I guess we rather agree on Title IX's effect on Women's Soccer, just that you think it's a disaster for the USWNT, and I don't - in fact I think that it is good for the women's game overall. You can only beat the Washington Generals so many times until you have to pull down players shorts and throw confetti into the audience to keep people entertained.
This is not a Title IX problem. This is a problem with American coaches who think they need to bring in foreign talent to compete. Men's soccer does it, as do many other NCAA sports. I want the US to win every time they play a foreign country. But to blame all of this on Title IX is, frankly, ludicrous.
Do you actually read these stories first? Wow, rational, mature examinations of the subject. Imagine that!
Certainly, most of our Concacaf men's rivals have benefitted from the US collegiate system. There is a Title IX tie-in here, however. In sports like women's crew or women's field hockey, it is difficult for schools in some regions to find scholarship-worthy athletes locally. As a result, they are forced to recruit foreigners. Michigan's women's crew team has more Canadians (10) on its roster than people from the entire Midwest (8).
Excellent post, Beineke. About 5 years ago there was a sensational article on the front page of the Wall Street Journal which described the ravages of Title IX: an Iowa men's crew team that had to scrape together money to paint their own boats while the women's crew team not only had money to burn but had imported women from Bulgaria and Rumania who could barely speak English but had touched an oar and helped meet The Quota. A few weeks after that I had lunch at a Loop restaurant and two young women were at the table next to me. They evidently had read the article and were in college, because one of them was encouraging the other to play a sport: "They are throwing money at women's sports!" The other was reluctant, saying she had better things to do with her time and would only be in college once in her life. Monica Gonzalez was intereviewed by the intrepid Gary Hayden on NPR in 2001 and she was anything but gracious about the largesse that U.S. taxpayers were bestowing on "Mexican" women. She predicted that the Mexican women's team would catch up to the USWNT. It seemed outrageous at the time, but she was right. The USWNT had beaten Mexcio 63-1 aggregate in 9 games going into Sunday's debacle but we barely won with the help of a lousy call. It is supposed to be a free country, so feel free to cheer when Argentina beats the men's basketball team and Italy, a team that didn't even qualify for the WWC, ties us at home. But I am an American and I cheer for the U.S., not Italy or Mexcio. I also oppose unfair programs like Title IX as applied, as it is pretty clear it helps Mexico and Canada draw even with the USWNT.
You are right in your remark about the Michigan crew team, but it's not a Title IX mentality, its a WIN AT ALL COSTS mentality. Again, it is the coach's decision to bring in a foreigner rather than an American because his mindset is he HAS TO in order to win, not to fill up a team. With regard to women's soccer I believe location has a lot to do with it. Take Portland or Notre Dame for example. A Canadian will want to go there because it is fairly close to home. Now with Nebraska, which has by far the largest contingent of Canadian players (or foreigners for that matter - and has had for some years now), it has more to do with location. Nebraska was hard pressed to get American talent to that area of the country. When you look at the most successful programs/conferences in the country you find surprisingly few "foreigners", e.g., West Coast, ACC, etc. You also can't forget that coaches have contacts all over the world, and that's why you see "foreigners" coming into the women's AND MEN'S game so often.
I'm torn between the desire to threadjack and the need not to respond to TFs arguments. Talking about the ACC tips the balance in favor of threadjacking, with apologies to anyone who actually came to the USA Women board to talk about something real. If you want to accuse Duke and UNC of being selfish, fine. Miami and Va. Tech drag down the quality of basketball in the conference, which at least risks killing the golden goose. If like me, you want to ascribe noble intents, bear in mind that soccer players, tennis players, swimmers, lacrosse, etc., etc. now have to travel to Boston and Miami, far away from the normal bus rides or puddle hoppers ACC sports used to involve. More travel time means more time away from classes. This is very relevant for a scholarship athlete in a non-professional sport. The point is, even in an academically strong conference like the former ACC, the pull of football revenues is so strong, ADs and Presidents will do things that harm their other student-athletes to get to the dough. Good thing there are laws in place to put some constraint on their avarice.
You are very selective in ascribing noble intents. I would submit that the AD's and President's are the ones being noble. Many schools are still in the early stages of moving towards the Title IX quota, yet losses at the Division I level are already way over $500 million. There are what, a few million students at these schools? So in the course of four years, each of them is effectively being forced to donate close to $500 to women's sports teams. The vast majority of them receive nothing in return. AD's and Presidents are nobly trying to find alternative ways to cover the costs that are borne by the general student body.
