Why is the Left against Title IX reform?

[Mr. Blonde]

As a rule. I have never heard anyone from the left say they would even consider it? Bush was the only candidate in the last election that did and he let me down on another issue there.

[Pithlet]

1. Why are you for it?

n/t

[Mr. Blonde]

4. I am a wrestler

and wrestling has been hit very hard by a law that is supposed to create equal opportunity. How does that work? Eliminating sports programs for men helps everyone right? 1972 there were around 200 Division 1 wrestling programs now there are 84. It is not right to sacrifice male non-revenue sports for the sake of female non-revenue sports. Is there no happy medium on this issue that anyone can think of?

[Pithlet]

7. So

Women have to be shut out of sports in order for it to be fair? That doesn't make sense.

There are all kinds of things to blame for sports like wrestling to be cut from schools, and title 9 isn't one of them.

[Mr. Blonde]

9. I'm afraid it is

and I'm not in favor of eliminating any sports. I would rather everyone add progams for both sexes.

[Pithlet]

12. That's what title 9 did.

There were far fewer programs for women before title 9 was enacted.

Let's put it this way: Do you honestly think that if title 9 were eradicated, that schools would put the extra money they save by getting rid of the "unwanted" women's programs into the sports like wrestling? Do you think that public schools in particular, who are struggling with less and less funds will be any more inclined to keep the less popular sports if title 9 were eradicated? Wrestling and other non-football/basketball sports are suffering because there is less money to go around. It isn't because the women came and took the ball away.

[Mr. Blonde]

17. I do not mean

get rid of it. That is not what I think when I think reform. I am mainly asking for equal protection under the law. Since fewer and fewer men are going to college, how long is it before we have no college sports? After all, football despite how it messes up things for some sports it also pays for him. Under the current law at some point there won't be enough men in college to have a football team.

[Pithlet]

20. Even avoiding the way schools manipulate

the athletic budgets to make them look healthier than they are (for instance, a school will build a new arena and use it one time, for say, graduation, then the money comes out of the general budget, and not the athletic budget), less than half of the division 1-A football programs make money. Football does not pay for other sports at the majority of American colleges, particularly when you consider that almost NO schools that are not in division 1-A have a profitable football program.

As for your fewer men argument: Professional teams put 52 players on the sidelines. I find it extremely hard to believe that there aren't 52,000 college aged men in a country of almost 300 million people.

[Mr. Blonde]

22. Being college aged

has nothing to do with not going to college.

Football and Basketball are the only two sports generally speaking that are revenue sports. And those two do do a lot to fund other sports. Granted smaller schools do not have money making football teams, but the argument is mainly at D1 schools where non revenue sports have been hardest hit.

[Pithlet]

24. No

More than 50% of D1 schools do not have a profitable football program.

[Mr. Blonde]

29. I will take your word for it n/t

[DrWeird]

10. And that has to do with title IX how?

I thought it was because nobody gives a shit about wrestling anymore.

And I used to wrestle.

[Mr. Blonde]

11. wrestling

is growing at all levels but the college level.

[DrWeird]

16. Yeah, because nobody like it.

At least people with higher educations.

At all levels? So it's growing in high schools, shrinking in colleges, how is professional wrestling doing these days?

[Mr. Blonde]

18. somehow

with the way you are acting I doubt you wrestled.

It is growing in little league programs, middle schools, and high schools. And I'm speaking of real wrestling obviously.

Facts about those with higher education, more presidents were wrestlers than any other activity, more presidents of fortune 500 companies were wrestlers than any other sport, more generals were wrestlers than any other sport. It is the sport of leaders.

But this is an issue not limited to wrestling.

[DrWeird]

27. somehow

with the way you are acting I doubt you're really interested in equal opportunity.

[Mr. Blonde]

30. And what is it

then that I'm interested in?

[Pattib]

32. Several weeks ago my daughter was looking at my junior high yr. book

she was making her wisecracks about the various bad haircuts and clothes. She flipped to the sports section and said, "where are all the girls sports teams?" I pointed to the bleachers and said, "right there"! That was our job, our team. We got to sit in the bleachers and cheer on the men's teams. Soccer, basketball, wrestling, baseball and track.

Title 9 had been passed the previous year but like many schools, mine did not think it was binding so nothing was done. My senior year of high school we did have girl's track and the obligatory cheerleading squad. In gym class the girls just hung out in the bleachers talking. The boys had access to the gymnasium. On nice days we went outside and played kick-ball. Whoo-Hoo! I am so against changing title 9. I'm sorry if that offends you but for decades girls were not allowed access to sports, period.

[Mr. Blonde]

34. Please

understand that I do not want to get rid of women's programs. I only want to keep men's programs.

Of course now we must remember that Cheerleading is not considered a sport by any university except I believe Maryland. And there was a fight about that becoming so.

[salin]

42. some schools have opted to curtail programs that have HIGH liability

insurance. Gymnastics, for example, has also been pared back in recent years (men and women). I would bet that Wrestling would fall into the higher liability costs program category and some of the shrinking in the overall number of college wrestling programs is directly related to this factor.

[Mr. Blonde]

49. I have no

doubt that it does probably fall into this.

Gymnastics (mens) only has 20 teams left in the nation. What honor is there in being a national champion when you only have to beat 20 guys?

Insurance reform though is something else to look at.

[trag]

75. I was a wrestler.

I was pretty good too. My father was one, my brother was one. Then came my turn. I got to do it for 2 years in high school, then no more wrestling team my Jr. and Sr. year. So sad! They said there wasn't enough students coming out for it so they scrapped it. I liked it because if you lost, it was your own fault and no body to blame but yourself.

[David Dunham]

2. I oppose changes because women's sports matter to me.

[DrWeird]

13. whoops

wrong post.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. What is your specific beef with it?

Frankly, I don't see why any Democrat even a so called moderate would support messing with it.

[Mr. Blonde]

5. As above

the elimination of male non-revenue sports.

[Yupster]

23. If a shool needs to have an equal number of

men's and women's sports teams, that can be accomplished two ways.

You can add a couple of womens sports, or you can take away a couple of mens sports. Either way gets you to equality.

Many colleges have gotten to the equal level by eliminating some mens sports like wrestling.

Some people would like to loosen that rule because they claim it doesn't help women, or anyone else by eliminating the wrestling team.

It's not going anywhere because anyone who proposes changing title IX is accused of being against womens sports and women in general. It's just not a topic which can be talked about logically today. If you want to change anything about title IX, you're a misogynist and that's that.

