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

[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!

 

[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!

.

 

[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.

 

[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).

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

When you use the term "men's" and "women's" I assume you're referring to college sports. In the "slopping the hogs" analogy I was talking about high school sports and referring to at least one lawsuit I'm familiar with filed in Iowa. That's where the scheduling battles are taking place, not so much in college.

There will be no going back or compromising on Title IX on the college level. "They" run the show and call the shots and "they" have no incentive to give an inch.

 

[HoosierBBall_GopherHockey]

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.

I did notice that Bush was certainly working hard at trying to modify it during his time in office.

 

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

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

Can we agree that politicians (on both sides of the aisle) have more important things to worry about than Title IX?

The problem isn't really with Title IX as much as it's with the way athletic departments have chosen to deal with it.

 

[HoosierBBall_GopherHockey]

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

Can we agree that politicians (on both sides of the aisle) have more important things to worry about than Title IX?

The problem isn't really with Title IX as much as it's with the way athletic departments have chosen to deal with it.

Sounds fine with me. I was being facetious. Obama (and Bush, or any other President) have way more important things on their plates than Title IX.

 

[LynahFan]

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

Can we agree that politicians (on both sides of the aisle) have more important things to worry about than Title IX?

The problem isn't really with Title IX as much as it's with the way athletic departments have chosen to deal with it.

I don't know the html tag to cross out your quote, but consider it fixed:

"The problem isn't really with Title IX as much as it's with the way the Department of Education has chosen to interpret and enforce it, which has effectively turned it into a strict quota system."

 

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

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

I'm rather confused about the women's/men's (girls/boys) scheduling controversy. When I was in High School the Friday night games simply rotated venues. If we were playing say Foothill High School that night, the men would play at home and the women away. Sometime later in the season for the return leg the venues would be switched. Seemed simple enough to me.

 

[blockski]

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

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?

While it certainly has had unintended consequences, it's also exposed the farce of college athletics as an amateur exercise. The biggest inequity is football, which is a big moneymaking sport that profits on the backs of scholarship labor.

I'm asking this as an honest question, because so much of the Title IX discussion centers around big time college athletics - has the impact been any different at, say, the D-3 level?

As I've become more and more of a soccer fan, I've also seen more and more of the benefits for soccer of de-coupling player development from the education track (which is far more common everywhere else in the world except for the US). I think hockey has probably the best overall system - a hybrid with US college hockey and Canadian Junior hockey, as opposed to the pure professional development of European soccer.

Anyway, it's become more and more clear to me that D3 is the ideal situation that the NCAA appeals to, and that D1 athletics in many sports has been subverted as a means of professional development.

The New York Times had a great (and long) article on the development of youth soccer talent in Holland, and it had some interesting comments on the American system of using colleges to develop talent. That system might work better for, say, football due to the physical maturity required to play the pro game. That same thing more or less applies for hockey, where it's rare that kids of HS age can play with the elite pros. Basketball is more of a gray area, and soccer has shown that teenagers can and often do play with the professionals and play well.

So, haven't really thought this through, but my thought is that the biggest problem with Title IX is that it aims to correct inequities - and those inequities are systemic, thanks to the system we've relied on that uses college athletics as a professional development track.

Thoughts?