The problem seems to be that colleges just don't admit more men. If they raised the mail student population to 50% or more, then there'd be no problems.
good luck with that. with the influx of college grads on the market, combined with all the recent white-collar layoffs, a male who isn't sure they want to go college is more likely to take that factory job that pays $15/hr with benefits.
This discussion also relates to the quesiton of athletic opportunity as a whole. While we are currently segregating our athletes based on physical attributes, I wanted to make a plug for fat people who also deserve their own teams. Other suggestions: Nearsighted baseball Under 6 foot basketball The aquaphobic swim team
You're welcome. Oh, you were being sarcastic. "Almost" unbearable? I'll work on that. Dude, the point I'm trying to make is that your whole line of argument is a distraction. It's irrelevant. It's the Wookie defense. Your approach is, in fact, "incorrect." I mean, the Wookie defense works on an absurdist cartoon like South Park. But no matter how much you keep trying to distract us, Title IX is about male athletes and female athletes. It's not about male soccer players, only, and female soccer players, only. For you to tease out just the soccer players makes as much sense as teasing out college athletes in Texas, or at schools whose mascots are some kind of feline, or schools that start with the letter H. Actually, my ridiculous examples are less ridiculous than yours, because they're representatives of the group that has to comply, namely, schools. Maybe that will help. Schools comply with Title IX, not sports. Do you see now how your approach isn't "different," just wrong?
QUOTE]Originally posted by SpeakEasy8 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. [/QUOTE] Not true for girl's high school soccer in Northern Virginia. At Loudoun Valley High (located in an area which still has two operating dairies), 70+ girls tried out for the 20 varsity and 20 JV slots available. It's getting very competitive. EXACTLY. As others have pointed out, as soccer participation to fan ratios show, and as some university research on NFL fans that I found verifies, there is no correlation between being a participant and being a fan of a sport--none in either direction. So just because women aren't interested in sports coverage doesn't mean that they aren't interested in participating. THEY AREN'T RELATED!!!! Good thing they haven't been invited to read this thread...they'd really be confused then And ThePoolRules, thanks for the informative, thoughtful, well written post. Hopefully you'll stick around and we'll see more that will cause that 'newbie' status to mature nicely.
That wouldn't be the Women's Sports Foundation of which Donna Lopiano is the head, would it? Or is it another one?
First of all, great post, very thoughtful, useful info. To address some of your points: I wholeheartedly agree that the 3-prong test could be "clarified" to allow for greater ability to comply with prongs 2 or 3, but would be very opposed to gutting the 3-prong test so long as the only alternative proposals are the non-starters on this thread such as "put em on the same team as the boys" or "girls are not interested anyways" I keep going back to the Brown case, because I guess it's the leading interpretation out there, and think it provides a useful road map for what you call a "more objective way to measure interest." I think if we focused our efforts on refining the law in the ways you suggest, we would all quickly come to agreement. Personally, I think there should be some easy ways to provide guidance for schools to "measure interest" according to published guidelines, if we could all set aside our ideological impulses to try and talk about Title IX as a yes/no proposition. Retracting proportionality as a safe harbor, however, I think is an unacceptable political act because removing that standard without providing other well-defined measures for compliance essentially would leave the law as an unenforceable "best practices" hopeful guideline without teeth, meaning it would be ignored more than it is today. Lastly, I think your post very coherently makes the point that Title IX is not about men's or women's professional soccer in the slightest.
To The Pool Rules: An excellent, thoughtul post. I agree with your statement that Title IX really has nothing to do with the skill of the most famous members of our USWNT. We have had arguments before about this on Big Soccer. Mia is 31 and Brandi a bit older. They were accomplished athletes in 1994 before The Clinton Administration stepped up "enforcement ". The media often called the team "Daughters of Title IX". That is not really accurate.
Mia is 30... Actually, Mia is 30.... born in March of 1972...... Brandi is 34....... born at the end of July, 1968..... Not trying to be a jerk.... I just have a good memory.....
Bombatta, I confess. I had 30 written for Mia and 32 for Brandi. I changed both. Both were wrong. Still good players.
thanks ThePoolRules Looks like we've wrung just about as much out of this one that we're going to get. Thanks, ThePoolRules, for a wonderful finale.