[Mr. Blonde]

25. Indeed

that seems to be the case.

A small note though. It isn't an equal number of programs. It is a PROPORTIONAL number of female athletes to female students.

[Pithlet]

31. So,

in other words, you want a system that would encourage schools that don't have the money for women's sports to admit fewer women? Because that is what would happen if it were determined proportionately. I hope you can understand why most people do not find that an acceptable solution. I might add, men's sports at D-1 schools are not proportional to men's attendance at the D-1 schools.

[Pithlet]

28. So, your entire argument

is to accuse people who point out that you have the facts wrong of being intolerant and anti-man? As a point of logic, that isn't terribly impressive.

Now, as for your contention, yes, that does happen. But it is NOT the fault of title 9. It is the fault of the over sized and bloated athletic departments, particularly those that run big time men's basketball and football programs. The costs of those programs are enormous, and as has already been pointed out, in most schools they don't pay for themselves. Which means the money has to come from somewhere. Which means other places in the athletic department. All title 9 ensures in that situation is that the athletic department isn't allowed to gut women's sports completely. The problem is not title 9. The problem is the black hole that is our men's football and basketball programs at D-1 schools. Loosening the title 9 restrictions would simply mean the good ol' boy network would be allowed to do what they always did in the past; gut women's sports.

[Mr. Blonde]

33. I took

the statement made to mean that the response to someone for Title IX reform has to be anti woman which isn't true.

So are you saying it would be more fair to only have football and basketball and any number of womens sports? Not everyone has the traits necessary to be succussful in those sports.

[Pithlet]

36. Please show me where I said

that would be fair? I simply refuse to allow the fact that football and men's basketball are poorly managed at the college level to deny women equality in college sports. I'm sorry if the fact that big time college football and men's basketball programs hurt the athletic departments at their schools. But I'm not going to allow that as an excuse for colleges to screw women. There is no title 9 problem. Period. There is a lack of resolve in D-1 colleges to deal with the out of control financial black holes that big time football and men's basketball programs have become. Nothing you do to title 9 will change that fact. Fix the problem with the men's football and basketball programs, and there is no reason to worry about title 9. "Fixing" title 9 will do nothing to address the real problem.

[Mr. Blonde]

38. what

do you propose to change about basketball and football?

[Pithlet]

40. Start with the fact that

most D-1 football and men's basketball programs have facilities that are envied by professional teams, and in most of those cases, those facilities are not shared with the other athletes. You could add the fact that those programs very often suck from the general fund because their facilities are used once a year for some other student activity, such as a graduation, and are therefore "general" purpose. You could move on to the enormous recruiting budgets that those programs receive. I can go on and on. But, the simple fact is, there is almost no control at the D-1 level of those programs and their expenses.

[Mr. Blonde]

44. But how much

can be done about the facilities now? Granted new building should be looked at very carefully, at OSU our alumi hold such a close bond with our facilities that they can only be added on to. Sometimes at greater expense. I have a hard time with them being able to pass off a stadium as a general expense for the whole year if graduation is there.

How would you say they should go about limiting recruiting costs?

[Cheswick2.0]

57. yes that is right

Sorry you don't understand, but the college has that choice to add more women's teams or cut mens teams. This is the colleges doing. Bitch at them about it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

112. Well I for one will be happy to offer a solution

and offer myself up to wrestle any little college girl and let her pin me to the ground so that schools may have a "female" program and the males won't suffer...it's the least I can do to help equality be achieved...pet's just say I am altruistic :D

[punpirate]

6. It's up to the school to fund the programs...

... and if they place too much financial strain on smaller programs by funding big ones, Title IX says they have to maintain some parity.

The problem at so many state schools is not Title IX, but rather the tendency to put far too much money into football. You don't mention the school you attend, but I'll bet they spend far more money than is prudent on football, while other programs suffer.

Cheers.

[Mr. Blonde]

8. My specific schools wrestling program is very safe

Ok. State has a very (ahem)distinguished wrestling program. However, it is the general survival of the sport and other that I am worried about. Because it is nearly all Olympic Sports that are in danger.

Az. State built BUILT a lake to have crew. American U (and others) put ads in the school paper offering scholarships to any girl who wishes to be on the crew team. No prior experience necessary.

Wrestling is limited to 9.9 scholarships. There are 10 starters on a team, and about 30 on a team. Baseball is in slightly better shape as they have enough scholarships to cover their starters, but that is about it. Track has to borrow athletes from the football team. Because of caps on male programs walk ons (who cost virtually nothing for the Athletic Dept.) are turned away.

Does it seem like there is something wrong with the picture between the two genders? It sure doesn't seem like equality from over here.

[tkmorris]

15. Hold on

American University offered a scholarship to any female willing to be on the crew team? I have a hard time swallowing that. I mean, what female going to AU wouldn't leap at that scholarship? You have a link to this information?

[Mr. Blonde]

19. When I was there on a recruiting trip

a girl tells me she is on the crew team now. Never done it before, and she smoked she saw the opportunity though for scholarship money and took it.

You can trust my word on this or not, but I have no reason to believe she lied to me.

[Piltdown13]

99. This doesn't surprise me

My first semester at Boston U. I went to a call-out meeting for the crew team. Apparently there just aren't enough high-school level crew programs to supply the college teams. They didn't just hand out scholarships, though; you would have to make the team and then earn a scholarship.

[Cheswick2.0]

59. so, boo hoo

They are trying to promote women's sports and create parity. What is wrong with that?

[Mr. Blonde]

62. At the expense

of men's sports. A wrestler could be wrestling for his whole life and not get a scholarship or even a chance to walk on, yet someone with no prior experience in a sport gets a scholarship? Something is very wrong with that.

[Cheswick2.0]

63. there is absolutely nothing wrong with that

just because most highschools have mens wrestling and not womens crew doesn't mean women in college don't deserve equal oportunity for scholarships.

[Mr. Blonde]

65. So

someone who truly loved wrestling shouldn't be able to walk on to his colleges team either?

[Cheswick2.0]

68. what don't you understand about the word equality?

Is equalty only for when it is convenient? How progessive of you.
Just because there is a tradition of mens sports longer and better funded than women's sport doesn't mean it should continue. The tough thing about equality is that men can't expect special consideration. Life is like that. :shrug:

[Mr. Blonde]

70. It isn't special consideration

it is the fight against extinction.

25 years ago their were almost double the D1 programs there are now. Yep, that is what I would call equality. Adding a few women's sports and cannabilizing your men's sports. Man what a great country.

[Pithlet]

76. 25 years ago

there were almost no sports for women in college. THAT was really fair.