Beineke is right. Please keep in mind that private and public universities are facing major budget problems and everything is under review for economy, except women's sports. Women outnumber men in every single extracurricular activity offered by colleges except sports, but The Quota is only being applied to sports. The irony is women who want to participate in music groups, debate, band, swing choir and other activities are finding their opportunities slashed. Title IX provides jobs and tuition breaks for some women but takes away jobs and opportunities for women who are not involved in sports.
I just didn't agree with a previous opinion that certain schools were against the ACC expansion for benevolent purposes. Does Duke care about student athlete time constraints when it schedules yearly basketball games against the Big Ten? What about the ACC/Big East Challenge? I know that my school, Clemson, was one of the schools pushing for expansion. Maybe a better solution would have been for Clemson and FSU to join the SEC with Vandy and UK going to the ACC. This would have strengthened a football conference and strengthened a basketball conference. I just don't think that the ACC should feel the need to apologize for wanting to maximize football revenue. Without the football revenue there would be no Clemson mens and womens soccer. Within the NCAA, without football revenue, Title IX would be a mute point. The inspiration of my previous post concerned the belief by others that certain schools were primarily motivated by the welfare of the students. When it comes to athletic depts, the primary concern is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Duke and UNC still could have blocked expansion. The ACC provided an expansion plan that kept the 4 N. Carolina rivalries alive in a format that was satisfactory to these four schools. Thus they rubber stamped expansion. To get back on topic.... I think that Title IX is a mixed bag. As a Beat season ticket holder and someone who also attended virtually all of the UGA women's soccer games here in Athens this year, I am supportive of legislation promoting women's sports in general. My problem is the strict quota. With gridiron taking up soo many scholarships, too many womens sports are required to even the balance and allow for nonrevenue mens sports to thrive on an equal scholarship basis. If gridiron was simply exempt, then I would have no trouble with Title IX. As far as foreign players go, if WUSA would have survived, the foreign players at the college level would have eventually matured into a benefit for the league. Players like Harris, Elcock etc. have benefitted MLS and raised the level of play. It would have been the same for WUSA. Soccer fans should support measures that improve the level of play (competition) at any level. Bringing foreign players in does that. I didn't mind when academic scholarship money went to foreigners. I made friends with some of them and it broadened my world view. I have the same opinion about Athletic scholarships.
Facts, Part 4 Announced this year: Division I has lost 11 men's sports and added two. Division I has added four women's sports and lost one. Division II has added four men's sports and lost five. Division II has added nine women's sports and lost two. Division III has added 13 men's sports and lost five. Division III has added six women's sports and lost five. A women's school (I forget the name, but it was in Mississippi) dropped its entire atheltic program, which included four sports. Source: NCAA News Is there any factual basis to these programs being cut? Again, any factual basis? Bueller?
Responding to a concern about field hockey, lacrosse, etc. with examples about men's basketball = non-responsive. (P.S. it's the ACC/Big Ten challenge). I'm not saying that's a bad argument, but Duke's basketball team made 10 times what it's football team did, as may have been true for Maryland, UNC, Wake, maybe others? All I'm saying is that it's possible ACC expansion improved football at the expense of basketball and it's a gamble that increased football revenues will offset decreased hoops revenue. You may be right that the gamble pays off, but just acknowledge that there's a risk. This does not make any sense. Stretch your mind for a second and contemplate whether a school with a strong academic reputation would have a financial incentive to structure the league in a way that protects its strong academic reputation. Also, I disagree that athletic departments are only about money. You just flat out have the law wrong. Don't believe what Flannigan tells you. He's been proven wrong more time than you can count. This is not an unreasonable point, but can you imagine the next logical step? Football coach: I'm exempt from Title IX, I don't have any constraints on scholarships, I could beat Oklahoma if I didn't have to share all that revenue I earn with women's sports. If I'm exempt, why aren't my revenues exempt?
My premise, agree with it or not, was that ACC expansion occurred because of football revenues, despite the damage done to other non-football sports. If you injure the interests of your student body for monetary gain, is that noble? It's a good question. Depends on whether you place the societal value of women participating in athletics as worth $500 or not, I suppose. Why? If a car manufacturer has higher costs because of government regulations, who do they pass the costs on to? The consumer. Yet, if it makes the cars safer, it's worth it. If we're willing to pay extra to have seat belts in our cars, should we be willing to pay extra to have women participate in athletics? Its a good question.
Strange analogy. The up-front cost of seat belts is easily justified by the consequent reduction in insurance expenses. Is there an economic rationale for importing Canadian female rowers?
