I'm not sure what your point is? I thought the trend was for greater female enrollment, not less. But taking the hypothetical you pose, I would think that a school with more male students should have the effect you imply (i.e., more male students, more male opportunities).
Well, then Masculists will bitch and we will get bandminton and every damn sport we want, while the women must play only basketball, soccer and softball, and then in 20 years, the women will bitch. It will be a never ending cycle.
I know I should be able to resist since this thread has already gone on too long, but since TF is going to find another reason to start a new one the future, I want to be sure we get all our ACTUAL facts straight. Title IX was passed in 1972, the regulations related to athletics and the Policy Interpretation, were finalized and published in 1979. In the early 80's the Supreme Court held that Title IX applied only to those portions of the University that DIRECTLY received federal funds, such as student loans. So, for most of the 1980's Title IX did not apply to college athletics at all. It wasn't interpreted differently -- it simply wasn't enforceable. In the mid-late 1980's, the Civil Rights Restoration Act passed, overriding a Reagan veto, and clarifying that Title IX affected ALL parts of a university that received any kind of federal funding. Since that time, the regulations have remained the same. The only thing the Clinton Administration did was increase enforcement of the pre-existing rules.
I've already decided that when that happens, I'm going to report the post and suggest it be moved to the college soccer boards. This really isn't B&M.
Re: Re: Miami University (OH) soccer loses appeal Just to step in as to why I leave things here when I could easily move them: 1. As a mod and one of Tommy Flannigan's favorite foils, I don't want to seem like I'm moving something out of distaste for his views. 2. A lot of his things come from media reports. I really should move them to links and articles. 3. My personal opinion is that one of the biggest problems is the economics (re: business) of college sports. I try to stay away from radical feminism and focus more on how administrators balance the books. 4. Tommy continually talks about how this will kill MLS and kill the MNT. I see that as a business issue to a point. All that said, I'd be more than happy to move every stinking thread he starts on this topic. But all that does is bring his cross out. If people want them moved, feel free to PM or report it.
There used to be a rule that anything that's over a couple of pages is never moved. If necessary, it should just be locked and a continuing discussion moved to the "proper" location.
Re: Re: Re: Miami University (OH) soccer loses appeal They're from media reports...just like the various discussions about Byron Moreno's campaign tactics are from media reports (nobody here saw the game). But they aren't about the media. Can we talk about the 13 minutes of stoppage time here? 1. The MNT won't go out of existence, they'll just lose alot (in Thomasworld.) I don't see that as a business issue. And the MLS issue is tiny in Thomas' reasoning compared to the MNT concerns. 2. In your opinion, what is the main thing Thomas wants to talk about when he bring this up? Politics. By all rights, these threads should either go to politics, or college soccer. On a more or less serious note, the B&M forum could use some cleaning up. I'm merely suggesting that we clean up the biggest pile of **** first. I haven't noticed Thomas really needing a valid reason for doing that.
Why not? No one really gets hurt by this. Even though the Nats are not being hurt by Title IX, as has been proven time and again, the USA still needs as many men playing the game as possible at every level for ultimate success (a World Cup, and a great league), and just as importantly, the overall development of the Game here. Not counting the football schollys is the perfect end-around the whole mess, but no one seems to want to do it this way. My serious question is, why? It has been pointed out that the SEC might be biased against men's soccer because of the $$$ taken from football. Giving football a free pass would alleviate that problem. There is a legit basis for not counting football scholarships. They are non gender-specific. Women are allowed by law to compete for spots (and scholarships) on "men's" football teams precisely because there are few (if any) schools that have women's football teams. It matters not that few women could actually earn a football scholarship- they have the chance. Bringing soccer into the D1 spotlight in real conferences (the SEC) can only be good. This is the easiest way to do it.
OK, I gave up somewhere around Page 19 of this, but didn't see any of these points mentioned. Apologies if these are covered in the 9 or 10 pages I've missed. 1). Impact of Title IX on the USMNT: 1999 Women's World Cup held in the US brings in millions of dollars to USSF. This gets used for BOTH the men's and women's teams. Acknowledging that our performance in Korea is a result of the extra dollars is a straw man. 2). Women might make up 55% of the college population, but aren't they also 55% of the US population? Sounds like enrollment is reflective of society. 3). I move to put all our funds together to determine how much of a negative impact Thomas Flannigan is having on the growth of US Soccer with his racist, sexist posts. Dave