[Mr. Blonde]

78. I am not

NOT calling for a return to that. I just don't want to have a son one day who would like to go to college and wrestle (or run track, or play baseball, or hockey, or you get the idea) and he can't because it doesn't exist on the colligiate level anymore. Is that fair because it used to be that way for women?

[Pithlet]

84. You are calling for a return for that

whether you intend to or not. If your son does not have those opportunities available to him, it will not be because of title 9. If your daughter doesn't have opportunities, it will be because people like you fell for the crap argument that title 9 was the problem, instead of dealing with the real issue. I have two young sons, and I want them to have those opportunities, also. But, they will not if people allow themselves to be distracted by the non-issue of title 9, and do not correct the REAL rot at the heart of college athletics.

[Mr. Blonde]

87. No

what could possibly cure the rot that is football? I see very little outside of its elimination.

Title IX in its current form allows for the easy elimination of non revenue sports. Granted for wrestling I do believe other factors are at work. But Track? It has an in place female counter part that would require right about the same amount of athletes, but why spend on women's when you can eliminate men's and get the same result.

[Pithlet]

89. So, you think

the money is magically going to appear if title 9 disappears, or, excuse me, "reformed"? Since you know that the money will not magically appear of title 9 were to go away, then you must be saying that it is okay for colleges to spend ALL of its athletic budgets on men's sports, and none on women's sports.

I ask you again: How many women should be denied athletic scholarships so the football program can spend as much money as its heart desires?

[Mr. Blonde]

93. As I said earlier

Title IX reform can "stop the bleeding". Then other reforms within an Ath. Dept. can remove the bullet.

None. But you are mistaken if you think they are spending as much as they would if given a blank check.

[Pithlet]

94. Your answer

makes no sense. There is a finite amount of money. The presence of title 9 does not affect the amount of money that is spent on athletics.

There is no title 9 reform that would "stop the bleeding" unless you are willing to sacrifice women's sports to men's sports. If you don't do anything to reduce the amount of that finite money spent on oversized football and basketball programs, removing title 9 will merely allow athletic departments to gut women's sports indiscriminately. It doesn't do anything to stop the bleeding. You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true.

[Mr. Blonde]

96. You keep saying it isn't

does that make it untrue?

How long would reform in the Ath. Dept. last? As soon as money was freed up where would it go? Either way laws would be required I think.

Do you think messing with football and basketball would really stop the gutting of mens sports? I don't think any will be added back. And would not be surprised to see it continue. Reducing the spending already used by those sports would lead an AD to say "oh money lets build a new stadium"

[Pithlet]

97. Even if what you say is true.

The problem is STILL not title 9, but poor financial management by the schools. Your argument seems to be that the schools will never spend money well, so lets cut women's sports. That is not a solution. In fact, it is that attitude that required the creation of title 9 to begin with!

[gbwarming]

98. Wrestling is one of _very_ few shrinking men's sports.

According to NCAA: http://www.ncaa.org/library/research/participation_rates/1982-2002/participation.pdf

Sorry to hear your sport is in decline. Most others have more teams participating since 1982. Soccer, Lacrosse, Golf, Tennis, Indoor and Outdoor Track, Baseball, Basketball, Cross Country have all added teams in that time period.

You haven't provided any credible reason to believe that Title IX is a problem.


Edit: I'm looking overall team numbers on page 140 of the above report

[punpirate]

106. Still, I think you avoid the issue of football....

No direct mention of it in your reply. In those schools you know of which have endangered wrestling programs, for example, how much of the total athletic budget is devoted to football?

More importantly, why is it that schools can no longer fund such athletic programs (to include the requirements of Title IX)? Perhaps it is due to a profound drop in the taxes paid by corporations as a percentage of total tax load? Perhaps it is because alumni donations almost exclusively are sent to the football program?

More specifically, should a state school put its scarce resources into athletic programs at all (in your instance described above, because they are Olympic sports), when the primary mandate of the state college and university system is education?

I might be a bit hard about this, but only because of an experience I had when first entering graduate school at a Midwestern university in the mid-`70s. In my first week at the school, I picked up the school paper. In broad headlines, there was notice that the alumni fund had just authorized $550,000 for the hiring of nearly a dozen new assistant football coaches. Buried down in the same edition of the paper was another notice--that every one of the instructors in the journalism department had received layoff notices because of lack of funds.

I don't think your argument should be with Title IX. It ought to be with the people running your athletic department and your school's alumni fund.

Provide statistics showing that your school's football department is as underfunded as all the other athletic programs in the school, and I might have some sympathy. But, I suspect, in your school, as with many others, football receives the bulk of the funding, making funds for your sport and Title IX programs, too, much scarcer.

[KamaAina]

14. How many football scholarships does OSU have?

Or any Big XII school, for that matter?

Just one or two extra ones per smaller sport would make a big difference, wouldn't it?

No need to gut Title IX to save the Olympic (non-revenue) sports. Just have the NCAA, or the big football conferences, slice up the pie more fairly.

Of course, seeing what said NCAA just did to us, I'm not holding my breath -- but that doesn't make Title IX the enemy.

[Mr. Blonde]

21. In my recent class

I was told 85, but I thought the limit was 65. In any case the teacher said 25,000 a year was the total cost to a university for one football player. Private institutions obviously being higher.

The limiting of scholarships doesn't help though. Wrestling is limited by the NCAA to 9.9 Scholarships, and that is if the team is fully funded. Many schools outside of the midwest are not.

[Nikia]

35. I thought that scholarships were the issue

That is why they are adding women's crew as a scholarship sport. That is a relatively large team compared to say, synchronized swimming. That allows the number of female scholarship recipients to be closer to the number of male scholarship recipients. Football teams have a large number of male scholarship recipients, more than usually play in a game. If the NCAA lowered the number of scholarship recipients per team for football, there could be more male scholarship recipients for other male sports like wrestling, track, swimming, etc. More teams could have the max allowed by the NCAA and other schools might not cut such programs or restore programs that had been recently cut.

[Mr. Blonde]

39. It would help

sports that have been cut, but you cannot move scholarships around. It is not an allotment to a university. There is a limit on each sport. Wrestling as I said is less than the number of starters.

Football of course cannot be touched because even when it loses money it is the show pony. I wish it were diffent also because football bores me, but that is how it is.

[Senior citizen]

26. The left does not wish to repeal (reform) Title IX

Many of us are old enough to remember when there was no such thing as a scholarship for female athletes, very few female sports, and almost no money for female equipment and facilities.

