Further cuts to come for men's sports

I just don't get the argument 'if you take out football, men are being shortchanged' Here's some basic math, schools are CHOOSING to continue football scholarships at such a high percentage % of overall men's total. How is that the fault of Title IX? Isn't the basic premise of Title IX to provide equal opportunity between men and women? So if there are a total of 130 (just an example) athletic scholarship opportunities for each sex, and 85 (just an example) are used on the men side for football, then gee, that only leaves 45 for every other men's sport. And if football takes up such a large chunk of a school's budget for men's sports, then it's no suprise that other sports are getting squeezed out. Again, what I am missing? How is it the fault of Title IX that schools CHOOSE to put such a high percentage into football? Should there be an exclusion for football? Then the equal opportuinity check kinda fails.

Interesting discussion. I was swimming in 1975 when Title IX was enforced. It immediately affected my team. We lost some meal money, new sweats, and crud like that. Yup, we were sad. We survived. Program cuts came after my time. Back then, big boy sports weren't touched one bit. I have two daughters. I really hope they can be skilled enough to compete at the college level. I also have two sons. I hope the same for them. I hope that both genders have the same access. With regards to swimming and water polo, they most certainly don't now. Mr. Smith raises some good points. Points that are making some uncomfortable. I guess that's why some are "tired" of a sound argument that will not go away. Mr. Smith, keep beating the drum, you have supporters.

From the article you cited, Paul (www.lewrockwell.com/.../epstein12.html): This is all I'm trying to say. The author of this article obviously did not read The Feminine Mystique. Berry Friedman? If somebody is going to discuss feminism, they need to at least know the name of the ultimate leader of the Women's Movement and author of The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan.

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. I agree completely with the above statement. Does Title IX need to be complete overturned? No. Does it require re-evaluation? Heck yes. As in all things, times change and laws and regulations need to change with them. Heck look at the wonderful Alternative Minimum Tax as a prime example of a good thing gone bad.

Some clever lawyer needs to argue that due to the large numbers involved in playing football, the number of schlolarships being awarded does not need to be the only or main criteria in determining Title IX compliance. With the number of men's sports programs being dropped it would seem like the time is ripe to argue that looking at the number of sports offered instead of the number of scholarships offered may be a more realistic way to determine Title IX compliance. Note that a few years ago it was determined that Western Kentucy was not in compliance with Title IX because not enough scholarships were being awarded to MEN. The school turned around and simply gave out more football scholarships. Had it been as I suggested, then maybe the soccer team would not have been dropped. media.www.wkuherald.com/.../School.Officials.Western.Complies.With.Title.Ix-3202619.shtml Anyway, I believe this is a good time for a test case alleging that the # of scholarships awarded is an unworkable formula to determine Title IX compliance. Not having an equal number of sports in which to select from not only discriniates agains men, but discriminates against certain ethnic populations. Due to the unwritten physical requirements of football, there are certain ethnic populations that are going to automatically be excluded.

In the employment environment, an employment practice that has a disparate impact (not intentional but has a discriminatory effect) on say a particular group of national origin can be considered illegal. For example, in one case, a 5 foot, 5 inch, 130 pound Hispanic won a lawsuit against a police department on the basis that the department's 5 foot 8 inch height requirement discriminated against Hispanics, who often are shorter than that standard. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. This would obviously include colleges and universities. So, could a male Hispanic soccer player whose team gets dropped by a university in favor of awarding more money towards football have an argument under Title VI? I think so. Dropping programs like wrestling and soccer may have a disparate impact on Hispanics. How does this help men's swimming? It may take football out of the equation in determining equal opportunity for ALL in athletics.

Out of curiosity, what would you call someone who has posted on this forum dozens of times that women are ruining men's sports? I don't consider myself a feminist but as the father of two girls, I do consider these continued rantings to be offensive. At some point swimming is irrelevant in the conversation. Eventually, reasonable people will move beyond Title IX and into today's issues. There is always going to be some gasbag that people will line up behind. Geek, Again..... another one of your dramatizations with twisted facts. Its amusing how you hold your two girls up in front of you like a shield of guilt to protect yourself during a discussion......... As if I don't have two girls in sports myself...... really. I'll one up yah..... I have a boy as well who swims and faces a declining scholarship market for his skills. Stick to the facts. Men's swimming programs are being shot down like birds on a wire. If you really read my posts, you would acknowledge the fact that I have continued to say throughout them that the increase in participation in the numbers of women in sports due to Title IX's implementation is good. Of course anything but blind support for Title IX results in being seen as an ally to the AD's who cut the sport I support. It's ridiculous. Here I am, a left wing liberal ERA supporting leftover '70s democrat being accused of not supporting women's sports. Who'd a thought. I have acknowledged that football has obviously shown greed in budgetary decisions for decades. Each is to blame in the dismantling of men's secondary sports. To deny that Title IX has no roll or effect (large or small) on men's swimming and the reductions in programs we see today is truly an ignorant position. The ruling needs to be tweaked..... big deal. I am one of its basic supporters ! Why is that so offensive? No one has ever indicated that to many women are participating in college sports and we should go backward in numbers or support. The side effects need to be addressed.... it's plain and simple. As far as the "whining" goes...... If women can do it 30 years ago..... then so can men for their declining sports today. John Smith

Elise - I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, if any. The richest athletic departments (the "haves") generally excel in almost all sports they choose to participate in. I'm sure there are lots of reasons but fundamentally money means great coaches, great facilities, focus on recruiting, and an expectation of winning. Those rich football programs distort the NCAA world for all other teams that try to compete in football. The Texas Tech example earlier is a great case study. They spend most of their money on football to try to compete in the Big12.

gobears asked me what my husband was basing his argument on in saying that football means more scholarships for women. The facts speak for themself. More revenue from football = ability to pay high caliber swim coaches + ability to give out lots of scholarships, attracting the best swimmers = strong women's swim program. It's a fairly logical argument that because of football, there are more scholarships for women. That is the point I suppose I'm making above. This is outside the Title IX argument. Without Title IX, of course, there might not be many athletic scholarships for women. Your argument is only logical because 85 scholarships for football automatically creates 85 scholarships for women if the enrollments at those schools are approximately equal by gender. So those schools will find a way to have enough women's sports to allocate 85 scholarships. The problem of course is not a lack of opportunity for women's swimming.....

Elly Mae, You have thrown ethnicity into the discussion........ oh boy. One has to look at the almost purely white base in so many secondary sports. Swimming is about as "white bread" as it comes John Smith