It's 1980. After high school, where are women going to play soccer? Practically nowhere. Where are men going to play after high school? NASL, European leagues, college. So, increasing women's scholarships allows them to go from practically nothing to something. Adding men's schollys is going to have no impact on the USMNT. I cannot conceive a guy who is such a late bloomer that adding schollys in men's soccer is the difference between him going to college and suiting up for the Nats, or him becoming a window washer. The gap between what it takes to be a Nat and what it takes to get a scholly is far, far too large for a player who can achieve the former to be missed when the latter are handed out.
Tom, I'm just having fun with you. Don't take it so seriously, ok? If I let everyone who made fun of me on these boards get to me....well, I'd have no nerves left.
I think there are some people buried in the ground somewhere in Mississippi that might argue with the practical application of that date. 1965 is more close to the truth, although that was just the beginning of real universal suffrage in the South. What was this thread about again?
Interesting but meaningless stat of the day: Schools in the BCS conferences have a higher female population as a percentage of total population than non-BCS conferences.
Re: Title IX Ruling Blow to Men's Soccer Yeah because soooo many of our current national and MLS players came from Miami of Ohio LOL!!!!!!!!!! C'mon get over it. It happens sometimes.
Re: Re: Miami University (OH) soccer loses appeal If that's not good recruiting material, I don't know what is.
Re: Re: Re: Miami University (OH) soccer loses appeal Back in the day when I was trying to decide what college I wanted to attend, one of the stats I looked at was the female to male ratio. Schools with a high female population went to the front of the list
I don't understand it. Do you mean entrance into the College for the STUDY of athletics would be gender-neutral, and if applications from males exceeded applications for females, then so be it? Assuming a gender-blind entrance requirement, that would pass Title IX's requirements. If you mean that somehow you could circumvent Title IX by saying the University of Oklahoma Athletics Department was a separate "school" that granted admission based on athletic need, then no, it would be a silly and impermissible way to go about circumventing Title IX. Lastly, if your hypothetical resulted in 90% men enrolled in a college for the STUDY of athletics, that would not be adequate justification for making 90% of the athletics teams at the university male.
To the contrary, John, that is exactly how the law is applied to say, a College of Engineering, that is 90 percent male, and a College of Nursing that is say, 90 percent female. Specificlally, Title IX exempts acedemic departments. Furthermore, all the military academies, who are 90 percent male, are permitted under Title IX to offer equal opportunities to play, but not necessary equal numbers in athletic scholarships. And on that point...isn't it a case of wanting your cake and eating it to. If you argue that a school which is 60 percent female should offer 60 percent of its athletice scholarships to women, than the United State Military Academy should be permitted to do the same thing e.g offer 90 percent of it's athletic scholarships to men) If you applied to a college of nursing, but failed to get a seat at the college, you cannot sue under Title IX for admittence on the grounds that the University you attend is 50 percent male, and therefore, 50 percent of the seats at the college of nursing must also be reserved for males. However, Title IX is being applied in this very fashion to atheletic departments. As I said,Title IX specifically exempts academic departments. Therefore, would everyone's position (speaking of Title IX supporters) position change if say, a University decided to grant degrees in athletics, and offer only 12 degree programs (6 male, 6 female) that results in a 2 to 1 ratio guys to girls?
It's already been shot down. You're still confusing gender-neutral admissions policies with gender-specific athletics.
Bingo. Also, you're confusing another thing. Title IX DOES apply to admissions, hiring, etc. within the university, but we've ASSUMED that the School of Nursing and School of Engineering had gender-neutral policies. What my previous post pointed out was that the three-prong test, a regulation promulgated by the Department of Education, is directed only at university athletics programs. And the reason for that is that athletics programs, as pointed out, are gender-specific. As such, there is inherently not a gender-neutral filter to accept males and females to the women's volleyball team for example. Now, let's say that in your example the School of Engineering were proven to have a gender-based acceptance policy where it consciously attempted to have 90% of its admissions be male, despite 25% of its applicants being female, and 50% of the university as a whole being female. Title IX would permit a court-- as a remedy to that discrimination-- to order the Engineering school to make efforts to normalize its admissions to the gender percentage of applicants, or even to the gender percentage of the university. BUT, that's an apple, not a Title IX athletic orange.
Re: God's Desk, Lopiano Speaking I know it's a page late, but can I try this too? It's too easy not to join in.
But it is those apples and oranges that many who are critical of Title IX are referring too. Granted, alot of this, as you have stated, is a political/policy decision (based on the numerous and legitimate stats on particiapation levels that you have previously mentioned). As stated, Brown U took the position that we have been dicussing, and that position was shot down. But I am cynical as to the reasons. I still see the enforcement of Title IX (as it is NOW presently enforced) based on a liberal reading of the law, whose ultimate result will be to ensure (if it is taken to its ultimate conclusion) that female particapation numbers will exceed that of men, that women programs will exceed that of men, and that interest levels for women in those very sports, will lag far behind men. This will be an absurd and ironic result. A result that would not be allowed if the numbers where reveresed. On a side note, it has been a real pleasure exchanging views with you! I truly respect your point of view, and certianly appreciate the intellect you have brought to the table. Sadly, it is the exception and not the rule for this web site.
