Soccer Star Winces as Republican Slams Title IX

If Brandi Chastain could have cried foul, she would have.

The world-famous U.S. women's soccer player was in Sacramento on Monday with her Brazilian counterpart Sissi to be honored by the California Assembly as it recognized the 40th anniversary of Title IX.

The occasion prompted Assemblyman Chris Norby to reveal that he wasn't a fan of the 1972 federal law chiefly known for mandating gender equity in high school and collegiate sports. The Fullerton Republican said he thought Title IX had come at the expense of male athletes, particularly those who depend on sports scholarships.

"We need to be honest about the effects of what I believe are faulty court interpretations or federal enforcement of Title IX, because it has led to the abolition of many male sports across the board in UCs and Cal States," he said. "And that was never the intention of this, to have numerical equality. It was never the intention to attain equality by reducing opportunities for the men."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/05/14/national/a175404D06.DTL#ixzz1uu2rrhJe

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012

Not content to be a known idiot. Mr. Norby decides to prove he's also a douchebag without a grasp of basic facts.

Fact is, many males sports, not just soccer, have been eliminated to make way for women's sports. This is the truth. The fact that administrators do not have the money or the creativity to maintain male and female sports at the same time require the elimination of one. And since the government mandates this legislation --- bye bye male sports. If you want to play NCAA soccer as a male in the country you have far less opportunity than women. Roughly 378 D 1 and 2 Men's programs with 9.9 and 9 allowed MAX scholarships as opposed to roughly 547 Women's D 1 and 2 programs with 14 and 9.9 MAX scholarships.

Are you feeding this CA knucklehead his stats? So have a go at this one:
What happens when you add in the thousands of football scholarships for men for which there is no corresponding female sport? Tips your scales a bit doesn't it. Especially since the VAST MAJORITY of college football programs lose money for everyone on campus (that's why every college doesn't have football).
"many male sports have been eliminated to make way for women's sports".
Where did you get this statement from - Rush Limbaugh? Everyone who does a 5th grade report on Title IX knows that proportionality is only 1 way to comply with the law. Very many examples of men's sports being cut were due to either the incompetence of administrators or their poor political calculations i.e. they wanted to drop the sport and used Title IX as an excuse to defer culpability. "We had to do it for Title IX reasons"
I love it when people say "since the government mandates this legislation" like the government is not us. We live in a democracy and Title IX was passed and is enforced by democratically elected officials (the same types who could repeal it if that were a popular demand). Majority rules and its a good law, even if the males in the minority don't like it. Would love to see the "repeal Title IX" commercials for the next election cycle.

ps - there have been more women enrolled in US Colleges than men since about 1996. That means they pay the majority of the tuition and so maybe they should have more opportunity and money than men. How do you compensate an entire gender for generations of discrimination anyway? Let's just throw em a few bucks for a locker room...
ps2 - The photos of Chastain are really funny.

YES.....I knew someone would comment on my post withithou an open mind and actually read what I wrote.

I don't have time right now to respond, but I will, because I must go and coach my girl's/woman's soccer team.

This is possibly the most ignorant post since the move to a new board . . . as Eddie K pointed out, men's soccer gets cut to make way for football - which has added over 100 NCAA teams since 1982.

James Madison university cut three WOMEN'S sports recently claiming it was because of title IX. No explanation as to how that met the requirements of the law.

And the University of Delaware also cut women's sports claiming it was because they had to comply with title IX. Not mentioned was that both schools are using the money to move from Division 1AA to 1A and had to find a way to fund the additional scholarships.

Lastly, Oregon cut wrestling, claiming it was because the wanted to comply with title IX. Then they went out and formed a men's baseball team in the same week. Knowing that the NCAA would take note that they were adding a men's sport without equal opportunities for women, they made up a sport ( competitive cheer) that requires virtually no funding, because they already had cheerleaders for football games.
( they later had to admit that title IX had nothing to do with the decision to cut wrestling)

A federal judge saw through that ruse last year and declared that Cheer does not meet the standards for a sport under title IX, so the university will now have to fund an actual sport for women or be out of compliance.


So when schools say they did something because of title IX, be very skeptical.

Firstly I would like to say that these vitriolic comments are typical. Eddie K I'm not going to say that your comment is ignorant because you said we live in a democracy, because we clearly don't. We live in a representative republic.

