prime time slots. The problem is with the types for whom the only goal is absolute equality at all times and under all circumstances. Although they're a tiny loud- mouthed minority, UND among others, has learned that lack of actual support is no barrier for PC types.

Apart from modifying Title IX, which the Barack Obamas and Dick Durbins of the world would never countenance, the answer is money, which is in short supply for most college athletic departments. There is also what I call the "DU solution," which involves having a majority of your sports co-educational.

When you hear Title IX Nazis talking about "why do we need so many scholarships for football," you realize you're dealing with people who have no interest in fairness for men and no understanding of which sport draws 50 to 100,000 paying customers to campus several times a year. They remind me of Hitler, in the bunker, waiting for General Wenck to come relieve the siege of Berlin--out of touch with reality.

Actually, I was referring to the "slopping the pigs" part of your post.

Is a 6pm/5pm/whatever start ideal for men's sports? Probably not. But it's not such an inconvenience to most of the fans of said sports to skip it altogether. Think of it like TV. You have a weak lead-in show to try and hook the fans of the main show, or have the weak after-show to try and retain the viewers from the main show. It might work in sports, it might not.

The worst that can happen? The sports world remains status quo, for the most part. The best? Women's sports grow, and maybe a couple men's sports won't be cut.

[Old Pio]

Re: Should Title IX be modified or stay in it's present form?

Well the first part you are obviously oversimplifying. But yes, it poses an inconvenience, potentially.

On the college level, I wholeheartedly agree. It's a matter of finding a solution to the unintended problem that Title IX created.

Me? Oversimplify? I would guess at the vast majority of high schools the AD's do their best to give everybody a shot at the prime time slots. The problem is with the types for whom the only goal is absolute equality at all times and under all circumstances. Although they're a tiny loud- mouthed minority, UND among others, has learned that lack of actual support is no barrier for PC types.

Apart from modifying Title IX, which the Barack Obamas and Dick Durbins of the world would never countenance, the answer is money, which is in short supply for most college athletic departments. There is also what I call the "DU solution," which involves having a majority of your sports co-educational.

When you hear Title IX Nazis talking about "why do we need so many scholarships for football," you realize you're dealing with people who have no interest in fairness for men and no understanding of which sport draws 50 to 100,000 paying customers to campus several times a year. They remind me of Hitler, in the bunker, waiting for General Wenck to come relieve the siege of Berlin--out of touch with reality.

[The Rube]

Re: Should Title IX be modified or stay in it's present form?

Let's see, if the boys tip off at 7, then "just before" would be 5 or 5:30.
Do you honestly think that would satisfy the hard core? "Why my husband won't be done slopping the hogs 'til 6, and that means we'll miss the first half."

And "just after" would present its own problems: "That game won't be over 'til at least 9, and I've gotta change granny's ostomy bag at 8:30."

The type of person who runs to a lawyer to find a judge who will issue a scheduling ruling for the local high school is unlikely to be moved by compromise.

On the college level, Title IX is a textbook example of "The Law of Unintended Consequences." It has provided additional athletic opportunities for the ladies, which we all support. But in far too many instances at the cost of athletic opportunities for men. Tennis, gymnastics and wrestling are just three sports devastated because of Title IX at colleges and universities from coast to coast. Do we really want that?

Well the first part you are obviously oversimplifying. But yes, it poses an inconvenience, potentially.

On the college level, I wholeheartedly agree. It's a matter of finding a solution to the unintended problem that Title IX created.

[Old Pio]

Re: Should Title IX be modified or stay in it's present form?

Have the girls games just before the boys, or have the boys start slightly earlier and then have the girls games follow it. Simple things like that may at least add a couple fans.

I'm not an AD/SID, for obvious reasons, but as a fan of sports, I hope I can stumble across an idea or two to help the overall picture.

Let's see, if the boys tip off at 7, then "just before" would be 5 or 5:30.
Do you honestly think that would satisfy the hard core? "Why my husband won't be done slopping the hogs 'til 6, and that means we'll miss the first half."

And "just after" would present its own problems: "That game won't be over 'til at least 9, and I've gotta change granny's ostomy bag at 8:30."

The type of person who runs to a lawyer to find a judge who will issue a scheduling ruling for the local high school is unlikely to be moved by compromise.

On the college level, Title IX is a textbook example of "The Law of Unintended Consequences." It has provided additional athletic opportunities for the ladies, which we all support. But in far too many instances at the cost of athletic opportunities for men. Tennis, gymnastics and wrestling are just three sports devastated because of Title IX at colleges and universities from coast to coast. Do we really want that?

[The Rube]

Re: Should Title IX be modified or stay in it's present form?

High schools with very limited facilities are battling gender scheduling problems constantly these days. Do they schedule the boys' basketball team for prime time on Saturday night, knowing they're going to get hammered by gender equity types? And also knowing the gate will be much smaller for a prime time girls' game.

To be sure, there are situations where officials just aren't much interested in giving the ladies a fair shot. There have been lawsuits filed on this very issue. But if the public evidently prefers watching the boys' games, what is a school to do? These are taxpayers, after all.

I'm waiting for some extremist somewhere to advocate requiring people to attend girls' events, and once there, to cheer as loudly for them as they do for the boys. Federal cheering monitors can enforce the regulations. "Anybody got bail money for grandpa? He got busted for not cheering loudly enough at the syncronized swim meet."

Have the girls games just before the boys, or have the boys start slightly earlier and then have the girls games follow it. Simple things like that may at least add a couple fans.