Females were not encouraged to train and compete. As this began to change, the backlash was very loud.

There is an anology used to advocate affirmative action that points out that if you have a race, but you let some people start the race before the others, when you finally do let the others start you cannot say you have an even playing field.

Title IX tries to compensate for a late start. You have no idea how startling it is to oldtimers like me to see female sports teams, females in the Olympics, and females narrowing the gap in many areas.

I still do not know of a single major university where the budget for female sports equals the budget for male sports, or where there are as many scholarships for female athletes as for male athletes.

I can understand why shrub would support your attitude on this, but just because he let you down on some other issue doesn't make him a Democratic or a leftist, and I doubt if he would appreciate that insinuation.

[Mr. Blonde]

37. That isn't what I meant

when I said he let me down.

But why is that repeal and reform are taken as the same? I do not think of it that way.

I don't think there is an even playing field, but the way to go about evening it up is not to begin discriminating against males.

[Pithlet]

41. There is no "reform"

that would not clearly and obviously result in a seriously reduced female athletic presence at those schools that are not interested in maintaining quality for women's sports.

Title 9 in no way discriminates against males. Title 9 is a convenient scapegoat for athletic directors and college presidents who aren't strong enough to address the structural problems of how they fund athletics.

[Mr. Blonde]

45. Then

why not amend the law so as to take it away as a scapegoat.

Central Washington University students recently voted to pass a tax on themselves to keep the wrestling program, and the President still is intent on eliminating it. What could be her reasoning I wonder?

[Pithlet]

47. How would you do that?

Make it illegal for athletic directors and college presidents to use title 9 as an excuse?

Maybe her reasoning is that it still wouldn't be enough? Personally, I think it sucks that programs like wrestling are gutted so that football and men's basketball get all the cash. You have every right to be pissed and angry about that. I just think you are misplacing the blame.

[Mr. Blonde]

50. No,

all of a sudden there would be a new buzzword for the elimination of non-revenue sports.

The tax amount settled on I believe was settled on for being enough. And I went back and looked it is also swimming they are trying to save.

Basketball doesn't really cost that much though. With only like 17 people on a roster it is really a fairly cheap sport for what it is capable of making.

Football could use some reform of course, but that is the last thing any university wants to touch. One wrestling program that was not dropped (at least partially) because of Title IX is Notre Dame. They dropped so the NCAA wouldn't look into shady recruiting practices in their football team. The wrestling program was being looked at when it was dropped.

[Pithlet]

51. You just hit the nail on the head.

Football could use some reform of course, but that is the last thing any university wants to touch.

That is the problem right there! That is exactly why it is not the fault of title 9. Why is it the fault of title 9 that all of those wrestling programs were cut, and not the fault of outsized football budgets? To me, it makes more sense to blame those who are overfunding football at the expense of all other sports, not a law that makes sure women aren't discriminated against in college athletics.

[Mr. Blonde]

53. I guess

I could just wait until men are the minority at colleges and then get some satisfaction.

However, proportionality always seems like a terrible way to try for equality. I would be happy if something could be changed about that.
How much is appropriate to cut from Football? Yes at OSU for every 4 football players we don't give a scholarship to the Ath. Dept. saves 100,000. But what is the appropriate amount of scholarships for football teams? I do have a problem with them having enough players for 7 teams, and wrestling doesn't have enough for 1, and baseball 1 and some change.

I think a certain amount of Title IX reform would make some headway towards at least stopping the bleeding, and then reform within AD would begin healing the wounds.

[Pithlet]

55. No.

How on earth does reforming something that has nothing to do with the problem, fix the problem?

This problem predated title 9, and has only accelerated as television money has gotten involved. Even if you eliminated every single women's sport, all of that money would go into the black hole of big time football and basketball. Your wrestling teams would still be cut. This isn't about title 9, it is about a lack of control of big time football and basketball. Title 9 is not the problem. There's no reason to "fix" it.

[Mr. Blonde]

58. If

proportionality was not the preferred method of compliance, I don't feel programs being cut would be a problem.

Title IX allows colleges to cut programs to come into compliance. Non revenue men's sports are the obvious choice to cut, and wrestling makes as much sense as any since success is not likely. Their are certain budget issues at play here as well, but Title IX is not innocent in the matter either.

[Pithlet]

61. Title 9 is completely innocent in the matter.

All title 9 does is prevent the bad management from impacting only women, because that is what had happened in the past. I can guarantee you, considering the makeup of most athletic departments, that if there was no title 9, there would be almost no female sports. And there would STILL be men's sports being cut to feed the football and basketball programs.

You're talking about "proportionality", and I have no idea what you really mean there. Are you saying that it is okay for women to not have an equal shot, because football spends a lot of money?

[Mr. Blonde]

64. Is it okay

for males to not have an equal shot if they aren't 6'6'' or 300lbs?

There are 3 tests for Title IX to be in compliance:

1 and the most popular is: if you have female (and male) athletes in proportion to the number of female students you are in compliance. So 50% female students (including non-trads) means 50% of your athletes must be female.

2 a history of adding female sports to come into proportion

3 can show you are meeting the needs of the student body. This one is terrible, a female (just one) could sue because she wants to have curling, and the school would no longer be in compliance.

[Pithlet]

67. Is it okay

under ANY circumstances for women to not have an equal shot?

You want to punish women because ADs cannot control the costs for their football and men's basketball programs. Explain to me how that is fair? Until you can do that, all you're doing is dumping on women instead of dealing with the REAL problem, the men that run the athletic departments.

[Mr. Blonde]

69. why must

reform hurt women? Why does this seem to be all us vs. them? I think proportionality should be gotten rid of as the primary test of compliance. That is automatically going to hurt women? I don't think so. Again Title IX reform stops the bleeding of men's programs. Dropping a men's program doesn't help women, it doesn't hurt them right now, but it will soon. What happens when they want more sports, and the AD says no we are in compliance go try out for cheerleading? Is that better? The more men's programs there are the more programs for women that have to follow.

[Pithlet]

72. How many times

do I have to point out to you that the problem is the money that is sucked up by football and men's basketball? How would the elimination of proportionality (i.e. equality) NOT mean less sports for women? What makes you think that the money simply wouldn't go where it has always gone; back into the big ticket programs? The problem is not title 9. The problem has never been title 9.

Title 9 exists because colleges attempted to solve the real problem - the overindulgence of football and basketball - by screwing over female athletes. Your "reform" does nothing but return us to the status quo of 25 years ago. Why should we take that seriously? Start by fixing the problem with football and basketball. Then, and only then, can you reasonably say that title 9 hurts men's sports. You are complaining about a zit on a man who's had his head cut off.

