Let's keep cutting men's sports. Hey.... it's the economy now, not Title IX.
I find this reasoning amusing.
John Smith
=======================================
NCAA's Brand: Don't fault Title IX for Future Cuts
Author: ASA News
Blog URL: allstudentathletes.com/.../ncaabrandtitleix
Description:
Brand expects some schools to drop men's teams in coming months because
of the economic downturn. He is urging them in advance to cite the
economy, not the law that bans sex discrimination at schools receiving
federal funds.
O.K., I just fired off a reply without reading Phil's article, but I don't agree with Phil blaming radical feminists for the current state of affairs. The end result of Title IX is probably not what was intended or expected, but that you can't take back 35 years of change.
A cap on football spending would be fine with me - it works in the NFL and other professional sports and promotes fairness and competition. Maybe you could have an exception for universities that have the financial ability to support more men's Olympic sports, but they have to meet certain minimum guidelines for women's sports as well. My guess is that the universities would lobby against any change that might put pressure on them to reduce football expenditures and/or not allow them an excuse to carry fewer non-revenue sports.
I think that the only reason universities support women's non-revenue sports now to the extent that they do is Title IX. Without it, my fear is that women's programs would be reduced and men's swimming programs would not be increased. I just can't see men's swimming making a comeback at Division I regardless of Title IX because the decision to support men's swimming is more financial related. If you reduce football spending, I don't think that would guarantee men's swimming would be brought back because universities probably have other uses for the funds somewhere else first. My personal experience is that both men's and women's swimming were cut at TTU. It was a financial decision, not Title IX.
That is why I think current men's swimming programs need to be self-funded or heading that way. I think it would be a good idea to tweak Title IX enough so that men's self-funded programs are never at risk of Title IX and that Title IX can't be used as an excuse.
Tim
O.K., I just fired off a reply without reading Phil's article, but I don't agree with Phil blaming radical feminists for the current state of affairs. The end result of Title IX is probably not what was intended or expected, but that you can't take back 35 years of change.
A cap on football spending would be fine with me - it works in the NFL and other professional sports and promotes fairness and competition. Maybe you could have an exception for universities that have the financial ability to support more men's Olympic sports, but they have to meet certain minimum guidelines for women's sports as well. My guess is that the universities would lobby against any change that might put pressure on them to reduce football expenditures and/or not allow them an excuse to carry fewer non-revenue sports.
I think that the only reason universities support women's non-revenue sports now to the extent that they do is Title IX. Without it, my fear is that women's programs would be reduced and men's swimming programs would not be increased. I just can't see men's swimming making a comeback at Division I regardless of Title IX because the decision to support men's swimming is more financial related. If you reduce football spending, I don't think that would guarantee men's swimming would be brought back because universities probably have other uses for the funds somewhere else first. My personal experience is that both men's and women's swimming were cut at TTU. It was a financial decision, not Title IX.
That is why I think current men's swimming programs need to be self-funded or heading that way. I think it would be a good idea to tweak Title IX enough so that men's self-funded programs are never at risk of Title IX and that Title IX can't be used as an excuse.
Tim
