He read an article about that happening one time or else some girl he was interviewing last week told him taht exact thing happened at her school.
Frankly, you're way off-base. Only a handful of prospects receive full scholarships to good soccer programs. And remember, our all-time caps leader went to UCLA and made the team in open walk-on tryouts. If he were from Texas or Florida (or countless other places), we would never have heard of Cobi Jones. Another example is Chris Armas, who emerged from total obscurity at Adelphi. In addition, countless outstanding prospects are unable to win the full scholarships they need to attend college and play sports. As an example, Manuel Brasil was just signed by a first division team in Portugal. Coming out of high school, he was offered to play for Fresno State but only on a partial scholarship. He couldn't afford that, so he started working as a plumber. Fortunately, he had a D3 team in his hometown, which enabled him to showcase his ability. But for every player who emerges, there are a dozen who slip through the cracks.
Damn. You hit a sore spot with me, Thomas. My Vikings had Landon Donovan and DaMarcus Beasley signed, sealed and delivered, and then those scumbags at Bayer Leverkusen swooped in and spirited LD away, and then DMB didn't want to come because of that. Goshdarn it all!
Wow, I bet things like that only happen in soccer. Full rides are a luxury in men's sports really only afforded to basketball and football, with some exceptions. Once again, people, Title IX is hurting sports, but men's soccer is so far down on the list of injured parties. How can you not agree with that when other sports are literally dying on the vine at the collegiate level with their high school participation at or near record levels? Or has Thomas drugged you all?
That be a joke, all right. A sad one, but one nonetheless. Nonetheless than what, he asked? I must be done here. I'm getting silly...bye.
I hope your ready to drink up. In 1990-91, there were 82 Division 1 Women's Soccer Teams. In 2000-2001, there were 269 Division 1 Women's Soccer Teams, a 228% increase (while High School Girl's Varsity participation has grown at a rate of 140% in the same time - SGMA). In 1990-91, there were 190 Division 1 Men's Soccer Teams. In 2000-2001, there were 195 Division 1 Men's Soccer Teams, a 2.6% increase. So, if current SGMA numbers are correct and girls constitute 40% of high school athletes, and that 40% holds true with soccer among boys and girls, that draws this conclusion: When it comes to collegiate soccer at the Division 1 level, 60% of the opportunities are available only to 40% of the total population. Women have more access to athletic benefits than men when it comes to Soccer at the Division 1 Collegiate Level. Drink up.
Thanks for overlooking the fact that it is not the colleges fault, or problem, that only 40% of high school athletes are girls. In fact, Title IX is not a college specific mandate, and it is starting to be applied at the publicly funded high school level, too. Using the fact that girls are given fewer opportunities at the high school level as a reason for excluding them at the collegiate level is probably not a statement you wanted to make.
Title IX is death for our men's Olympic team because the sports that gets cut generally are Olympic sports and the sports that get added are very often sports that are not in the Olympics. Even if you add them no one is going to pay much attention to women's rugby or crew. The women sure won't pay any money to see it. I'd like to keep it on soccer if possible. When we discussed this last time some posted a link that there were 1000 female soccer scholarships in the U.S. and 400 for the men. If it was 700 for the men and 700 for the women, I have to believe that we would get a couple of national team prospects out of the 300.
Since your facts are wrong, this post is a waste of electrons. Or maybe I should just play along. Since women have cooties, they shouldn't play sports.
Don't pass that cup too quickly. If as the counselor suggests, women are 60% of the college population and cruising towards 70%, then they have less opportunity. Which numbers are correct??
Actually, at many high schools, with the exception of basketball and baseball/softball, cuts do not exist. ie- if you want to play, you are more than welcome to play. Now you would have to compete to be a part of the varsity team (instead of junior varsity).. but you were more than welcome to join the team. I believe that this is what creates the 40% girl ratio. example- High School A has a men's and women's soccer program. 40 men join the team, and are split into 18 varsity, 22 j.v., while 30 women join the team, and are split into 18 varsity, 12 j.v.. 30 girls / 70 total participants = 42.9%
nutmeg, you're still making the same mistake. You're separating out soccer players, male and female, for your comparison. Title IX is about student bodies as a whole and opportunities as a whole. Soccer is not the whole picture wrt intercollegiate sports. The mistake you're making, again, is in pitting women's soccer against men's soccer. But Title IX pits men's sports against women's sports. If Div. 1 college football decided to cut schollys down to 50, that would do more for compliance than eliminating any soccer program. The NFL plays with a roster of around 50 (counting the taxi squad.) Most high schools play with fewer than that. Why the hell does college football need 70% more? It doesn't. The huge squads started because the coaches for the good schools wanted to stockpile players. The limit of 85 has no basis in rational analysis. It's just a number they came up with.
