That's anecdotal. Some people have that situation. I'm sure others don't have a genuine interest to have a serious men's varsity soccer team. My point was that Thomas keeps throwing out the names of colleges with clubs intimating that those people are fighting mad about the way they are being mistreated. I'm not one to say assume that everyone feels a persecution complex unless there is evidence to prove that. I think each situation is unique.
I guess I always seem to date the 1.5 in 2.5 girls then. me- "let's go check out a hockey game?!" her- rolls eyes me- "hey it's monday.. monday night football!" her- rolls eyes me- "you should go have a girl's night out!"
Well, I'm not sure what to think about 1/2 the crap flying in this thread, but here are some real numbers that I find interesting: From an SGMA Media Release... Soccer is the only team sport to experience participation growth between 1990 and 2000, according to American Sports Data, Inc. The growth in frequent players (those who play at least 52 times a year) has been especially strong, rising 41% to 3.8 million. This dramatic increase is confirmed by reports of strong growth in organized play from high schools and youth soccer leagues. It goes on to say that the participation growth among males is 45% over the past ten years. And yet, if Monster's data is correct, college participation has slightly declined. Does anyone want to account for that? You want an even more amazing research note? It is conceivable that soccer would grow faster if it could find more fields for play. As a relative newcomer, it must compete with other team sports for public facilities. The lack of playing fields has been identified as one of the most important issues in youth sports according to the National Council on Youth Sports, which is composed of the leaders of more than 60 organizations that serve the sports and physical recreation needs of millions of youngsters. So crowded are some suburban playing fields that adult soccer leagues are barred, the New York Times reported in 2001. So soccer among both Men and Women would be growing faster, according to the experts, if there were more fields to play on. In other words - more OPPORTUNITIES. How did the World Cup affect Soccer in the US? As World Cup fever is running rampant all over the world, it appears as though Americans have caught a case of the soccer bug as well. With 19 million Americans over the age of six having played soccer at least once this past year, the soccer population has increased nearly 25% over the last four years. This fact comes from the new SGMA Soccer Participation Report 2002. The data was derived from the Superstudy® of Sports Participation (conducted by American Sports Data, Inc). Now, a LOT of the increase in the popularity of soccer should be attributed to girls picking up the game. This is where I STRONGLY disagree with Flannigan. Not only do we need more men's college soccer teams, we need a LOT more women's college soccer teams. I agree with an argument that says that Title IX is stunting the growth of Men's College Soccer. When you compare the growth rates in participation vs. the growth rates of the Men's college game, they don't add up. Title IX has at least a part in that.
I am sceptical of the 2.5 to 1 figure. If you read the Lopiano website I provided the link for, you will find all kinds of mistakes. For example, she says interest in men's wrestling is declining. Dead wrong. The number of high school boys wrestling and the number of teams is at all time high. Until they get to college.... Millions of little girls are forced to play sports now and give it up as soon as they are old enough to make their own choices, say 14 or so. Some stick with it. Most are pushed into it, in part, because money is being thrown at it. None of this would be at issue if women were interested in sports. They are not. If women's sports in college sold lots of tickets and had high TV ratings they could pay their own way. All women's teams sports must be subsidized either by profitable men's programs or out of general revenues. You have a generation of 18 year old women now who were raised by feminist mothers in most cases. They aren't any more interested in sports than their mothers were or are. Some of the members of the USWNT have had more publicity than all the make soccer players in the U.S. COMBINED. Yet women's NCAA soccer games are lucky if they get 40 people watching them and WUSA draws, what 85,000 households, some of the lowest TV ratings in history.
Nutmeg, believe it or not, we are in agreement. if girls want to play soccer, bring it on. I hope that they stay interested in it and that women's soccer grows too. I just don't want it choking off opportunities for men's soccer.
The Clinton administration began to vigorously enforce the law by the Dept. of Education. The Clinton administration made it clear the only bullet-proof way to avoid a Title IX compliance investigation was to adapt proportionality. Then there's that redefitinition of "opportunities" from the number of roster spots and scholarships to funding, and even the number of people trying out! Kronholz outlines some other regulatory 'clarifications': "[...] Clinton administration's clarification complicated that: Colleges have to match alumni contributions with an equal sum for women's sports, or alumni have to split their gifts between a men's and women's team." Which sucks if the alumni are wrestling fans. As for the quota- THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO COMPLY, but the Clinton Administration made it less likely schools would take the other ways: "A half-dozen circuit courts have upheld Title IX's three-prong test, ruling among other things that it doesn't impose a quota system on colleges because they have two other ways, besides proportionality, to prove they are satisfying the law. The wrestling coaches' suit tries a new tack by suing the Education Department on the grounds that the guidelines are really regulations that hadn't been subjected to the extensive public comments that regulations require."
