What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

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

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

Terrierbyassociation said:
Could you name a sport that is as violent as football is?

They need those players for depth. They need at least 60 guys.
Click to expand...

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

Runninwiththedogs said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

GreatLakerMohawk said:
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).
Click to expand...

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

CHFAN222 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Terrierbyassociation said:
Could you name a sport that is as violent as football is?

They need those players for depth. They need at least 60 guys.
Click to expand...

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

I think it will always be around. Without too much thinking, I think it should have some kind of weighting assingned to it by youth governing bodies...if we identify X number of collegiate sports, the govering bodies of those sports should tell us how many male vs female participants...giving us a guideline for for the number of sports and schollys offered. ie if "boys" participate in collegeiate type sports at a rate 3x more than women then that should be our guideline.. --come up with a total number of opportunities to compete based on youth sport participation
 
Re: Should Title IX be modified or stay in it's present form?

CHFAN222 said:
The best way for college sports to grow is going to be through increased sports revenue. Which is going to be coming up with the new TV contracts.
Click to expand...
This is completely wrong. More revenue has led to LESS sports. Schools are pouring millions back into football and the events of the past two weeks are only going to reinforce that behavior.

Look no further than the University of Texas. $120 million in annual revenue with an extra $10 million on the way next season. What sports (besides football)is UT going to add or existing sports are they going to improve with the money?

More revenue has led to the "Arms Race" and less sports. Title IX doesn't deserve the blame.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should Title IX be modified or stay in it's present form?

bronconick said:
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!
Click to expand...

Doesn't work that way. The proportion thing means that women should be getting 58% of the scholarships then, which will just mean further cuts to men's sports.

Football is and always has been the key. I used to be of the opinion that it should just be excluded, and let Title IX work for everything but football. As I've thought about it more, though, 85 scholarships is simply not needed, especially when sports like hockey (18 scholarships) and baseball (12.5) can't even fill out a starting lineup (well, baseball that's true assuming you have at least a couple starters and relievers who see continuous use).

Cut the 85 scholarships to 70. You can still go 3 deep at every position with 4 kickers/punters (or 3 kickers and a 4th QB). 15 extra scholarships is a baseball team, most of a hockey team, or a wrestling team.
 
Re: Should Title IX be modified or stay in it's present form?

Scholarships don't really cost universities very much money. The dorms are bought and paid for, the meal plans probably average under $5 per day and sticking an extra kid or two in the classroom costs nothing.

Big name football coaches can cost $1-5 million per season. Assistants can make more than $1 million. Weight rooms, scoreboards, new arenas, stadium expansions cost big bucks.

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

CHFAN222 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Nevergoodenough said:
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.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You think football only subsidizes women's sports?

Dirty said:
Says the woman who has an WCHA All Hottie Team.
Click to expand...

So what? Is that the only thing I write about? Is that the only time I ever pay attention to men's sports? Do I completely dismiss the talent of the players and only focus on their looks?


Brenthoven said:
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).
Click to expand...

And there you are, Cycledown. I can't possibly defend women's sports without being insulted and mocked. You tell me my comment didn't belong? WELL THERE'S YOUR PROOF THAT IT DID.
 
Re: Should Title IX be modified or stay in it's present form?

So in essense this is not about adding/removing sports. Its about adding/removing scholarships.

Its not about gender equality in sports (i.e. if men get baseball, women get softball). It's about money equality.

So a University could add more sports for just men, or just women if they did not offer scholarships to play them?
 
Re: Should Title IX be modified or stay in it's present form?

JF_Gophers said:
So in essense this is not about adding/removing sports. Its about adding/removing scholarships.

Its not about gender equality in sports (i.e. if men get baseball, women get softball). It's about money equality.

So a University could add more sports for just men, or just women if they did not offer scholarships to play them?
Click to expand...

The overall budgets (including scholarships) that the school spends on men and women are supposed to be equal (or proportional), as are the total numbers of participants. Even if you add non-scholarship men's sports, that's still more money (coaches, facilities, etc) being spent on male athletes, and it's more slots available for male athletes.

Otherwise D-III, Ivy League, etc schools (which don't award scholarships) could do whatever they want, and that is clearly not the case.
 
Re: Should Title IX be modified or stay in it's present form?

Does anyone know people who(m) can give a clear definiton of title IX and if so could you let me know?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top