This appeared in the Mpls. Star and Tribune, a liberal newspaper. I agreed with the article and it seemed fairly written to me, but take that with a grain of salt because I was on her side before I read it. It makes a good case for making alterations: http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/3331191.html
Three things may very well happen with this thread: 1) someone will come here and suggest that the USMT is going to feel the effects of Title IX; 2) someone will come here and disprove that suggestion by posting numbers and stats; 3) no one will suggest that simply giving gridiron a free pass will greatly help eliminate the whole problem. A possible 4) the thread most likely will get moved, becase it's "not really about sports" (here, of course, it is, but never mind)
I stand corrected. It's the simplest way to quiet everyone down. I doubt it'll happen, tho- I think our "principles" will get in the way of pragmatism.
Eliminate profitable sports from Title IX. There are some women's B-Ball programs that make money, after all.
That's a good idea on paper, but to have these programs do the math year after year, perhaps even cooking up the books (or having the books cooked for them) to show a profit and avoid being part of the bean count under Title IX regulation is a bit much. Besides, if you eliminate, say, Tennessee women's b-ball from the bean count, then you've got an even bigger problem making the schollys balance. But if you eliminated Tenessee football from the bean count, you might not have to make any changes whatsoever. If you did, they'd be minimal.
I'd be in favor of making a lot more club teams. If the teams are more for the players, let the players pay the way. Otherwise it's like collegiate welfare.
What? You mean Florida State/Miami/and of a hundred different schools aren't all about holding up the ideal of amateur athletics? I hardly know what to believe any more. One way to get around Title IX is to pay the players, of course.
The world's a cruel place. But then the money wouldn't be going to the old, rich, white men. Didn't you ever take an economics class?
While over 50% of our college populations are female, female athletes still receive approximately 36% of all sports operating expenditures, 42% of all college athletic scholarship money, 42% of all athletic participation opportunities, and 32% of all college athlete recruitment spending( 1999-00 NCAA Gender-Equity Report and NCAA Participation Statistics, 2002). Beautiful. It would be interesting to find out what percentage of the female population is interested in pursuing athletics compared to what percentage of the male population. I see the point of the article and it's full of crap.
How many more women would be into College athletics if there was a viable career path to follow after it ????? Saying women aren't interested in sports is crap. The change from 1 in 27 to 1 in 2.5 women being involved in athletics to me says that given the opportunity women are interested in athletics.
I agree this is a huge side issue. University education is not about "pursuing money". Should English departments be abolished because 95% of English majors do not "pursue English professorships" as a career. It is clear that women are pursuing athletics in college and after college. Just because there is less economic opportinuty doesn't answer the question.
The original article for this thread can give you an idea of how many women are interested in playing college sports- it's about 1/3 the number of men. "Evidence of this [women having less interest in playing college sports] abounds. For example, on the interest survey of the SAT college entrance exam, three times more males than females indicate an interest in college sports. Collegiate intramural sports, which are wholly interest-driven, are about 78 percent male and 22 percent female. Most college coaches say they have to recruit women more heavily than men, and offer them bigger scholarships to get them to play. A typical liberal arts college might struggle to get 18 women out for its softball team, while 45 men line up for a spot on the baseball team."
I call ************************! For crying out loud what is the purpose of college other than to pursue an education to better you odds of becoming gainfully employed or to get noticed by a pro-sports team????
I disagree. I've been on a few teams in inturmural college basketball and volleyball (for people who play just because they like to play), and the participation was at least 70% men, and that's about the way it is with most inturmural sports. Men are flat out more interested in athletics than women are.
I don't mean to shat on your undergraduate institution, but the point of college, hopefully, is to pursue an academic endeavor, and to attempt to learn more about the world. Now granted, the world needs business majors, but that's not what universities are there for, if you even think most serious universities are about graduates at all. And are you this silly? Most collegiate athletes not only don't go onto pro-sports -- they aren't even in sports that necessarily have pro teams. I went to the abosolute best athletic university in the country, Stanford, and believe me, most of the athletes were not thinking pro-sports. They were continuing their love of competition, and enjoying sports that would become pastimes for the rest of their lives. You need to limit you "calling bullXXXX" to times when you aren't talking out of your ass.
Dude, I could name you half a dozen women who at some point stopped and asked themselves what would be the point of getting a(n) (athletic) scholarship to a US university. B/c after you were done, what exactly would you do with yourself in the States? What exactly would be the point of it all? Why put yourself through so much effort and sacrifice your GPA to play at an elite level and then have it all end after 4 years? When does your education to which there is a clearer career path become more important? Sure not all college athletes make it to the pros, but having a league available after you're done is good incentitive to want to play. But you know, why am I bothering? As you are an expert in how women think, you've obviously already made up your mind.
The point of getting an athletic scholarship? How about it gives you a free (relatively) education and an opportunity to compete at a high level in a sport you love to compete at? Hell, if I were a good enough baseball or basketball or soccer player, I'd become a walk on on a college team to compete. I wouldn't care about playing at the next level, because that level would be fine (I like playing in rec center leagues for god's sake). But that seems to be the difference between a majority of men and women; that men compete because we like to.