[Mr. Blonde]

77. How much

does Basketball really cost? It is an inexpensive sport. Small roster, cheap uniforms, next to no equipment, the only real cost is the arena and it pays for itself eventually.

Football costs a lot. Again, how much should be cut from football to be reasonable?

Proportionality leads to roster caps. Who gets hurt then? The kids who love the sport the walk ons. To scholarship athletes it is a job (and them being deserving of pay is another matter entirely), but what about a walk on? In most cases starting is a dream, and they are happy to be a part of the team. With proportionality that is the dream.

You say 50% of football teams run at a deficit, what about the other half? Why do they cut programs if they have expensive sports that pay for themselves?

[Pithlet]

81. You're not including

the recruiting budget, the maintenance on the arena, the travel budget, the maintenance on the practice facilities, which are usually not used by other athletes I might add, or the coaches salaries, or the assistant coach salaries. It's not just twelve uniforms and six balls. Not at D-1. It isn't unusual for D-1 basketball teams to make several cross country trips in in season, just as an example of how the costs can pile up.

You keep asking me how much should be cut from football to be reasonable. Well, how about enough so that other sports, mens and womens included, don't have to be cut? If you're asking for an exact number, I have no idea. Let's turn the question around. How many women should be denied athletic scholarships so that the football program can get whatever the hell it wants, regardless of the cost?

Proportionality does not lead to roster caps. There is nothing in title 9 that prevents a school from having as many sports as it wants. What leads to roster caps is the inability of the athletic department to fund all the sports. THAT is not the fault of title 9! It is the fault of big time football and basketball. You know how I know this? Because this is not a problem at any level besides division 1. What is the difference between D1 and all other divisions? The amount of money spent on football and men's basketball.

Your last question assumes that all colleges are cutting men's sports. I have seen no evidence for that. It also assumes that profitable = tons and tons of money. That is not always the case. Of those schools that are quote "profitable", the vast majority of them are just a little bit above break even. And, as already stated, football and basketball programs do not always share their facilities with other sports, and very often many of their expenses are hidden in the general admission budget. Those two things make the sports look financially healthier than they actually are. The fact is, if you aren't one of a dozen or so of the most elite D-1 colleges, big time sports programs suck money away from the rest of the school.

[Mr. Blonde]

86. Some of that

is not limited to basketball though. Cross country trips? Our softball team goes to Hawaii every other year, plus a couple of trips to Ca, Az, and Fl. Our practice facility is the same as the game court.

So all the ills of college sports are the cause of poor ADs? It seems that roster caps are a clear extension of Title IX. Why let anyone walk on that wants to when it means adding a female sport.

Could a football team still function if it were limited to allowing all other sports to flourish on a campus? As I said I could do without football, but I live deep within football country and that could lead to an uprising.

[Pithlet]

88. You're not paying attention.

One, I guarantee that your softball team does not travel as many miles as your basketball team does, and that they don't travel in the style that your basketball program does. I know for sure that your softball coaching staff doesn't make a tenth of what your basketball coaching staff does.

There is NOTHING in title 9 that prevents schools from having as many men's sports as they want. NOTHING. It is the school's inability to control spending on football and basketball that causes these problems. You need to do two things to even begin to have an argument against title 9. Show me where the law says that you must cap mens sports? And then, explain to me why these problems do not exist at any other level than D-1? Unless you can do those two things, you have no case against title 9. You have done neither, and I don't think that you can do either, because the law does not say what you seem to think it does. Schools that keep football and men's basketball under control do not have these problems. You want to blame someone? Blame ESPN and the idiot alumni who think being on ESPN every Saturday afternoon is the mark of a great school.

[Mr. Blonde]

91. So nothing

ever exists without explicitly being said in a law? Only bad men will be looked at under the Patriot Act right? Laws can have unintended affects. It exists. While it may not be the only cause it still has a hand in it.

Go here and you will see that it is a problem in smaller divisions, not as large but still there. http://www.themat.com/articles/showquestion.asp?faq=21&fldAuto=393

[Pithlet]

95. Your link

doesn't prove anything. There is nothing there that says it is due to title 9, and not due to out of control football programs, or the fact that state schools have been getting steadily less money since the late 70's. How many academic programs have been cut at those schools that cut the wrestling programs?

Yes, laws can have unintended consequences. But, you haven't proven that title 9 has had the effect that you say it has. Second, the only way that title 9 could have the effect you say it has is if athletic directors choose to allow the football and basketball programs to grab ever more resources at the expense of the other athletic programs. All title 9 does is make sure women don't pay the price of that alone. Your Patriot Act analogy makes no sense.

[lolly]

73. Whoa--watch your jumps in logic

You list the 3rd way to be in compliance;

"can show you are meeting the needs of the student body. This one is terrible, a female (just one) could sue because she wants to have curling, and the school would no longer be in compliance."

News flash--this 3rd provision was put there to make it EASIER for schools, not to indulge the whims of lone female curlers. The point is, even if there is not absolute parity (say, only 45% female athletes in a 50/50 school) the school can show that their program meets the needs of its students adequately.

The "one female curler" is nonsense.

The regulations are written to be flexible. Look, in fact, at the 2nd one--"a history of adding female sports to come into proportion."

i.e., if you can show that you are TRYING, or are getting closer to compliance, you are cleared.

Essentially, what you are saying is that women's teams should pay for the bloated football team, not men's. Why?

[Mr. Blonde]

80. I personally don't like

the possibilities under the third prong, but it doesn't matter because the first one is practically the only one used.

[lolly]

85. Why not?

The "3rd Prong" is what eliminates the supposed devastating problems of Title Nine. You don't need to have absolute parity if you can prove that your program meets the needs of the student populace.

The existence of this possibility, in effect, nullifies the whole "we have to eliminate good men's sports for crappy women's sports for women who aren't as serious as men are." The college just has to show that there is no real need for women's curling or whatever.

If it can't show that, or is too lazy to even try, it's not the fault of the women athletes.

[Mr. Blonde]

90. Where

have I blamed women? Or said those things you have in quotes? I agree that the second two prongs would be preferable. I just see the chance for abuse in the third test like is apparent in the 1st. You are right that those would be better, but they are not used. The 1st test is used almost exclusively.

[CTLawGuy]

114. I agree

I like the 3rd test. If I were writing title 9 I would say:

1. If there is demand among the student body to participate in a sport where the school does not have an existing team, and said demand is sufficient to cover a full team, as determined by the common rules of the sport, the school is required to provide that team starting in the next fiscal year, regardless of the gender of the participants.

