Happy Bithday Title IX

[oz615]

I'm not sure that i should post this in the lounge because of its political nature or here because of the impact in sports but on this date 35 years ago today Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (now also know as Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act as of ctober 29, 2002),this 37-word United States law states: "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."

And while there was need for that law at the time and I applaud the opportunities it gave our Mothers,Daughters Sisters,the enforcement of this law is out of control,because now its nothing more but reverse discrimination ,because several men's teams have been eliminated in order to meet the quotas,(Just ask the good folks @ JMU,Ohio U and Rutgers to name a few),and sports that dropped years ago that wanna be reinstated (ie Tennessee State Baseball,Oregon Baseball for example) may never see the light day because the headaches of adding two or more Women's sports to make it possible.

So i ask the question what are y'all opinions of Title IX? and is or isn't the law still fair 35 years later?

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

at the time it was a law that was needed because of the rampant discrimination of the time especially in sports. of course baseball alone has a color history and tradition in this department.

[footballfiji]

Whatever negatives you might have about Title IX, the opportunities it has provided have been tremendous and the good far outweighs the bad.

Not all sports have to be scholarship sports (baseball and football are two of them). Look at the Pioneer League in Division 1-AA football. They have managed to almost skirt Title IX by not having scholarships in football and the schools are doing just fine and they athletes playing them have a deeper love for the game.

If a sport has been dropped or can't be promoted from club level and you think its just because of Title IX then you need to reexamine the sport and the cost involved with them. There have to be other reasons a sport wasn't added.

[HedleyLamarr]

Whatever negatives you might have about Title IX, the opportunities it has provided have been tremendous and the good far outweighs the bad.

Not all sports have to be scholarship sports (baseball and football are two of them). Look at the Pioneer League in Division 1-AA football. They have managed to almost skirt Title IX by not having scholarships in football and the schools are doing just fine and they athletes playing them have a deeper love for the game.

If a sport has been dropped or can't be promoted from club level and you think its just because of Title IX then you need to reexamine the sport and the cost involved with them. There have to be other reasons a sport wasn't added.

You aren't going to get any top-notch players if you don't offer them free-ride scholarships. I-AA football teams barely hang in games against the worst of the I-A schools, much less the better I-A teams.

Title IX isn't as necessary today as it was 35 years ago.

[Eye]

-E.A.R.

[dfwabel]

Whatever negatives you might have about Title IX, the opportunities it has provided have been tremendous and the good far outweighs the bad.

Not all sports have to be scholarship sports (baseball and football are two of them). Look at the Pioneer League in Division 1-AA football. They have managed to almost skirt Title IX by not having scholarships in football and the schools are doing just fine and they athletes playing them have a deeper love for the game.

If a sport has been dropped or can't be promoted from club level and you think its just because of Title IX then you need to reexamine the sport and the cost involved with them. There have to be other reasons a sport wasn't added.

You aren't going to get any top-notch players if you don't offer them free-ride scholarships. I-AA football teams barely hang in games against the worst of the I-A schools, much less the better I-A teams.

Title IX isn't as necessary today as it was 35 years ago.

Gentlemen,

This amendment IS ABOUT EDUCATIONAL DOLLARS AND THEIR SPENDING, NOT NECISSARILY SPORT. While sport has a heavier hand in its application in the eyes of most males, it also has to do with everthing which has to do with what your local school boards decide to do with your tax dollars. Remember, most Boards of Education are funded via property taxes or milages, and since the majority of children born in the U.S ae female, why not make sure that they have ample opportunity for whatever they would like to do if there is an amount of students who also would like a similar activity?

This past weekend ESPN ran a story of students in Barrow, Alaska who finally got the chance to field a football team. Title IX was a funding reason of why they were finaly able to get a chance to play.

[oz615]

Remember, most Boards of Education are funded via property taxes or milages, and since the majority of children born in the U.S ae female, why not make sure that they have ample opportunity for whatever they would like to do if there is an amount of students who also would like a similar activity?

Yeah,but is it right for the males to get shafted because of it? I guess that's my biggest gripe since they tweaked it in '96.

This past weekend ESPN ran a story of students in Barrow, Alaska who finally got the chance to field a football team. Title IX was a funding reason of why they were finaly able to get a chance to play.

Buts that's the exception though.In fact IIRC they came here in the Nashville area no too long ago for a football came here in town.

[HedleyLamarr]

Whatever negatives you might have about Title IX, the opportunities it has provided have been tremendous and the good far outweighs the bad.

Not all sports have to be scholarship sports (baseball and football are two of them). Look at the Pioneer League in Division 1-AA football. They have managed to almost skirt Title IX by not having scholarships in football and the schools are doing just fine and they athletes playing them have a deeper love for the game.

If a sport has been dropped or can't be promoted from club level and you think its just because of Title IX then you need to reexamine the sport and the cost involved with them. There have to be other reasons a sport wasn't added.

You aren't going to get any top-notch players if you don't offer them free-ride scholarships. I-AA football teams barely hang in games against the worst of the I-A schools, much less the better I-A teams.

