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

[5mn_Major]

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

You dont plan on failure. Obviously if you dont have the money you dont make the plan but this thread is about a piece of legislation that could be modied pending on its intepretation. If the Title was modified the start up costs for schools would be alot cheaper than at the moment.

I understand but my post below drives my answer. I am fine with it as is...unless I see a great solution (and I don't expect one)...as I appreciate the underlying concept of title ix.

[Runninwiththedogs]

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

Essentially what you are saying is that men's sports are being held back because of those **** women's sports. Couch it as you want, but asking for a modification of Title IX means asking for a return to gender inequity in college sports. But, most men probably want that, since female athletes are either derided or sexualized. You want reform of Title IX because you think men's sports are more deserving of athletic department dollars than women's sports.

Do you know how many times someone tells me, in a nice jovial manner, to get back in the kitchen? EVERY TIME I MAKE A FEMINIST STATEMENT. Which is often.

[Puck Swami]

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

Big deal if a men's sport has to be cut. There are professional minor leagues for every major men's sport (I don't know this for a fact in regard to pumpkin pushing but it must be true). College athletics is one of a multitude of options for competition for men at a high level. Wahhhhhh!!! Poor men!!! You are so oppressed by the audacity of women to believe they deserve the same privilege of college-subsidized athletic opportunities!!!

I'll just pre-empt everyone else here and say we should get rid of Title IX and send women back to the kitchen where we belong. OMG!! I must be PMSing!!!

I'm with RWD in that women deserve every opportunity we can give them, and the explosion of excellence in women's sports in the last 30-40 years is directly because of Title IX and the brave women who fought for equality.

That said, it's football that is the big culprit in Title IX debate, IMHO. Amazing how football needs 85 scholarships and can dress 100 players when only about 30 players actually play. These schools are stockpiling players so that opponents can't get them. NFL teams have 53 man rosters. I'd much rather see football at 55 scholarships, and use the other 30 to fund other sports instead of cutting them....

[Terrierbyassociation]

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

Could you name a sport that is as violent as football is?

They need those players for depth. They need at least 60 guys.

[Jimjamesak]

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

Hockey is regional, for the most part, always has been, and prob always will be. If you want a comparison, look at soccer at the pro level. The US doesn't give two craps about soccer.

It has grown, sure, but it won't be a major sport nationwide. Hockey has grown, sure, but it won't be a major sport nationwide. Get my drift?

Actually, if you want to use soccer in a Title IX discussion, look at the effect Title IX has had on women's college soccer and women's soccer in general. Women's soccer programs sprung up all over the place because it was reletively cheap and reletively popular. The sheer number of high quality programs compared to other countries led to years of domination of the sport by Americans (the first 2 out of 3 World Cups), only now has some of the world caught up (and the top tier in Womens soccer only really includes 5-6 countries). In most cases it is far easier for woman to get a college scholarship in soccer than it is for a man, however it's far easier for a man to make a living playing soccer than a woman.

[LynahFan]

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

This all boils down to football - the 85-scholarship gorilla in the corner. There's no women's equivalent, nor is there likely ever to be. Any school that gives the full complement of football scholarships therefore has to have at least 3 or 4 extra women's teams to balance that out. When it comes down to deciding how to achieve that balance, cutting men's teams is a whole lot easier decision to make than adding women's.

[LynahFan]

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

Could you name a sport that is as violent as football is?

They need those players for depth. They need at least 60 guys.

So what? Why do all 60 need to be on scholarship? Lacrosse rosters are typically around 50 guys, but they only have 12 scholarships to divvy up among the players (almost nobody gets a full scholarship). If all the schools were limited to 50 football scholarships, the playing field would still be level. The "problem" is that there would be a lot more parity in the sport. If I had the chance to be the 61st player (3rd-string, no scholarship) at Texas or one of the top 60 at a smaller school, the smaller school will look a whole lot more attractive. So limiting the number of scholarships would be a boon for the second and third tier schools, and the football powers will never allow it. The 85 scholarships are just so they can stockpile 3rd and 4th string talent and take it away from the smaller schools.

[GreatLakerMohawk]

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

This is where those of us in the Northeast are ahead of the curve since college football is pretty much either mediocre or non-existent up here.

F-ck football (for these purposes at least).

[Nevergoodenough]

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

Essentially what you are saying is that men's sports are being held back because of those **** women's sports. Couch it as you want, but asking for a modification of Title IX means asking for a return to gender inequity in college sports. But, most men probably want that, since female athletes are either derided or sexualized. You want reform of Title IX because you think men's sports are more deserving of athletic department dollars than women's sports.

Do you know how many times someone tells me, in a nice jovial manner, to get back in the kitchen? EVERY TIME I MAKE A FEMINIST STATEMENT. Which is often.

How's this for a solution: Let the individual sports pay for themselves? Football generates it's own revenue, as does basketball, hockey, lacrosse, rowing, soccer, wrestling, etc...... The strong survive, the weak die away.

What Title IX has provided for women is an opportunity for them to compete while the men pay for the privilage. Now, I'm all for women in sports but don't throw the sexism thing in our face yet ask the men to pay. Going out with a man, expecting him to pay for dinner but preaching about equality just doesn't fly.

Football is creating the issues all the way down to high school. However, football probably brings in the most money to D1 schools.

As true with many government mandates: The theory is good, the execution is suspect.

[bronconick]

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

So, at what point does the % of women going to college over men reach a point where Title IX reverses? In 2006, men were down to 42% of campuses.

More football scholarships! Give the poor downtrodden man a chance at an education!

[Dirty]

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

But, most men probably want that, since female athletes are either derided or sexualized.

Says the woman who has an WCHA All Hottie Team.

[Chuck Schwartz]

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

Says the woman who has an WCHA All Hottie Team.

Point Dirty +1.

[CHFAN222]

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

This is where those of us in the Northeast are ahead of the curve since college football is pretty much either mediocre or non-existent up here.

F-ck football (for these purposes at least).

Except for D1-FBS football at Army, Rutgers, UCONN, BC, Syracuse, and Buffalo. Also FCS Football at Villanova, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Brown, UNH, UMASS, Maine, Holy Cross... I think I've named enough.

[The Rube]

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

Except for D1-FBS football at Army, Rutgers, UCONN, BC, Syracuse, and Buffalo. Also FCS Football at Villanova, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Brown, UNH, UMASS, Maine, Holy Cross... I think I've named enough.

All mediocre. Just sayin'.

RWD: Go make me a sandwich. And besides, shouldn't you be barefoot and pregnant by now? Sheesh. The nerve of some broads.


Title IX is great, in spirit. However, schools cut popular programs to fall in line, rather than add new ones. That's my problem with it (to put it in simplest terms).

[Puck Swami]

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

Could you name a sport that is as violent as football is?

They need those players for depth. They need at least 60 guys.

They don't need 85 scholarship players for playing depth. NFL teams do just fine with 53 man rosters. The college teams have up to 100 kids on the sidelines at home games and only about 35 players or so see game action, so there are another 60 guys waiting to play, and many of those 60extras are simply practice field fodder for the varsity and won't see game action.

These programs just want to stockpile players keep more of their top prospects away from the other schools and protect themselves from parity. If the NCAA cut football scholarships from 85 to 55, you would see a big jump in quality of the second tier conferences, as the talent would be spread more evenly and that's just what top BCS programs don't want.

The 85 scholarships are all about protecting current status and revenue, and most of the men's sport cuts that happen are blamed on Title IX and women, when in actuality, football is most of the problem.