Title IX: Will Men's Soccer "Die a Natural Death"?

Donna deVarona's attitude here is contemptible. If I rejoiced, say, in the demise of field hockey, I'd get labeled as a misogynist. She, meanwhile, can get away with this dismissive drivel, and not get called on it.

Can anyone say, "double standard?" Actually, her rhetoric here may contribute to Title IX's modification.

I think college soccer is here to stay. You might see some falloff at the more marginal Division I schools, and the occasional San Jose State crisis, but I think those will be anomalies.

However, I think Title IX -- at least as it is currently constituted -- is in trouble. The accumulation of evidence against its rigid prescriptions is beginning to put some cracks in the foundaton. At some schools, women's coaches have to put up flyers in dorms to get players to tryouts. Meanwhile, all the studies say that men are much more interested in participating in college sports than women -- and, last I heard, the 4th amendment still applied in this country.

From what I can see, the Bush administration really wants to revise Title IX. In case you haven't noticed, these guys generally accomplish what they set out to do. Expect some changes in the next few years.

 

Isn't college soccer often 'club' style - e.g. no scholarships, rather the club funds itself?

 

Doesn't Title IX, as it's written, require that the funds be tied to "interest" and not actual numbers of students of each sex? Have schools lost in court on this question? Or are they afraid to make their funding decisions based on interest (and defend their decision in court when sued) for fear of a public-relations backlash?

 

Mods, please move this thread to Men's college & amatuer.

 

Beleive it or not it's better for soccer if college soccer dies.

 

Not really. There would be a huge population of soccer players that would give up the sport and go to college on their own rather than make $10K a year playing in the various minor leagues around here. They do it in baseball because there is the ultimate dream of making millions for the team that signed you or on one of the other teams in the league. The money is not here in soccer, nor will it be for a very LONG time, if ever.

 

I hope it's because no mod has come in to move this to college soccer or other sports.

 

Yeah, Barry Bonds (Arizona), Roger Clemens (Texas), Mike Mussina (Stanford), Randy Johnson (Southern Cal) and J.D. Drew (Florida State), to name a few, aren't serious at all about baseball.

Obviously, many Major League players, especially with the growing numbers of Latino players, will skip college and opt for the minors. But, college baseball still produces many players.

TO tie this back to soccer, I think as MLS grows, more players will skip college ball. But, some players will still come out of college soccer, just as they do in baseball and hockey.

As to the bigger picture, college soccer is good for the game - though not usually good for the elite player's development - because it promotes the game at a grass roots level and keeps fans, coaches, administartors and players involved in the game who otherwise may not be.

And, Title IX ain't gonna kill that. It has, and will, hurt it for a while but Title IX, as it's currently written, will be altered to allow non-revenue male sports to not die natural deaths.

 

Who plays soccer and who goes to college? College soccer won't die anytime soon

Calling All Mods Bump

 

Helping out the US Mens Mods.

GPK

 

I think this is at the heart of what the Bush administration wants to do in its revisions.

Their view, frankly, is a common sense one: why use strict proportionality when it forces schools to create equal proportionality, for those who don't necessarily WANT the opportunties, while denying opportunities for those that do?

You can STILL be fair, and get away from the proportionality "solution."

These things go in cycles. The feminists who are shrill about Title IX now are like, say, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton -- they're parodies, rather than compelling articulate spokespeople for the laudable issue of equal rights.

Watch their arguments slowly but inexorably crumble.

 

Funny, my version of the story doesn't mention soccer.

Care for me to prove you wrong on the soccer issue again? Will this be four or five times this year? I lose count at how many times I have to expose your lies.

Her comment about wrestling (says the guy whose wrestling team no longer exists) is reprehensible. But your mysoginistic scare tactics are no better.

 

Since Title IX was implemented, women's participation in sports at the college level has increased 800%. Wouldn't that imply that there is indeed "interest?"

 

Remember, if you start at 1, and wind up at 8, that's 800%. Sounds impressive when you look at the percentages, but when you look at the numbers, somewhat less so.

Clearly, Title IX has been great for women's sports and they deserve scholarship opportunities. And part of the problem is that football, where you can carry I think up to 85 scholarships, really hogs the money and scholarship slots.

But the pendulum has swung to far in one direction. We need to get back to some reasonable middle ground. Why force feed a sport to the coeds when the men really WANT to have, say, a wrestling team? It just doesn't make common sense.

To me a more sensible way to do it is to have a process that's akin to accreditation on the academic side. Have guidelines and principals and SOME rules, but let each school work out, in a dencentralized fashion, what makes sense for that student body. If you don't toe the line, you lose your NCAA status.

But that would require the exercise of judgment and, frankly, the feminist left (like the civil rights left) would much rather legislate to the nth degree.

 

1. True (though we both know the initial numbers were higher than that). But you can't deny that there's a correlation between participation and opportunity.
2. You answered your own question Karl. Cut 15 football scholarships (does the 3d string punter really deserve a full-ride for his contribution to the team?) and you have freed up scholarship money for an entire wrestling team.

Don't blame the women for this. Blame the school administrators who have chosen to implement Title IX in the way they have.

 

For 15 football schollies, you can not only fund wrestling scholarships, but the whole program. Wrestling only gets 9 rides, IIRC. Participation overall may be a problem, but that's another issue.

Despite what Thomas will say, this is not an easy issue. The intelligent ones among us know that this is very multi-layered and won't be solved by any one decision.

Remember - Title IX good; Title IX interpretation bad; Title IX application by male ADs and presidents worse.

 

No, it's 700%.

Sorry, pet peeve.

 

Maybe once some youth programs pop up from these MLS and A-league teams. Where do the thousands of players out of high school have to go if there are no college programs. USISL isn't big enough to support all these kids. They want to play and who knows, MLS might find a few diamonds in the rough in there.

 

Nope, it's eight.

 

Fixed my own post, don't know why I put USISL instead of USL

 

I believe that it would be a huge mistake for the US soccer community to encourage the downfall of college soccer in any way. Bruce Arena has stated that player development would be better served if young players bypass college and sign directly to a professional contract. This opinion ignores the cultural reality of the American sports landscape. This is beating a dead horse but college sports (football and basketball in particular) are IMHO the most cherished sports institutions in our country. This is definitely true in the South. If US soccer fans and officials were ever to publicly challenge this established jock-ocracy on a large scale it would invite a huge negative backlash from the neutral sports fans as well as the sports writers who for the most part look down their noses at soccer. You already see occasional articles about the burnout and exploitation of young gymnasts, ice skaters and tennis players and these sports are not viewed as a threat like soccer is. Parents in this country have also always viewed "the college scholarship" as the attainable goal of their little junior's athletic career. It seems like you would be playing with fire if you said publicly that you wanted 10 year olds to put athletics over education. If you are going to compete for atheletes, you have to follow the rules. I guess what is important here is public perception. US Soccer has to find a way to improve player development at a younger age without attacking or even appearing to attack established institutions. Perhaps professional teams and sponsors could fund club teams that provide professional instruction in a coach / apprentice arrangement where amature status is maintained. I understand your the underlying concerns of your point and I too am frustrated by limitations placed on college programs. One of my particular gripes involves the limitations a games played. Teams play about half of the number of games needed to improve overall quality on a large scale. I always wanted US Soccer to impliment a collegiate division of the US Open Cup. Improvements are needed but I think college soccer should be maintained to keep as many players in the game as possible while at the same time respecting established sporting institutions. Plus I like going to Riggs Field and watching my Clemson Tigers.