Re: Re: Miami University (OH) soccer loses appeal But here is why I lie so much blame at the feet of administrators. To change the interpretation of the law would require so many different things to happen, it's almost unrealistic politically. The law is there and it would take a lot to change how it is interpreted. But allocating funds within that law is much easier. They have so many conscious choices to make within the law that they don't have to make wholesale cuts to meet the interpretation - however flawed it is.
Re: Re: Re: Miami University (OH) soccer loses appeal Monster: Not necessarily. It was in the 90's that the Clinton administration began to insist that Title IX had a proportionality rule to it. For the first 20 years of the law, the law stood for equal numbers of sports, e.g. If you had 8 men's programs, then you had to have 8 women's programs. In the 80's, it was also meant to mean that funding within those sports had to be similiar. It has only been recently, where schools have been compelled to show proportionality, that problems have begun to arise. What is occuring, and what will occur, is that schools will have 14 women sports, and 9 mens sports, which 8 of the 9 mens sport having less scholarship than their female counterparts, in an effort to make up for the 85 scholarships used on Football (which has no female equivalent). BTW, that example is not hypothetical. I know of at least 2 schools where these numbers are the exact case. It's impact on NCAA men's soccer has been to retard its growth. It's impact on men's tennis, wrestling, swimming, gymnastics and baseball has been more compelling. All this began, for the most part, once the Clinton administration argued the proportionality aspect of a law, which IMHO, has no such aspect. It is a liberal interpretation pushed by a femenist agenda.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Miami University (OH) soccer loses appeal 1. So isn't the problem those 85 scholarships for football? Again, nobody held a gun to the ADs head and said "cut wrestling, cut swimming" (you'll notice I left out soccer because monster has already demonstrated that soccer has merely been winged by Title IX decisions while some other sports have been placed squarely in the crosshairs). They could have cut the budget for the big white elephant sitting squarely on the 50-yard line, but they chose not to do so. 2. The courts have consistently disagreed with you. 3. Your's is a conservative interpretation pushed by a chauvinistic agenda.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Miami University (OH) soccer loses appeal Who is forcing them to use all 85 scholarships on football? Who prevents them from cutting 10 football schollies and using those funds to pay for more female athletes? You essentially agreed with me (and the wrestling crisis started long ago I know for a fact) because you said they did those things "in an effort to make up for the 85 scholarships used on Football." They can trim the fat of football and be creative to get closer to proportionality. They just don't want to. And the problems started with the big TV budgets which threw the funding out of whack which led to the proportionality interpretation. Everyone was fine with the funding issue until the networks started showering cash on the big two sports. So the target keeps moving. Which is why there isn't an easy solution like Tommy wants to say there is (and you notice how when the debate gets serious he disappears because his straw man can't stand it). The impact does keep soccer at the level its at, along with other factors, IMHO. But I don't see how that can even come close to the hysteria Tommy tries to cause when there are real problems in other sports.
USASoccer-the alternative to your 14 to 9 ratio of sports is either an equal amount of sports which, due to football would provide 2X as many scholarships to men as women or an equal amount of sports with a big cut in schollies to the football team. The first choice won't fly in court (and is unfair) and the second choice doesn't seem to be to popular with AD's.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Miami University (OH) soccer loses appeal Monster, Newman: You note that I have never once referred to Father Flanigan throughout this debate. On the other hand, I have consistently ignored the silly rantings of South Florida Metro, who is equally absurd at times! Monster/ Newman: Both of you raised the essential point here. 1) Is proportionality something that, as a nation, we want in athletics? Think hard before answering! First, it is a recent invention in last 10 years. The first 20 years of the law, proportionaility was never envisioned. In fact, Congress in 1972 probably had no legislative intent that proportionality be the impact of Title IX 2) Assume that we take your example and reduce football to Ivy League like status. Assume further that because of that, revenues from football decrease as a result. What then would be the result? Would you not be killing the goose that lays the golden egg! I respect those who beleive in proportionality. However, I think it absurd that the result is the discussion we now are having. I see nothing wrong with offering equal numbers of sports, and ensuring that within those sports (soccer, baseball/softball, swimming, etc....) that the pay, scholarships, spending, travel, etc be identical. However, I think schools should have the flexibility to offer Football to men, and say Volleyball for women, without then being force to add 5 more women sports to make up for what football brings in. Remember, without Football, you have no volleyball to begin with. Irony? Yes!