PDA

View Full Version : Should Title IX be modified or stay in it's present form?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

cycledown
06-16-2010, 08:29 PM
I think it should change but dont know specifically what area needs change to allow a larger volume for growth in college sports.

CHFAN222
06-16-2010, 08:54 PM
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. If you want to increase the number of sports at your own school then donate.

The Rube
06-16-2010, 09:54 PM
It should change by adding the amendment "if there is demand." Why should a school cut a program (men's or women's) to equal everything out if the demand for the cut sport is there?

Yes, there is the factor of: if it's not there, how would you know? for new sports programs, but with all the club teams, etc, you would know.

Craig P.
06-16-2010, 10:08 PM
It should change by adding the amendment "if there is demand." Why should a school cut a program (men's or women's) to equal everything out if the demand for the cut sport is there?

Because athletic directors have a limited budget to work with, and sometimes that necessitates cutting a sport that they can't afford to continue to support.

The Rube
06-16-2010, 10:10 PM
Because athletic directors have a limited budget to work with, and sometimes that necessitates cutting a sport that they can't afford to continue to support.

That works, too. I'm just sick of schools cancelling stuff simply because of Title IX. For that to be the only reason, it goes against the spirit of the rule, IMO.

Patman
06-16-2010, 10:33 PM
Be VERY careful... as far as I understand it... which means I can be wrong... Title IX is a law that applies to schools and it wasn't drawn up to be applied to athletics. Its only courts that have formulated that it applies to athletics and more so defined a test.

I could be wrong... hell, if I am, correct me.... yes, you can always make a specific sports modification but as it stands right now the bill is not drawn up specifically to deal with sports.

cycledown
06-16-2010, 10:41 PM
I could be wrongly blaming Title IX myself. Lets go into a hypothetical, if all this time Title IX wasnt the reason then that would mean the private sector is less enthused to donate thus not seeing a large expansion of college sports, specifically hockey. I hope that is the case because I know that I can contribute to expansion by just raising money. Feel free to elaborate from this post.

The Rube
06-16-2010, 11:04 PM
I could be wrongly blaming Title IX myself. Lets go into a hypothetical, if all this time Title IX wasnt the reason then that would mean the private sector is less enthused to donate thus not seeing a large expansion of college sports, specifically hockey. I hope that is the case because I know that can contribute to expansion by just raising money. Feel free to elaborate from this post.

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? ;)

Puck Swami
06-16-2010, 11:38 PM
The language of Title IX is pretty basic, and was intended to apply to much more than sports:

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

The courts and the NCAA have interpreted this as the provision of equal opportunity for women. Therefore scholarships and gender equity should be proportional, so no discrimination takes place. That means if you have 85 scholarships on your football team for men, you probably need to make sure you are offsetting those 85 by expanding women's sports so that you can stay proportional. Unfortunately, to expand the opportunities for women and keep your 85 football scholarships, that means something else needs to go, and it's usually a men's sport...

The Rube
06-16-2010, 11:53 PM
The language of Title IX is pretty basic, and was intended to apply to much more than sports:

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

The courts and the NCAA have interpreted this as the provision of equal opportunity for women. Therefore scholarships and gender equity should be proportional, so no discrimination takes place. That means if you have 85 scholarships on your football team for men, you probably need to make sure you are offsetting those 85 by expanding women's sports so that you can stay proportional. Unfortunately, to expand the opportunities for women and keep your 85 football scholarships, that means something else needs to go, and it's usually a men's sport...

You say it better than I do.

In your wording, let's say a school isn't meeting the requirements. However, there isn't a demand or otherwise to equal it out. Well, to put it into simplest tems, "you're *ed."

That's just not right to me.

cycledown
06-16-2010, 11:58 PM
You say it better than I do.

In your wording, let's say a school isn't meeting the requirements. However, there isn't a demand or otherwise to equal it out. Well, to put it into simplest tems, "you're *ed."

That's just not right to me.

I dont think its right either and thats where Im having the interpretation problem with the Title. I cant figure out why/where there cant be a window of opportunity to modify it.

Runninwiththedogs
06-17-2010, 12:02 AM
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!!!

cycledown
06-17-2010, 12:10 AM
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!!!

What the hell are you talking about....I want womens hockey, what I dont want mens hockey not having the opportunity to expand because womens hockey cant make the cut. Title IX should not hold back other sports and thus the business side that goes with it. But is my opinion the correct interpretation of Title IX. To me there is alot of grey areas that need to be specified.

Whats all this garbage about going back to the kitchen........toss that out doesnt make sense.

5mn_Major
06-17-2010, 12:14 AM
Many think that schools would add hockey in a heart beat if they could. Outside of some northern tier schools, there is pretty much no interest in college hockey, not among the students, not the alumni and not the faculty. Also, schools just don't have the millions to start up random new sports especially when there's a good chance they'd live as a perennial doormat. And starting a program that fails due to financial constraints is not just extremely costly but also embarrassing for a school. So, from everything I've seen, college hockey is not widespread...not so much due to title ix...as to its costs, risks and lack of popularity.

cycledown
06-17-2010, 12:19 AM
Many think that schools would add hockey in a heart beat if they could. Outside of some northern tier schools, there is pretty much no interest in college hockey, not among the students, not the alumni and not the faculty. Also, schools just don't have the millions to start up random new sports especially when there's a good chance they'd live as a perennial doormat. And starting a program that fails due to financial constraints is not just extremely costly but also embarrassing for a school. So, from everything I've seen, college hockey is not widespread...not so much due to title ix...as to its costs, risks and lack of popularity.


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.

5mn_Major
06-17-2010, 12:26 AM
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
06-17-2010, 12:30 AM
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
06-17-2010, 12:39 AM
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
06-17-2010, 12:44 AM
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
06-17-2010, 12:46 AM
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.