A solution to Title IX

Maybe not, but those are the words everyone should know about Title IX before spouting off about how bad it is. True! They should. I just scanned the wikipedia site that you mentioned and laughed. Its fact-based description of Title IX is under attack as "disputed, incorrect, biased and objectionable." So, it just confirms that Title IX is a polarizing issue, and not properly understood. I did find this comment interesting: "Although there are now more teams available to women than to men, the total number of male participants still significantly outnumber women; in 1998-99 there were 232,000 males participating in college athletics and 163,000 females."

Tracy, Agreed and not disputing! Just pointing out that if you put aside the expenditures, football and basketball are generating the income. While they may run deficits, they've gotta generate the income to pay off the loans in order to keep running those deficits, and thats where football/basketball come in. Football does not generate profits for the athletic department. NotSoFast: Agreed and not disputing, but I did not say "profits". Income and Profits are two totally different things. I'm trying to allude to the fact that you can't borrow money w/o having some source of income. Its just like buying a car or house - they won't give you a loan if you don't have a job (job = source of income). Just trying to make sure y'all know i'm not misconceived! :groovy:

Muppet, You apparently have the idea that someone is borrowing money to fund these deficits. There really are no deficits for these teams. They all receive an allotment of money from the school. So in football's case, they receive several million dollars and in swimming's case they receive a hundred grand or so. Now football spends 10-15 million having collected all but a couple of it from donations and ticket sales. So there is no loan. Now in the case of Rutgers, when you need more money, you take the money allocated to the Olympic sports from the student activity fees and you give it to football. The reason given was that there were more students wanting to go to the game now that the team got better. A funny thing happened on the way to the ticket booth. Fewer than the allocated number of tickets were available for their last few games! Leo

Here's all you need to know (quoted from en.wikipedia.org/.../Title_ix) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (United States), commonly known as Title IX, is a 37-word law enacted on June 23, 1972 that 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." Interestingly the wording has no mention at all of athletics and I would imagine most people would agree with the basic premise of the law. Obviously the way it has been interpreted with respect to college athletics has been a little more questionable. I don't know if this is all you need to know. 37 words isn't it. In any event, it appears that, on its face, college athletics would fall within the phrase an "education program or activity ...." But statutes are always "interpreted" and the legislative history would also give some meaning to what the drafters intended. I played many sports in elementary school before Title IX was adopted. But as notsofast said, many women were discriminated against and still are in terms of television coverage. Unfortunately, football has a lot to do with it, along with the ADs.

Tracy, Agreed and not disputing! Just pointing out that if you put aside the expenditures, football and basketball are generating the income. While they may run deficits, they've gotta generate the income to pay off the loans in order to keep running those deficits, and thats where football/basketball come in. This is a common misconception. Football does not generate profits for the athletic department. At Rutgers, for example, football lost money last year. The AD has said it will never generate profits. All of the extra revenue will get plowed back into the program. The business model for football in Division I is that the sport breaks even. Alumni giving to the school's general funds increases. That money gets distributed across the entire university. It's a pet peeve of mine - the pointing at Title IX and women's sports for the cutting of men's sports. I remember the days before Title IX - women weren't allowed to play any sports, and the attitude trickled all the way down to grade school. My sister, for example, was told to stand along the sideline at recess and watch the boys play. I think other threads have talked about the 'noodlers' that get so much abuse here - they are pre-Title IX women. I can't tell you how different the attitude toward women's sports is now vs. then, and Title IX was the driving force. The problem with the loss of men's programs isn't Title IX. It's football. (BTW I love football. But facts is facts.)

They should get rid of title nine all together. When they drop mens swimming programs at schools like rutgers and jmu they should just tell them, sorry guys because of title nine we have to make these women over here feel good. thats basicly what is happening. no offense to anyone, I'm just saying that title nine is wrong. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Imagine not having any sports available to you other than twirling, softball, and cheerleading. That's how it was for me back in the 70's. Title IX rocks. Sorry it's not perfect but it's much better than the bad old days.

There was another Title IX thread around here, where I agreed with what a number of people are saying: too many ADs using it as an excuse so they don't have to justify the real reason why they cut the programs. When water polo was dropped from my school (way back when), our coach had a long meeting to discuss the situation. One comment he made was that football should be the sport exempt from Title IX. There is no corresponding women's sport that matches it in numbers of players and expenses. (Our water polo program's budget matched what was spent on one football player.) And it is politically difficult to deal with football because of alumni.

I say that if we keep 'em barefoot and pregnant all this hoo-haw about women's sports will go away. After all, don't they realize that if they do stuff like running, their uterus could fall out and drag in the dirt? Sports also makes women more masculine and then they become lesbians and start practicing witchcraft and then ... pffft.... there goes democracy and civilization. Second proposal: Have the orphan sports move down to Division II and III schools in a manner similar to the above. This has 2 possible benefits: it keeps the sports viable and it gives a college with, say, a focus on swimming, a concentrated pool of applicants to draw from. I understand that many of the smaller colleges are competing hard for students, but with a fewer number of schools doing a sport, this will allow the colleges to specifically target a group who will, by definition, be interested in them. -LBJ :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: I actually picked my college for academic reasons, but wanted to swim because I loved swimming. Your proposal, while very interesting, would have eliminated swimming/orphan sport as an option for me. I assume it would have eliminated race walking as well. I would then have been forced to take witchcraft. Are the colleges competing for the students or are the students now competing for the colleges? I thought the college admissions process was turning all high school students into stressed out nail biters who post on college admission blogs.

Are the colleges competing for the students or are the students now competing for the colleges? I thought the college admissions process was turning all high school students into stressed out nail biters who post on college admission blogs. Good question. My bro got his MBA at NAU in Flagstaff and they are actually having trouble getting students and have temporarily shuttered a dorm or two. My impression was that of yours. Flagstaff is a pretty sweet place and it has a great pool.

You are already a practitioner of the dark arts. i.e. A lawyer. :smooch: Racewalking is almost non-existant in colleges. A few NAIA schools have it as an official part of their track program and that is it. I realize that this would have some serious repercussions, but if we continue down the path we are currently, some of these things may shrivel up and die anyway. Not sure, but I thought that I heard that colleges were really stretching for students. Maybe I misunderstood. Surely, Harvard isn't, but maybe East Dogbreath State is. -LBJ What else did you want me to do with my D1 college degree and witchcraft courses? ;) I don't know about East Dogbreath State, but I'm sure it's a sad day if they have shuttered dorms and no racewalking. My very parochial experience is with the colleges in VA. We have some excellent state schools here. The competition to get in is fierce. March is not a real happy month for most kids. Unless you're class valedictorian, you are sweating. Even the class valedictorian's aren't getting into Harvard anymore. There has been a lot of press lately on the creation of college admission blogs to attempt to stem student panic.