(If enough women want to participate in a sport, the school has a moral duty to provide it. The same thing with male athletes, though female athletes would probably be taking more advantage of this. The school has to put it in the budget next year.)

2. a. A school may not eliminate or cut the budget of any team in any way that causes the proportion of total athletes of one gender to shrink in comparason to the other. Any new team created pursuant to Rule 1 above, is immune from elimination for 4 fiscal years from the date of its inception, except due to lack of demand sufficient to cover a full team.

(This prevents a school from say... cutting 2 womens teams and 0 mens teams. It must cut sports in a way that distributes the loss equally between the genders. Any new sport can't be cut immediately, that would make the procedure in rule 1 useless. The only exception is, if after the first year, everyone decides they don't like the sport anymore and no one comes back to play)

2. b. Elimintion of teams due to lack of enough students willing to play to make a full team, is not subject to rule 2a above. It can eliminate teams for this reason without regard to effect on proportionality. The school must undertake a good-faith, active effort to fill the team before it can eliminate it under this provision.

(If there are not enough students to fill a team, a school can eliminate it, no matter what the effect on gender proportionality. No school should have to fund a team on which no one will play. It cannot do this, until after it actively tries to recruit people to fill the team, through scholarships, advertising, pre-frosh recruiting.)

3. If a team is eliminated due to budget cuts, it cannot be petitioned to return pursuant to rule 1 for 4 fiscal years. It MAY however, be re-funded by the school at any time. If the school wishes to re-fund any previously defunded sport, it must do so in a way that does not alter the proportion of male to female athletes.

(If a school cuts your sport because of budget problems, you cant just take your team and force them to put it back in next year. You have to wait 4 years. Also, the school can't cut 1 women's team and one men's team, and then turn around and reinstitute just the men's team.)

4. A school may not knowingly, directly or indirectly take action to discourage students from participating on a team for the purpose of being able to cut the team due to lack of demand.

(This closes the loophole, where schools can discourage people from playing in a sport just so they can get rid of it.)


---------------------------------
This way of writing title IX does a few good things:

1. It doesn't force the shool to fund teams no one plays on, thus encouraging them to cut other teams instead.

2. It caters to the needs of anyone who wants to play on a team, no matter what gender they are.

3. It doesnt force schools to cut back on players of one gender or force the school to grasp at straws for players of another.

[Peregrine]

43. See I always that college was for education

an not to support athletics.

[Mr. Blonde]

46. Then

get with the times. j/k

However, some kids would not be able to go to college to make without sports.

There is a movement to eliminate sports from universities. In fact our incoming president of the faculty (or some faculty organization) is an outspoken proponent of this.

[Bombtrack]

48. I am a leftist that is for reforming it.

At least I lean to the left in America. In europe I'd be in the center.

[bobbieinok]

52. ever since title IX came into force, it has been a target and a scapegoat

I don't doubt there are some problems like with wrestling as you discuss.

A lot of us (especially women) who grew up without IX and no money or encouragement for girls'/women's sports strongly suspect any 'official' claim of problems with IX to be coming from those who think females should not be engaged in sports or who have other problems with women's rights.

[Mr. Blonde]

54. I don't know of any way

to illustrate that I am in favor of women's sports. I can just ask you to take my word for it.

[Elwood P Dowd]

56. I find it hard to believe

that 50% of the D-1 football programs are losing money. There must be some creative accounting going on - maybe to help hustle the alumni for more contributions.

The 12 SEC schools take in over 10 million a year in TV and bowl revenue alone. That's more than enough to fund the football program. Add in ticket sales, alumni contributions, concession sales, other revenue, and the average SEC school probably rakes in well over 30 million just from football. It's probably the same in the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, and at Notre Dame. That's about 50% of the D-1 schools right there. You also have to consider that there are several new schools recently added to D-1, and these schools will take a few years before their football programs are up to par. That's just the nature of the beast.

All that football money allowed the SEC to become one of the early leaders in women's sports. Schools like Tennessee, Auburn, LSU, Arkansas, Florida, Alabama, and Georgia poured millions of football dollars into women's sports and became national powers in those sports.
It's not unusual to see 10,000 or more fans at an SEC women's basketball game. They did this without gutting many of the men's sports, though wrestling was eliminated and baseball was limited to 11.7 ships.

Another important aspect of big time football is exposure. There is no question, college football garners your school more publicity unless you're someone like Duke, Kentucky, or Kansas. Look at all the exposure MAC schools like Northern Illinois and Miami Of Ohio received last year. Those guys were the toast of ESPN every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night just for upsetting the big boys and being ranked. The publicity the MAC schools received thanks to football was worth millions. They may have "officially" lost money on the football accounting books, but I would bet their Presidents were ecstatic. By the end of last football season, millions of people knew all about the formerly unknown MAC schools.

Finally, many schools receive large contributions from football loving alumni that are used elsewhere and not even credited to the football program. I know of one man who gave his school 8 million for a women's
sports complex. He had given the football program that much over the years, so he then decided to help upgrade the women's sports. I've read stories of football boosters giving millions for academic uses and scholarships. This happens all the time, yet it never shows up in the football balance sheet.

[Mr. Blonde]

60. Our Softball Stadium

was paid for by selling a home game vs. Neb. it was held in KC and we were paid 2 mil. to play there plus normal take.

The football team didn't see a dime. Half went to building the softball stadium, and the other half went to other sports.

[progressivebydesign]

74. So... I guess I'm clueless here..

.. but WHY would the football team need to "see a dime" of the money? Are they paid positions on the team? Is college sports supposed to be a business?

[Mr. Blonde]

79. What I mean

is that the 2 mil. did not go to paying for the bloated budget of the football team. It went to the softball team, and other non revenue sports.

College sports is a business don't kid yourself. And ask any college football player if they should be paid. They have the equivalent of a full time job and no income. But that is another matter.

[Pithlet]

66. This link

has the financial details about how the football programs are not sufficient. It is a PDF file.

http://www.savetitleix.com/minorityreport.pdf

[Elwood P Dowd]

92. Nothing here to change my mind.

Like I said above, there are often millions of dollars taken in by football that are not on the "football books". College football is the cash cow that runs the athletic department for many schools. There are dozens of schools that take in 30 to 50 million dollars from that one sport every year. There are dozens of schools who's athletic departments are totally independent financially from the school. They pay their own way without a dime from the Fed, State, or the University itself.

