Further cuts to come for men's sports

Does the end justify the means? If a law allows one specific gender to overcome what no one has argued at one time were unfair inequalities but thru its "interpretation" allows a loophole to create fewer sports for another gender can't you understand why some would think that it would be a "bad" law (again, not because it created the original oppurtunites. I'll say it AGAIN: I am not arguing that Title IX is a flawless legislation. It does allow a loophole for the creation of fewer sports for men. Got it. Had it long ago. Not arguing that point. My point was that the law itself (in its original application) was a good thing for women. John and trjpatt were the ones that weren't communicating any kind of understanding of that fact. Both seem to think the law itself was defective from day one. Should things be tinkered with in light of what's happened with sports today? Probably. But that doesn't make the law inherently "bad." It's just an old law that was put into place in a very different society. An older but interesting read on this topic which touches on one aspect of this not being mentioned....here is an exerpt: "Despite accommodations made across the country, females make up 56% of undergraduates across the country, while still only 41% of college athletes. This 15% gap translates to 59,000 male athletes who would be cut if quotas were more rigorously enforced. The result would be that every football program in the country would be eliminated; or alternatively every men’s golf, track, gymnastics, swim, water polo, and basketball team would have to be dropped. Not sure why we're arguing this point since it's pure speculation. Part of the reason there are fewer women college athletes is football. Football takes a huge number of participants compared to any other sport. There is no comparable sport for women. Or for men either. When faced with these facts, feminists often claim that fault lies with football not Title IX. They claim that men’s football teams, often with over a hundred players and coaches with six or seven digit salaries, are to blame for the cut in other male athletic programs. Gavora demolishes this claim. She points out that the majority of Division I-A football teams earn revenue for other sports, while with the exclusion of the Connecticut basketball team, no female program turns a profit. The average NCAA women’s basketball team spends more than 10,000 dollars more per player than football teams." www.lewrockwell.com/.../epstein12.html I would love for someone to name all these evil feminists that are controlling the actions of the AD's of our nation's universities. I thought the argument was that AD's are using Title IX's loopholes to get rid of men's sports. And, Paul, I thought your argument was that football didn't make money for any school. Which is it? Do we, as second-tier sport athletes, owe our very existence to football or not? I don't think that was how things worked before Title IX. Didn't Universities used to spend money on Olympic Sports as part of education? Was any sport a major money maker back then? Are we women now beholden to the men playing football for providing us with sporting opportunities that wouldn't exist without them? Or do we expect the University to provide opportunities for us like they provided men for years? That statistic about spending $10,000 more per player for women's basketball than football is crazy. I'd love to see the stats on that one. I don't know any women's basketball coaches that earn nearly what the football coaches do. I can't imagine their training facilities are anything like men's football. What figures are included in that stat? By the way, did I mention that I get it that Title IX is an old law that wasn't written for today's sporting environment? Did I mention that I agree it's getting used by AD's to cut men's sports? Just wanted to make sure...

Does the end justify the means? If a law allows one specific gender to overcome what no one has argued at one time were unfair inequalities but thru its "interpretation" allows a loophole to create fewer sports for another gender can't you understand why some would think that it would be a "bad" law (again, not because it created the original oppurtunites. I'll say it AGAIN: I am not arguing that Title IX is a flawless legislation. It does allow a loophole for the creation of fewer sports for men. Got it. Had it long ago. Not arguing that point. My point was that the law itself (in its original application) was a good thing for women. John and trjpatt were the ones that weren't communicating any kind of understanding of that fact. Both seem to think the law itself was defective from day one. Should things be tinkered with in light of what's happened with sports today? Probably. But that doesn't make the law inherently "bad." It's just an old law that was put into place in a very different society. An older but interesting read on this topic which touches on one aspect of this not being mentioned....here is an exerpt: "Despite accommodations made across the country, females make up 56% of undergraduates across the country, while still only 41% of college athletes. This 15% gap translates to 59,000 male athletes who would be cut if quotas were more rigorously enforced. The result would be that every football program in the country would be eliminated; or alternatively every men’s golf, track, gymnastics, swim, water polo, and basketball team would have to be dropped. Not sure why we're arguing this point since it's pure speculation. Part of the reason there are fewer women college athletes is football. Football takes a huge number of participants compared to any other sport. There is no comparable sport for women. Or for men either. When faced with these facts, feminists often claim that fault lies with football not Title IX. They claim that men’s football teams, often with over a hundred players and coaches with six or seven digit salaries, are to blame for the cut in other male athletic programs. Gavora demolishes this claim. She points out that the majority of Division I-A football teams earn revenue for other sports, while with the exclusion of the Connecticut basketball team, no female program turns a profit. The average NCAA women’s basketball team spends more than 10,000 dollars more per player than football teams." www.lewrockwell.com/.../epstein12.html I would love for someone to name all these evil feminists that are controlling the actions of the AD's of our nation's universities. I thought the argument was that AD's are using Title IX's loopholes to get rid of men's sports. And, Paul, I thought your argument was that football didn't make money for any school. Which is it? Do we, as second-tier sport athletes, owe our very existence to football or not? I don't think that was how things worked before Title IX. Didn't Universities used to spend money on Olympic Sports as part of education? Was any sport a major money maker back then? Are we women now beholden to the men playing football for providing us with sporting opportunities that wouldn't exist without them? Or do we expect the University to provide opportunities for us like they provided men for years? That statistic about spending $10,000 more per player for women's basketball than football is crazy. I'd love to see the stats on that one. I don't know any women's basketball coaches that earn nearly what the football coaches do. I can't imagine their training facilities are anything like men's football. What figures are included in that stat? By the way, did I mention that I get it that Title IX is an old law that wasn't written for today's sporting environment? Did I mention that I agree it's getting used by AD's to cut men's sports? Just wanted to make sure...