But I digress. Please go back and read my post. I clearly stated facts and I was shouted down, another typical tactic used by those who don't espouse Rush Limbaugh ideology (BTW I haven't listened to him in years, I prefer Mark Levin). I not once said I disagreed with the legislation . I simply stated that if you are a male soccer player in the USA you have less opportunity to receive an athletic scholarship than a female. I didn't say this was right or wrong in my opinion. I just stated a fact. If you can disprove that fact I will glady admit error.

I think the legislation has greatly impacted female athletics, I have a daughter who I hope wants to play soccer. I coach female soccer as well. I want it to succeed. But, my facts still remain correct.

The size of football causes there to be an imbalance in opportunity for male athletes. So it just sucks, I guess, if you are not born with the physical size or strength to play football.

Oh and there have been 2 that I know of D1 programs that cut men's soccer to start women's, Illinois State and North Texas.

Well, no, you facts are muddled. You are somehow trying to correlate title IX legislation to the fact that colleges don't have as many men's soccer teams as women's soccer teams. That just isn't the case. The fact is that colleges have more men's teams than when title IX was enacted, than BEFORE title IX was enacted.... Is fact, that ever. You just can't show any correlation between title IX and any lower participation by men.


In 1932 there were 22 college soccer programs in the old Intercollegiate Football Soccer Assn. in 1945 the number was exactly the same. But two years later, there were around 50 teams in all of college sports.

The NCAA took over college soccer in 1959. By then, there were around 75 teams and the first NCAA tournament ( won by St.Louis) was an eight team tournament and included what was then both college divisions, Major (scholarships) and Small college ( no scholarships).

Keep in mind that the NCAA tries to have the teams from the top two standard deviations (1/5 to 1/6 ) of participating teams.

Anyway, when title IX was enacted, Men's (and women's) tournaments size was still eight teams ( in three divisions) . It went to 16 teams in the late eighths or early 90's, then to 24, 32, and finally to 48 teams early in the new millennium. That's just in Division one, mind you, the other divisions have their own tournaments that are almost as big.

There is pretty good argument For a 56 team field right now, but I expect the NCAA will wait a couple years and jump right to a 64 team tourney. The Western states will certainly clamor for it, since the selection committee doesn't seem to put anyone in the tourney from west of the Mississippi.



So the only thing you can show that has happened to Men's soccer under title IX is an explosion in the number of teams, not anything like a retrenchment caused by an even bigger increase in number of Women's teams. Men's teams have gotten much more numerous since title IX was enacted. Maybe AD's have figured out that since they have to build a stadium anyway, two teams could share it.


There is a pretty good agument that colleges have done much more good for Men's soccer since title IX than in the 50 years before the legislation was enacted. hardly harm.



There is one place where men's soccer has suffered, and that's in the BCS. So if there is a correlation to be made, it's that BIG TIME Football is the most harmful factor in the growth of men's soccer. No woman ever said a man can't play his sport. Only what are for the most part male AD's have done that because they would rather be in the business of fetting high rollers in college Football fundraising.


Those are the facts.

Clive I have always enjoyed your posts and I am glad that i am helping fill your time in your retirement. But my facts aren't muddled, you just want to see them in a different light. If I can't correlate Title 9 with the decrease in men's soccer opportunity (im speaking strictly from the early 90s when title 9 in womns athletics actually started to take hold and the womens soccer programs were added at a exponential rate) then you can't correlate it to its increase. How about the increase in general soccer participation leading to the addition of male programs (in a far less #) or the fact that D2 schools may be trying to add fall sports in the place of football? If just as many young males play soccer as females, why aren't there an equal number of college programs? To say title 9 has increased male opportunity us disingenuous.

My initial statement remains a fact, there are more opportunities for females in soccer than males. And in some cases this is because of Title 9. This is a fact.

You are correct in asserting that football does harm to men's soccer, no argument from me. Schools have added women's soccer to balance out, but unfortunately many that did or would have simply can't afford men's soccer. So with that said this legislation has had an effect.

Listen, I am all for opportunity for females, I like what the legislation has brought us. I have a daughter who i dont want to have to play in a cow pasture! But let's just be intellectually honest and recognize that many men's programs have been eliminated, not just soccer. You are correct as I stated initially, these ADs have hid behind it because it was easier than figuring out how to comply with other means.

I am supporting opportunity for all male and females to pursue collegiate soccer, the game we are all passionate about.

