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.
"......And you can't blame that on feminists for god's sake. They are the last ones watching football."
Your right. It's the lawyers that drafted the ruling. A one sided solution with little foresight to address anything but female numerical inequities as opposed to safeguarding the existing sports for women AND men.
Title IX should have been drafted to help prevent the slash and burn decisions of athletic departments during it implementation as well as the ever present football budgetary favoritism. Unfortunately, it was only written to protect women.
I can't believe I'm actually having to explain this. You are essentially saying that making access to sports for women is less important than keeping men involved. Shouldn't both be equally important? Why do you automatically discount football from the equation? Can you rationally argue how giving 85 MEN access to athletics at a University can be dismissed from this discussion? There is one pie of money. You seem to think men are entitled to 3/4 of the pie because football "doesn't count." Why is that?
Look at it this way. We are a hungry family and all there is is one pizza. In times past, the men have all eaten 7/8's of every pizza available with 1/8 of the pie left for the women. Of the men in the family, one is a 400lb. glutton. When reason and justice prevail and the men are then forced to share the pizza equally, one of the men decides that "Fatty" should get almost all of the men's half. Is it then fair for the men to whine about the women getting a fair share of the pizza? Or would they be better served figuring out how to allocate their portion more fairly????
Title IX may fall on it's own sword eventually. It could've been drafted to leverage football AD decisions during budgetary constraints. The problem with reducing the football # scholarships in half may backfire. Who's to say ADs would be willing to spread the remaining scholarship money to secondary men's sports or women's sports. They'd probably just eat it in salary and other budget areas which would result in a net loss of scholarships for women.
Funny, you make it sound as though you'll be pleased when this happens just to prove you are right...
"......And you can't blame that on feminists for god's sake. They are the last ones watching football."
Your right. It's the lawyers that drafted the ruling. A one sided solution with little foresight to address anything but female numerical inequities as opposed to safeguarding the existing sports for women AND men.
Title IX should have been drafted to help prevent the slash and burn decisions of athletic departments during it implementation as well as the ever present football budgetary favoritism. Unfortunately, it was only written to protect women.
I can't believe I'm actually having to explain this. You are essentially saying that making access to sports for women is less important than keeping men involved. Shouldn't both be equally important? Why do you automatically discount football from the equation? Can you rationally argue how giving 85 MEN access to athletics at a University can be dismissed from this discussion? There is one pie of money. You seem to think men are entitled to 3/4 of the pie because football "doesn't count." Why is that?
Look at it this way. We are a hungry family and all there is is one pizza. In times past, the men have all eaten 7/8's of every pizza available with 1/8 of the pie left for the women. Of the men in the family, one is a 400lb. glutton. When reason and justice prevail and the men are then forced to share the pizza equally, one of the men decides that "Fatty" should get almost all of the men's half. Is it then fair for the men to whine about the women getting a fair share of the pizza? Or would they be better served figuring out how to allocate their portion more fairly????
Title IX may fall on it's own sword eventually. It could've been drafted to leverage football AD decisions during budgetary constraints. The problem with reducing the football # scholarships in half may backfire. Who's to say ADs would be willing to spread the remaining scholarship money to secondary men's sports or women's sports. They'd probably just eat it in salary and other budget areas which would result in a net loss of scholarships for women.
Funny, you make it sound as though you'll be pleased when this happens just to prove you are right...