Today’s London Financial Times has a fascinating article on page 7: “Poorest Nations Miss Targets for Girls’ Schooling” The article states: Girls in the developing world still face ‘sharp discrimination’ in access to schooling….Researchers monitoring progress towards the Education for All targets set at the Dakar summit in April, 2000 found that several countries would fail to achieve gender parity-an equal proportion of boys and girls enrolled in school-by the agreed date of 2005….57 per cent of children not in school were female in 2000, the date of the latest available figures” This is a serious problem and I favor measures to address the imbalance. But while we are on the subject, shouldn’t we be doing something in our own country for gender equity in education? The Wall Street Journal reported last year that 60 per cent of college students were female. Others have put the figure at 58 per cent, and it is increasing every year. If present trends continue, 70 per cent of college students will be female by 2012 or 2015. Thousands of female-only scholarships make it easier for females to attend college. Male-only scholarships are illegal, even though it is the males who are falling behind. The whole system encourages female education, which is why we have such an unfair balance in college. The Quota forces schools to cut financial aid to males, many of them black males from poor neighborhoods, and extend more financial aid to females, most of who would go to college anyway. Since we are lecturing Africa about how evil it is to have a 57-43 split in favor of males, shouldn’t we take steps to rectify an even worse imbalance at home?
Re: college gender gap http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec02/college.html - a 2002 report puts it at 56 percent http://nces.ed.gov//pubs2002/digest2001/tables/dt172.asp - is the actual data. Gotta break out your calculator for percentages http://nces.ed.gov//pubs2002/proj2012/ch_2.asp#2 - same Web site and their enrollment projections. The key quote: "As a share of total college enrollment, women were 56 percent of all college students in 2000 compared with 55 percent in 1990. Women's share of college enrollment is projected to be 57 percent by 2012." http://www.virtuallyadvising.com/content/wic/02studentbody.shtml - is a feminist group who even has it at 57 percent in 2000 and only 61 by 2009. And Tom - a DePaul graduate - says nothing is being done about it. So I close with a factoid from a 2000 Time magazine article (http://www.time.com/time/education/article/0,8599,90446,00.html)
Charging every student an additonal $500 in tuiition to fund The Quota only exacerbates the outrage. College costs are exploding. I read recently that private colleges saw a 6 per cent increase this year and public colleges 14 per cent. Hundreds of thousands of middle class kids are being priced out of college. It seems clear that damage to males is not even considered in these discussions; it may even be one of the objectives. But a $500 surcharge will also hurt females and price many of them out of the education market at that school. Remember, most women are not going to be competing in intercollegiate sports and will be paying $500 for someone else's activity. I posted a link to the Daily Tar Heel which described how males at UNC are charged hefty fees to row while the women don't pay anything. Perhaps you should charge both the fees. Also, keep in mind that hitting 60 per cent on funding does not meet The Quota. You still have too many men in uniform even if all costs are covered.
The UNC men's rowers are charged because they are club. The athletic department supports the women's rowing as they are varsity. Pretty standard.
Having read some of your prior posts, I suspect you know your question is disingenuous. The added cost of seat belts in cars are justified because they save lives, thereby providing a societal benefit, not because they reduce insurance costs. Similarly, the added cost of female athletes in athletic programs could be justified by the societal benefit, if you thought having women participate in athletics provided a societal benefit equal to the cost. I suspect you knew that, but wanted to get in a potshot about Canadian rowers. The side benefit of this exchange, however, will be future threads where TF talks about the $500 activity fee students pay to maintain the Quota.
There is a social benefit to having women participate in sports. I see no social benefit in forcing or inducing women to play sports when they would rather do something else with their time in college. There are thousands of girls' high school swim teams, basketball teams, and field hockey teams that grew organically. Funny there are hardly any crew teams until you get to college. Everyone is pretty silent on the gender fairness issue. We lecture Africa for only having a 57-43 student split in favor of males, but in our own country it is more unbalanced. Any hypocisty there? Does the Quota have a role in perpetuating the injustice?
You do not have the right to make things up on a whim to suit your perception of reality. Now shut up.
Actually, if this were a wrestling match, Martha Burke would come in, stop this whole thing, and demand that girls enter this argument in order to fulfill a quota.
The silence is deafening. We go to Dakar and other places lecturing Africa how horrible it is when only 43 per cent of the stduents are female. Our own record is much worse. Are you interested in gender equity? if so, isn't The Quota a good place to start? Why do we have a Quota that increases female enrolment when it is the men who are so far behind?