And I've already provided the facts for you that prove the 1000-400 number is nothing but another one of your lies. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=182436&highlight=scholarships#post182436 That's the link to the first time I corrected your error. Perpetuating inaccurate information is lying, Thomas, whether you like that term or not. Are you this sloppy in your work? Men - average of 7.5 scholarships for 16.7 athletes for $136,500 average (155 schools replied to the survery so that is about 1,162 scholarships, not the 400 Thomas referenced. Women - average of 9.1 for 18.5 athletes for $150,800 average (222 schools replied so that is about 2020 scholarships) So it's a little shy of 2-1 for women in number of scholarships instead of 2.5-1 like Thomas said. Women get about $33.4M in scholarships while men get $21.2M. (Someone correct me if my math is wrong - I had to do some of the calculations myself) Teams which are classified at the I-AA, I-AAA, II and III levels are very even in scholarships (if given) and operating expenses. Not coincidentally, those are the levels which spend less on football.
It does appear that the cancer is spreading to high school and USMNT fans should view this with great concern. If you think being an AD with Lopiano is bad think of what it will be like for the high school administrator. A college can entice women into uniform by offering them scholarships. I previously related the story of a local woman who took up ice hockey and played it for a year in high school and got a full scholarship to college. She couldn't even skate backwards. The bribes won't work in high school because it already is free. You will have to start the old beg and plead approach like with women's rugby. You can't increase the budget because that means higher property taxes, always a local causus belli. Plus you run up against the same barrier; women aren't as interested in sports as men are. You can bribe, beg and plead, but you really can't make them put on greasepaint and play rugby. When we start eliminating boys' high school soccer to comply with Title IX Mexico can break out the champagne. The feminists will accomplish something they could not do without their help.
I really think you should expand your circle of friends beyond these imaginary ones you have. And thanks for bringing the Mexico touch back. Where was that "Thank You Title IX" banner when we kicked their ever-loving ass in Korea?
This is a mistake, Thomas, because Title IX isn't about soccer opportunities, specifically. It's about athletic opportunities. It's like arguing that Al Gore should be president because he won California and New York. It probably comes as news to the residents of those states, but there are 48 other states that work into the formula.
Tom, Why is the USMNT more important to you than basic fundamental rights of access and fairness. Quotas and proportionality aside. Is it more important to you for the US Men to be successful in soccer than for women to have the same (or similiar) publicly funded opportunities? I'm all for winning the World Cup (men's style), but I'm not going to do it "at all costs." The fact (or my opinion of the fact) is that any future success in the men's FIFA World Cup will be dependant on pros developing pros. The college game is great for developing garden variety pro players, but the real international stars will largely come from pro and fed academies. If your whole argument against Title IX is solely about what it does to our chances in South Africa 2010, Brazil 2014, Croatia 2018 and USA 2022, then I'm sorry, it doesn't wash. Those players will not, for the most part, be affected by Title IX. If your argument against Title IX is more idealogy based, then just say so, and leave the Mexicans celebrating out of it. You're confusing two different issues. National pride (men's soccer style) and gender equity are not the same thing.
Neither could Bobby Orr. He turned out to be a pretty good hockey player. Not to get too much off topic, but maybe she was a good enough athlete and skilled enough in the game as a whole to get the scholarship.
I'm sure someone could check to see if our Men's Olympic team is winning a smaller share of medals now than it was before 1972, but I'm trying too hard to look busy to go do it.
Monster - thanks for putting these numbers up. They help me to see the other side of the coin as well. Still, I have a problem with Women actually getting a great number of opportunities than Men when they appear to be in the minority when it comes to soccer participation. In this small segment (Division 1 Soccer), to me it appears that the application of Title IX by Athletic Admins is now discriminating against male athletes. As for wrestling, I am going by SGMA figures from 1990-2001. They could be wrong, or I could be misinterpreting them, but to be honest, I don't care much for wrestling. I realize that you do, so I'll let you pick up that side of this debate.