Donna deVarona is certainly no expert on big time college sports. A female athletic director once called her "clueless" when discussing athletic revenues. It's a little more complicated than little Donna realizes.

[Pithlet]

101. No.

I'm sory, all you've done is assert the same thing without providing any evidence. There are also, I might add, millions of dollars spent in the football program that come out of the general education funds. Again, please notice that this is really only a problem in division 1, the only division with outsized football and basketball programs. It's pretty clear hat they are not the cash cows of conventional wisdom.

[Elwood P Dowd]

102. Wrong!

Very little money comes out of the general education fund at many schools. Football brings in 30 to 50 million dollars at the big time schools. It doesn't cost more than 6-8 million to run the football team. Do the math. You know nothing about the subject. I use to work for one of these schools and saw where the money went. Every single sport except for men's basketball was paid for with football profits.

[Pithlet]

103. I don't agree with you

and therefore know nothing about the subject. Sigh. Debating with you will be just a ton of joy. Alas, I'll have to return tomorrow to continue it. I am tired.

[Elwood P Dowd]

104. Have fun.

I know how the big schools operate. I saw the figures. And, what's on the books is not what really happens. Schools are making a ton of money on college football.

[lolly]

83. Yes, that number is off . .

It's actually far less than 50% of the programs that make any significant money. A chunk of schools break even, but most lose money.

[Elwood P Dowd]

100. That is totally off the wall.

More creative accounting. Many schools receive millions to upgrade facilities or pay coaches, but because these funds are from private donars they are not counted as football revenue. Private donars pay off bonds and fund scholarships, yet the money isn't counted as revenue from the football program.

[progressivebydesign]

71. This is a pet issue for Bill O'Lielly..

My husbands 20-something son is totally against equalizing the playing field for women, as in Title IX. He's a sports fanatic, and is clueless enough to believe that O'Lielly is an "independent".

I asked him to explain to his 12 year old sister why she would not be playing any more sports in school if he and his t.v. idol have their way. She lives for school sports. Sports aren't SUPPOSED to be a money-making venture for colleges.. but we all know the truth.

You'll find little or no suppor for "reform" to Title IX, here. Reform in Bush's White House means.. complete and total destruction.

[Mr. Blonde]

82. There was no

action taken on Title IX, except strengthening the ability of a school president to cut the program of his choice. So I guess you are right it is leading to the complete and total destruction of non-revenue sports.

[ConsAreLiars]

105. Because the "reformers"

are bigots who stand only for white male privilege.

[Bridget Burke]

107. So you agree that bloated football programs are the problem...

But you aren't as big as the guys on the football team. So you'd rather tear down the women's sports programs. Actually, I'm quite sure most of the women are tougher than you are. They may weigh less, but the also whine less.

Are you wrestling because it's your one true love? Did you ever consider practical aspects when you selected that sport? I mean, scholarship possibilities--not a future in professional wrestling?

[loyalsister]

108. Because it finally included females in our education system

Title IX is not only about sports. Claiming it is is spewing RW talking points. That is how they keep the guys on board. Title IX specifically requires that same same amount of money be spent on education for girls and boys in all education. That includes scholarships. If you feel like you're getting robbed, it's not Volleyball. Guys get the same amount as girls. Look at what sports guys play to figure out where you're getting robbed. It's probably being funnelled disproportionatly.

http://www.thealestle.com/news/2002/10/10/Editorial/Title.Ix.Provides.Gender.Equality.On.And.Off.Playing.Field-294735.shtml

[murielm99]

110. Title IX was not about sports at all, originally.

In 1969, Bernice Sandler, who had been teaching part time at the University of Maryland, was denied a full time job. When she asked why she was denied, she was told she came on too strong "for a woman."

She began to look at the existing laws to see if there was anything she could do. Working with the Women's Equity Action League, she began what became a national campaign, culminating in the passage of the Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

She filed discrimination lawsuits against about two hundred and fifty institutions. Other individuals and organizations, such as the National Organization for Women, filed around one hundred other lawsuits.

It was another three years before regulations would be issued, and another year before the law would take effect. Sex bias in school athletics, career counseling, health services, financial aid, admissions and treatment of students was outlawed.

Schools from elementary to university level were threatened with the loss of federal funds if they did not comply.

Then, along came Reagan. His administration did everything in its power to gut the enforcement of Title IX. (There's one the negative Reagan threads here have missed)!

Arch conservatives and the religious right and their fellow travelers found well-educated and independent women to be a threat to "family values." The Department of Education was taken over by these people under Reagan. The Women's Education Equity Act that helped enforce Title IX, and encouraged achievement by women in mathematics and science, had its budget slashed. Gender equity experts were fired or resigned.

We are at least beginning to pull away from the Reagan years a little bit. The American Association of University Women wrote their first first study on how schools shortchange girls in 1973. That year also, Myra Sadker was invited to speak about sexism in schools before a group of elementary school principals. They thought she was there to speak about sex education. She left in a huff. Twenty years later, she was invited back as an honored speaker.

I do not have links, but I have articles and books:

"Too strong for a woman": the five words that created Title IX, by Bernice R. Sandler. Equity and Excellence in Education; v33 n1 p. 9-13. (2000)

Failing at Fairness: How America's schools cheat girls, by Myra and David Sadker. Charles Scribner's Sons, (1994).

The Women's Educational Equity Act: resources for ongoing effects. Equity and Excellence in Education; v33 n1 p. 87-90.

American Association of University Women (1992). How Schools Shortchange Girls. American Association of University Women Foundation, Washington D.C.

I like sports as well as the next person, but I found some of the comments here ill-informed and sexist. Title IX is not about fucking sports! Sheese!

[loyalsister]

111. Thank you!!!

It's a relief at this point to read a well informed post on this subject.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

113. Thanks!

[K-W]

109. You just dont get it.

Your argument has two horribly flawed points.

First off you have not shown a causal relationship between title 9 and wrestling programs being cut. Sure alot of schools say its title 9, because its much easier to blame a 'feminist, liberal' law than to tell the truth about cutting budgets.

But even if there is some causal relationship, TOUGH CRAP! How dare you come here and defend a system that is unfair and unjust. You cannot argue that we should not give opportunities to women because it would take them away from men. Of course they will. THAT IS THE POINT. Men were using way way way way more of schools athletic resources. Now assuming a school cannot increase athletic resources, then it is absolutely just and right that the men should lose resources to the women.

So why dont your selfish and shortsighted crusade somewhere were people are selfish and shortsighted. Good gravy, in 10 years you probably wont even be wrestling anymore.