I'm not an AD/SID, for obvious reasons, but as a fan of sports, I hope I can stumble across an idea or two to help the overall picture.

[Old Pio]

Re: Should Title IX be modified or stay in it's present form?

That's a dangerous road. They need the opportunity to get that revenue. If there is no opportunity, they are dead before they begin. I'm not saying give out national tv contracts like they do in football, but don't relegate them to say, 2pm on a Tuesday afternoon, where most people wouldn't be able to go see them.

High schools with very limited facilities are battling gender scheduling problems constantly these days. Do they schedule the boys' basketball team for prime time on Saturday night, knowing they're going to get hammered by gender equity types? And also knowing the gate will be much smaller for a prime time girls' game.

To be sure, there are situations where officials just aren't much interested in giving the ladies a fair shot. There have been lawsuits filed on this very issue. But if the public evidently prefers watching the boys' games, what is a school to do? These are taxpayers, after all.

I'm waiting for some extremist somewhere to advocate requiring people to attend girls' events, and once there, to cheer as loudly for them as they do for the boys. Federal cheering monitors can enforce the regulations. "Anybody got bail money for grandpa? He got busted for not cheering loudly enough at the syncronized swim meet."

[The Rube]

Re: Should Title IX be modified or stay in it's present form?

What I hear.... "I am WOMAN, hear me roar!!! Now all you men pick up the check.." I'm all for women playing sports, but they shouldn't get such absolute equality if they don't produce the same (or even close) revenue.

That's a dangerous road. They need the opportunity to get that revenue. If there is no opportunity, they are dead before they begin. I'm not saying give out national tv contracts like they do in football, but don't relegate them to say, 2pm on a Tuesday afternoon, where most people wouldn't be able to go see them.

[Nevergoodenough]

Re: Should Title IX be modified or stay in it's present form?

What I hear.... "I am WOMAN, hear me roar!!! Now all you men pick up the check.." I'm all for women playing sports, but they shouldn't get such absolute equality if they don't produce the same (or even close) revenue.

[bronconick]

Re: Should Title IX be modified or stay in it's present form?

Actually, I'm fairly certain a fair number of teams are now independently owned, i.e., not owned by the NBA. Not sure what the exact number of teams is (I do not even know how many teams are in the WNBA).

It's 8 of 12, but the NBA's still shoveling money at it to keep it afloat. Amusingly, because of the crap economy, the WNBA is losing less money than the NBA.

[HoosierBBall_GopherHockey]

Re: Should Title IX be modified or stay in it's present form?

That's because strong fundamentals do not make up for the lack of dunking, no matter what the Femputer says.

Also, if women alone wanted to watch women's sports, there would be such leagues. But most women prefer watching men's sports too.

It's not a male problem that even the WNBA would have folded already were it not subsidized by the NBA.

Actually, I'm fairly certain a fair number of teams are now independently owned, i.e., not owned by the NBA. Not sure what the exact number of teams is (I do not even know how many teams are in the WNBA).

[state of hockey]

Re: Should Title IX be modified or stay in it's present form?

I feel bad for women, they have suffered for too long in this country what with all their rights.

End women's suffrage!

It was amazing to see how many women signed that petition.

[The Rube]

Re: Should Title IX be modified or stay in it's present form?

I feel bad for women, they have suffered for too long in this country what with all their rights.

End women's suffrage!

.

[JF_Gophers]

Re: Should Title IX be modified or stay in it's present form?

I feel bad for women, they have suffered for too long in this country what with all their rights.

End women's suffrage!

[unofan]

Re: Should Title IX be modified or stay in it's present form?

Beyond college, there are little to no opportunities for women to play sports at an elite level.

That's because strong fundamentals do not make up for the lack of dunking, no matter what the Femputer says.

Also, if women alone wanted to watch women's sports, there would be such leagues. But most women prefer watching men's sports too.

It's not a male problem that even the WNBA would have folded already were it not subsidized by the NBA.

[Happy]

Re: Should Title IX be modified or stay in it's present form?

First of all, it's women's sports, not ladies' sports.

You are blaming the female athletes for the cheapness of the administration. Like I said before, add women's hockey. Boom, you've got your equal scholarships.

The idea that most men's sports pay their way is laughable. I'm sooooooo sure that Gopher men's tennis, golf, swimming & diving, track and cross-country are just rolling in dough.

Let's talk about hockey and elite opportunities. How many more ****ing hockey teams do you need, really, that you begrudge women's sports so? There are junior hockey teams, ECHL, AHL, NHL, D-1, D-3, IHL, SPHL... I love hockey and I want to grow the sport, but I'm not so desperate for new teams that I need to find scapegoats to explain why more schools don't have hockey. Please. Beyond college, there are little to no opportunities for women to play sports at an elite level. There are multitudes for men. So in this microcosm of the sports worth, college athletics, women actually get a measure of equality, and you have your head so far up your *** that you can't see how pathetically disparate the sporting world is and you demand that women's sports get thrust even further back into the dark ages just so that, what? 5 more D-1 hockey cupcakes can get invited to your pathetic little Dodge Holiday Classic?

There is a reason Title IX is so absolute. Because if it wasn't, then it wouldn't work at all.

actually, I blame the women's fans for not willing to pay to watch women's sports teams. This shows a lack of interest on their part, and this lack of interest should be able to be used to show that since women have much less interest in sports, they don't need to be so over represented as players. Even with women's tickets being much less than the men's teams, no where near as many fans want to watch them. I am not against women's sports, but why do my favorite sports have to cost much more, or be eliminated because of the women? How about paying your own way just this once.