You all can have the last word cause i am going over to see you all posturing on who sucks as a coach and who should get fired. But just think of all the male athletes (I was one of them) who have been affected wrestling, tennis, swimming diving, soccer.....most legislation is not perfect and in this case there have been some casualties. Yes and I will go and think of all the females that didn't have the opportunity years ago. I guess two wrongs DO make a right now.

I hope our USWNT brings home the gold this summer......wish I could say that for the men . We have title 9 to thank for the greatest women's national team in the world.

I think there's been some over-reaction here --I haven't interpreted GKHatch's posts as being anti-Title IX or stating anything other than facts. On the other hand, I also wonder whether Title IX in fact has caused the elimination of some sports for men in cases where the schools have "blamed" Title IX. In at least some of those cases, schools have opted to take the easy route of compliance with Title IX by elimination some sports for men, but it's because they didn't want to take some of the other more complex -- and possibly more expensive -- routes of compliance. Or, they may have concluded they couldn't take those other routes because in fact they were providing more opportunities to men than to women.

If schools have been providing more opportunities to men than to women, and they don't want to expand their budgets to provide equal opportunities to women and as a result decide to eliminate some sports for men, then that's the way it should be. Or, does someone want to assert that men should have more college sports opportunities than women?

Lost in the question of whether there should be more opportunities for men in college sports are two things.

1) 57% of the PEOPLE in college are women. ( that percentage is growing, BTW). If a strict interpretation of the intent of equal opportunity is taken, they should have 57% of the players in all sports. That isn't true in ANY college sports program in the nation. The proportion, even after 40+ years of title IX, is more like the reverse. Women are still underrepresented across the board in both scholarships and numbers.


But how about soccer? Are the men underrepresented? Do men soccer players really have fewer opportunities?

Well, there were 322 women's teams and 203 men's teams in the D1 RPI's last year. That means the women had 61.33% of the soccer player positions in D1, which seems to me to be reasonably close what it should be if you judge by number of player opportunities. Yes, it's a bit more for soccer, but not by a lot, and not across the board by a long shot.

If you count by scholarships in soccer for schools that have both teams, Women have 58% of the scholarship slots, assuming both programs are fully funded. That is nearly exactly what it should be for an average school.

You still can't say that title IX has anything to do with the difference, either.


And the world of the male player is different in soccer and other sports. Another fact for college age soccer players is that the best don't go to college, they go pro, just as the best basketball players go to college only as long as they have to to be draft eligible. Every graduated basketball player in the last four years at UP, for example! is playing pro somewhere under contract for a real wage. Thats true even for the male soccer players who graduate from the school. Many of those leave to go pro before graduation. They have advantages and Financial incentive in their sports even if the total scholarship compensation is lower.

The fact that women get 14 scholarships and men get 9.9 means nothing in that context


When the women get a sport that gives 85 scholarships we can talk about under-representation by men.


2) even since title IX was enacted, there has been a larger increase in the total number of male scholarships in sports that there has been for women in the same period. The fact is that athletic departments grew on both sides. When I went to college in the 60's, football only had about 40 roster spots for the big college teams. I remember when LSU used those 40 slots to put three complete teams on the field. One of those teams played both way because they had to.
Now they get nominally 85 roster slots or so, and functionally about 108 per team with redshirts and greyshirts.

When my dad went to the U of Wisconsin in the 30's, he got tuition and room and board only during playing season, which is why he played football, wrestled, and ran track. He told me to go for an academic scholarship instead.

I have been on both sides of the fence in coaching men and women in college. It would be tough argue that Title IX has had a positive impact on women's soccer. I also don't think one could argue that is has reduced the opportunites on the men's side. Many programs place roster minimums on the women's team and roster limits for the men. I have heard of a difference of 9 roster spots at one school.
Simply because football has 85 scholarships and schools must counter-balance that does not make it fair for men's soccer players. Is this fair, I don't know but lets be honest and not try to pretend Title IX has not had an adverse affect on the opportunities for men's soccer players.
Without football being in the equation I think "in theory" all things would be equal. Without Title IX would there be equity between men's and women's sports, probably not. Has it served it's purpose in that regard, certainly. Has it limited opportunites on the men's side, unfortunately it has.

I think the issue is that you're arguing two very different issues and claiming that Title IX is THE cause.

Issue 1: Some schools have used roster management to reduce men's soccer squad sizes while inflating women's soccer roster sizes, due to Title IX.