Dead wrong. Absolutely positively, completely untrue. Wrestling is nowhere near its all-time high, Thomas. 244,894 in 2000-2001 high school numbers They were in the 350,000 range in the mid-70s. They had more in the late 80s with frewer schools sponsoring. I coached for 11 years in the sports, Thomas. I know more about its problems than you can ever dare to know. My God, where to start. Out of respect for your wife and daughter, I'm not touching this one. Microsoft makes more money on Windows than it does any other product. Should they just tell the other products, especially ones that may not make money but provide good services to people, to jump in a lake because they don't sell as much? If we went by revenues and expenses, soccer would be on its ass just like women's sports. The point of intercollegiate sports is not solely to make money. It's to provide an extra component to the educational structure. Sure, this has been warped beyond belief in many respects, but it's still got value outside the classroom. So, you try and offer as wide of a range you can. Even if they lose oney, people benefit in other ways. You know, planes fly to Saudi Arabia every day. You'd be a hero there. More facts: http://www.ncaa.org/stats/w_soccer/1/diwsocattendance2001 - NCAA women's D-I soccer attendance. ranges from texas at almost 2K to St. Louis at 686.
I would simply start up a PDL team in every college town that lost a men's soccer team to Title IX. Now, if some "educational stipend" could be added to a "scholastic contract" -- ie. one that was between the student and the team as long as he was a student (undergrad or graduate) -- so much the better. Give the guys a taste of the pros, and leave NCAA soccer to the girls, at least in those cases and locations where the men have been cut or supressed. There are alternatives. Title IX can't stop the guys from playing semi-pro ball on teams not connected with their college or university.
Uh, posting regularly on an internet sports message board is not exactly interchangeable with having an inclination to play competitive sports at the scholastic or at any other level. Now, if your argument was "women are much less likely to be obsessed with following professional sports to the point of having nothing better to do than post 25 times a day on an online soccer message board," then you'd probably have a strong case, and the male-female ratio on Bigsoccer would be more relevant.
BYU is doing this. And just because a university doesn't have a team doesn't mean it would if Title IX were out the door. That's the fallacy Tom is trying to perpetuate.
Dude, why so combative? You say that I "ignored" the fact that soccer wasn't among the top sponsorship gainers this year, and SpeakEasy's anecdote about Grand Valley State was "anecdotal." Let me illustrate my point about high school participation vs. real participation. Several oustanding swimmers have attended my high school, including an Olympic gold medalist. However, the school only added a varsity team a few years ago. Officially, it has a lot of swimmers now, when it used to have zero. That has nothing to do with the sport's real participation numbers. In general, high schools are increasingly sanctioning sports. Their athletic budgets have grown, but that does not imply that the sports they sanction are becoming more popular.
Anecdotal "evidence" doesn't prove anything. All it proves is that something happens to be true given a certain set of circumstances in a certain place at a certain time. monster has repeatedly been willing and able to show numbers (which nobody seems to be able to dispute) showing participation rates that back up his claim. It's frankly a good bit more convincing than what one person witnessed at one high school.
now, now.. gvsu may be a smaller school, and our college football "stadium" resembles a high school field.. but we are a university!
D'oh! I was more directly referring to his description of his high school experience, but the same holds true whether you're talking about the college level, the high school level, etc. There are numbers out there, easily quantifiable. To dismiss them in favor of anecdotal events is folly.
Raise your hand if you haven't played competitive sports. My point is that men are generally much more interested in sports. First this was disputed, then conceded with various irrelevant (who cares?) and dubious explanations. I'm pleased that it is your experience that women have an equal inclination to play sports, but just don't like talking about it. I'm not sure about the former, but have consistently experienced the latter.
Who exactly conceded anything to your misguided mysogynistic inclinations (hint: Thomas doesn't count). And please see my earlier missive regarding anecdotal evidence.
I do not repond to people who violate TOS and hurl insults. With soccer booming in the country, you would expect Division I men's programs to increase too. After all, women's Division I programs have exploded in number. What is it, an invsible hand holding the men down? Or is the ghost of Norma Cantu?
beineke, your posts are very well-reasoned. Just a suggestion, but this and other discussions would go a lot better if you simply ignore Monster and a few of the others. There have been some very reasonable posts in support of Title IX but you won't find them from Monster. If you dare to disagree with them they start flaming you. I don't know what you do for a living but I'll bet you don't have the time that Monster and some of the others have to post endless, vicious insults.
Thanks for the info, brew. Perhaps someone can correct me here, but my impression is that the "three-prong" system is merely a disguised quota. There is no fail-safe way to comply with another prong, so everybody is forced to move quickly towards the quota limits and then stay there.