[Scout]

115. I knew this would come in handy

from previous DU threads (I think) about Title IX ... bold emphasis is mine.
--------------------------------------------------

Football needs to start making Title IX sacrifices
June 12, 2002
By Dennis Dodd
SportsLine.com Senior Writer

<snip>
The wrestling coaches have a point. College
administrators have been lazy over the years, axing
men's scholarships and programs in order to comply
with Title IX. It's the easy way out. Those college
administrators have acted first out of fear,
intimidation and/or ignorance rather than a
well-reasoned examination of Title IX.

When it comes to keeping an athletic department
afloat, athletic directors almost always will take the
path of least resistance. That's why baseball and
wrestling have been particular targets in recent
years. Hundreds of programs have been cut in order to
free up scholarships for new women's programs.

That's why Texas is in the College World Series this
week with Alan Bomer, a transfer pitcher from Iowa
State, which cut its program. It's also why
land-locked Kansas State has a rowing team for women.
College athletics has twisted and rearranged itself in
strange ways, all because of Title IX.

All because of football.

That's right, college football. There likely would be
no lawsuit and certainly less controversy if football
wasn't the nerd in the punch bowl. ADs won't say it,
but those 85 Division I-A scholarships are a witch
when it comes to gender equity. They count against
Title IX requirements, and there is no comparable
women's sport to balance them out.

Still, football is left untouched on its exclusive,
private island. Name, if you can, the number of the
117 I-A programs that have cut one football
scholarship in order to get in compliance with Title
IX.

That number would be zero.

That's because football is the gold standard. It's not
to be touched, even in regard to Title IX. Football
coaches routinely pull down at least $1 million a
year. Their coaching staffs are needlessly large.
Recruiting budgets approach the GNP of third-world
countries.

Football can't be touched because of the gold it
produces. Football runs through the veins of this
country and athletic departments. A BCS bowl berth can
be a windfall. Boosters get their identity from State
U. Winning and losing in football has a direct effect
on fund raising. It is a cycle that keeps feeding on
itself.

Isn't it worth it, then, to keep the monster as
healthy as possible? To a point. The swimmers,
baseball players and wrestlers are no less athletes
than football players, but they are perceived as less
important when the Title IX is put against an athletic
director's head.

The easy way out is still to ax a couple of men's
minor sports. They don't produce money anyway. Taken
to its extreme, then, Title IX compliance should mean
cutting virtually all the minor sports. Athletic
departments could succeed sponsoring only football and
men's and women's basketball. Throw in a couple of
rowing teams, some equestrian, and it's all equal
Title IX-wise.

Sound good?

No. No one wants that, but that's how college
administrators have interpreted Title IX. Instead of
building women's opportunities, they are robbing Peter
to pay Paula. It will continue unless the wild-eyed
women's advocates, bull-headed football supporters and
skittish ADs get together and stop the craziness.

There is a solution, or progress toward a solution. It
will require some hard swallowing, but here goes:

Cut 20 football scholarships and two assistant coaches
across the board in I-A. Redistribute the money to
minor sports overall and women's opportunities in
particular.

The first cry will be that men's scholarships are
still being lost. No, football scholarships are being
lost. Other programs are being saved. Football lives
on as healthy as ever, while the athletic department
grows and diversifies.

Thirty years ago, there basically were no scholarship
limitations in football. Coaches started to cry foul
when the NCAA first cut to, gasp, 120 scholarships per
program. They cried louder when the number went to 95,
88 and, now, 85.

That's crying wolf a bit too often. Despite those
"drastic" cuts, college football couldn't be more
popular. Despite the nay sayers, the BCS is a hit where
it counts -- television, athletic department budgets
and ticket sales. The SEC and Big 12 combined paid out
$172 million to member schools this academic year.

<snip>

The 20 scholarships would be doubly valuable. If the
program stayed the same size (I-A programs average
more than 100 players), then those 20 scholarships
would suddenly become more walk-ons, paying tuition
instead of sucking it out of the university on free
rides.

<snip>

Because of the confusion, innuendo means a lot.
Women's advocates are concerned the Department of
Justice moved to dismiss the wrestling coaches' suit
not on its merits but on legal technicalities.

To the Women's Sports Foundation, National Women's Law
Center and others, this is frightening. They have
asked concerned parties to contact their congressmen,
asking them to keep Title IX in place. Because of
Justice’ s court maneuver, they worry that a revision
of Title IX is coming from the Bush Administration.

They have reason. The chief speech writer for U.S.
Attorney General John Ashcroft, Jessica Gavora, has
criticized Title IX in a new book, saying it promotes
quotas and wrecks men's minor sports.

Maybe Gavora has a heck of a point. No wonder ADs run
for the latest machete at even a hint of the Title IX
challenge. The easy way out is as unfair to men as the
pre-Title IX days were to women. The best way is to
get creative. Market, fund raise, survey. The riskiest
way is to go to trial, where a jury could de construct
a whole athletic department.

But that's the problem, isn't it? To do that would
invite lawyers, and to do that muddies the waters of a
very confusing law. Title IX definition and
enforcement changes from administration to
administration. The poorly written law provides for a
wide interpretation and empowers athletic bozos.

<snip>
Football is sitting there, fat and on its throne like
Jabba the Hutt. To the satisfaction of all parties,
might we recommend a quick weight-loss program?

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Op/Ed - USA TODAY
Schools pamper football, punt on women's sports
Thu Jan 2, 7:12 AM ET


Come Friday's national championship game, college
football fans will have had a chance to feast on a
record 28 bowl games this holiday season. Sponsors
will have doled out more than $80 million to
participating teams and conferences.

With so many players taking the field and so much
money following them, sports fans might be puzzled by
some boosters' complaints that men's intercollegiate
programs are in trouble.


Yet, that's the claim critics are using to attack a
1972 law that requires colleges to provide equal
opportunities to women, including athletes. Detractors
of Title IX claim it is squeezing out men's sports.


<snip>


What the critics won't acknowledge is that the biggest
drain on athletic budgets isn't women's sports but
football, with 80- to 100-man squads (twice the size
of NFL teams) and fat salaries for coaches.
<snip>

Contrary to opponents' claims, adding opportunities
for women need not hurt men. A 2001 government study
found that 72% of colleges and universities added
women's programs without cutting men's sports.


Critics who blame women's sports and the federal law
for eliminating men's athletic opportunities are
shooting at the wrong target. Athletic departments too
obsessed with bowl games to consider creative ways to
provide opportunities for women created their own
problems.


Watering down the law would reward their bad behavior.