Title IX isn't as necessary today as it was 35 years ago.

Gentlemen,

This amendment IS ABOUT EDUCATIONAL DOLLARS AND THEIR SPENDING, NOT NECISSARILY SPORT. While sport has a heavier hand in its application in the eyes of most males, it also has to do with everthing which has to do with what your local school boards decide to do with your tax dollars. Remember, most Boards of Education are funded via property taxes or milages, and since the majority of children born in the U.S ae female, why not make sure that they have ample opportunity for whatever they would like to do if there is an amount of students who also would like a similar activity?

This past weekend ESPN ran a story of students in Barrow, Alaska who finally got the chance to field a football team. Title IX was a funding reason of why they were finaly able to get a chance to play.

Title IX has it's negative effects, too. Equality is great and all, but some schools had to cut men's sports because not enough women wanted to take part in athletics. That isn't right.

[slightly shotgunned]

The real problem with title ix is the fact that its based on male/female enrollment ratios, hence why schools have to cut men's programs as female student enrollment rises. I say the law should be amended, take the amount of money spent on sports and half it or something along those lines...I don't know if that's even possible, but it sounds like a good idea to me right now.

[See Red]

I love what Title IX does but I hate how it does it. As long as schools are cutting men's teams to comply with Title IX, then there's a problem with it.

[leopard88]

You aren't going to get any top-notch players if you don't offer them free-ride scholarships. I-AA football teams barely hang in games against the worst of the I-A schools, much less the better I-A teams.

Title IX isn't as necessary today as it was 35 years ago.

Who says I-AA teams are supposed to hang in games against I-A schools? Most Division III schools couldn't hang with I-AA schools. The classifications are different for a reason.

As far Title IX as a whole is concerned, there are certainly some flaws in the execution, but it is hard to argue with the overall results. If there is more fine tuning to be done, it may need to be along the lines of gauging actual interest in participatory sports in determining how to divide the funds. However, the execution of that sort of plan would be difficult, because there are always going to be students who express an "interest" in participating in varsity sports even when they realistically lack the talent to do so.

The other thing to keep in mind about schools dropping men's sports is that football may share some of the blame too. Football programs are so drastically oversized that they swallow up huges amounts of the money allocated to men's sports as a whole. While I would hate to be the one to tell the 6th string strong safety that he can't suit up anymore, there is no reason that I-A teams need 85 football scholarships . . . and also dress many walk-ons for home games.

[HedleyLamarr]

The other thing to keep in mind about schools dropping men's sports is that football may share some of the blame too. Football programs are so drastically oversized that they swallow up huges amounts of the money allocated to men's sports as a whole. While I would hate to be the one to tell the 6th string strong safety that he can't suit up anymore, there is no reason that I-A teams need 85 football scholarships . . . and also dress many walk-ons for home games.

Football also brings in the most money. Home games, conference championships, bowl games, the BCS, and the multitude of sponsors that just the football team has far out-number what the other sports would bring in.....combined. The big schools can deck out $400K to bring in some small-school cupcake, just to have that extra home game, and easily rake in more than the money they paid their opponent to show up. The crap-bowl games have a payout of $750K per team, and the BCS bowls shell out over $15 Million. Even these Conference Championship games bring in at least $10 million for the conference.

As for the scholarships, you have to break it down. These scholarships are 5-year scholarships, so each school has around 17 scholarships that they have to award per season. Again, football being the big money-maker for the NCAA's schools, they get to basically have all the say. It's all a big stockpiling of talent, it's the American way!

[leopard88]

The other thing to keep in mind about schools dropping men's sports is that football may share some of the blame too. Football programs are so drastically oversized that they swallow up huges amounts of the money allocated to men's sports as a whole. While I would hate to be the one to tell the 6th string strong safety that he can't suit up anymore, there is no reason that I-A teams need 85 football scholarships . . . and also dress many walk-ons for home games.

Football also brings in the most money. Home games, conference championships, bowl games, the BCS, and the multitude of sponsors that just the football team has far out-number what the other sports would bring in.....combined. The big schools can deck out $400K to bring in some small-school cupcake, just to have that extra home game, and easily rake in more than the money they paid their opponent to show up. The crap-bowl games have a payout of $750K per team, and the BCS bowls shell out over $15 Million. Even these Conference Championship games bring in at least $10 million for the conference.

As for the scholarships, you have to break it down. These scholarships are 5-year scholarships, so each school has around 17 scholarships that they have to award per season. Again, football being the big money-maker for the NCAA's schools, they get to basically have all the say. It's all a big stockpiling of talent, it's the American way!

I agree that football is the big money maker at most schools (though some still lose money on football). I just think it can be handled in a more cost-efficient manner and still generate the same kind of revenue. The networks and the bowl committees aren't suddenly going to reduce their payments because Ohio State, USC and Texas are now offering 70 scholarships and dressing 85 players, because the players at the end of the bench won't be missed. No one has missed the players lost during prior reductions of the maximum scholarship level.