Issue 2: Men's soccer sports sponsorship hasn't grown at the college level at the rate of women's soccer, due to Title IX.

Exploring issue #1, schools will definitely claim this is a Title IX issue - BUT when you're traveling 55 guys and "roster managing down to" 100 football players when about 35 guys actually play . . . you're basically penalizing the end of roster soccer guys to allow more football players. Is this a Title IX issue? Well, the folks doing this would certainly cut women's sports if they could, but it's still not mandated by Title IX that they do this and there's ALWAYS another option to reach compliance (and decades to implement it). So it looks like Title IX might be the excuse, but the actual reason would be subsidizing football/basketball.

On issue #2, men's soccer has grown since Title IX, but with marginally fewer scholarships (I'm not sure about the reality there - a number of mid-majors have similar scholarship totals for both and in other places resources have been allotted based on a wide variety of criteria, like which coach would use the money better). Title IX, once again has been used as an excuse and you've named two schools that claimed to have dropped men's soccer for football because of Title IX. But Eastern Michigan claimed to have dropped soccer for Title IX reasons only to spend the ENTIRE men's soccer budget re-doing the football coach's office, UNO dropped football and added men's soccer in order to move to Division I . . . so it seems that assigning one reason to these moves is at best reductionist, and most likely not very convincing.

Schools add sports where there's high demand and drop them where there is not. Ultimately, there aren't a bunch of guys not playing soccer who are demanding the opportunity. Where there are, I think you'll find a team. In the BCS, Maryland just cut men's track/cheer/swimming (m&w)/men's tennis & water polo (m&w). Without Title IX, they certainly would've simply stopped sponsoring women's sports, but Title IX didn't cause these cuts - they were caused by long-term budget mismanagement and a current desire to increase funding for an unsuccessful football program - Title IX DID require that they spread the pain out . . .

So Title IX has forced some eastern college to eliminate it's men's rowing team.
-boo-hoo, I'm heartbroken.

The main sports that attract the most fans for men are still there. We all know that Football and Basketball are what's important in college sports for men. Those aren't going away.

As a male, I'm in full support of Title IX. It's good for society, it's good for our country.

Fact - there are more opportunities for women to play soccer in college than men

That fact does not tell the story or answer the question about title IX.

Fact- Mens soccer has grown since Title IX.

Would it have grown more without Title IX? I don't think so it looks like Title IX has helped I buy into the stadium argument.

Fact- There are still more opportunity for men in college sports than women.

Some would argue that is because there is more demand but the growth of Women's athletics since Title IX to me proves that opportunity has created the demand.

Click on any college web site and you will always see more sports on the men's side of the page then on the women's.
So this argument that Title IX is taking away sports from men is garbage.

Wow how heart warming to those EMU rowers. Im sure they just were offered a spot on the rowing team without spending much time or dedication of their lives to earn that spot.

Oh and by the way, WRONG.......it took me two secs to look up 3 regionally and conference diverse schools, Butler, Wyoming and Alabama. All have more sports offered than men. Your statement is wrong. Go ahead with the football thing again (but your statement is wrong).

Once again, Title 9 has been great for women's athletics.

Hatchet you cant ignore football and basketball because they offer the most scholarships and roster spots. School can cut football or basketball but they choose not to so they cut rowing. Women's soccer is as big as it is because they large rosters can offset football.

You cannot compare womens soccer to mens soccer you have to compare womens soccer to the mens biggest sport which is football. You look at that way it is hard to argue. Will a school decide to cut mens rowing instead of cutting back on football sure they will but that is not title IX's fault that is the school making a decision.

You want more men's sports cut back on football and basketball then come to me and complain because that is where the money is going not womens sports.

Yes but the statement is wrong. Thise schools have more womens sports on their sites. Semantics yes but not a true statement how it was posed .

Everyone is acting as if I am saying title 9 is bad. Never did never will. BUT.....because schools are not willing to be creative or cut budgets to make room, male sports have been eliminated. Directly or indirectly because of title 9.

And the main point again - Chastain is funny in those pictures. Everyone posting on this thread needs to end with a possible bubble-caption.

"and I put on a nice dress to hear this clown..."

She did have a funny face.

My caption would have read......"did this guy not see me in '99 after my made penalty? Title 9 helped me get there!"

Thank goodness for Football or there wouldn't be any sports! If you are an administrator you know exactly what I mean.

That is awesome! Thanks for taking the heat off me, good luck with the barrage!