Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Title IX is crap.

When those little boys are 21 they'll stomp a mud hole in that football playing girl.

With a name like "Keeling," that lad never stood a chance!

Like George Carlin said, give me Bobby or Johnny or Tommy or Ed, not Tyler, Tucker, Cody or KYLE!

Vidav wrote:Title IX is crap.

I used to think so too.

CID1990 wrote:When those little boys are 21 they'll stomp a mud hole in that football playing girl.

Or filling her mud hole.












Just sayin'.

andy7171 wrote:

Vidav wrote:Title IX is crap.

I used to think so too.

Like a lot of things Title IX was implemented with good intentions but without enough in-depth consideration of what the unintended consequences might be.

From a female athletic perspective, Title IX has been a success. Opening up opportunities and getting more girls interested in sports and scholarships. You learn things such as teamwork and dealing with loss/failure playing sports that are harder to teach in the classroom.

From a male athletic perspective, Title IX has been a failure for athletes and fans of sports that have been hit hard by cuts.

I would argue that Title IX should have been implement differently, not that is should not have been implemented at all.

I have done a complete 180 degree turn on Title IX since having three daughters.

UNI88 wrote:

andy7171 wrote: I used to think so too.

Like a lot of things Title IX was implemented with good intentions but without enough in-depth consideration of what the unintended consequences might be.

From a female athletic perspective, Title IX has been a success. Opening up opportunities and getting more girls interested in sports and scholarships. You learn things such as teamwork and dealing with loss/failure playing sports that are harder to teach in the classroom.

From a male athletic perspective, Title IX has been a failure for athletes and fans of sports that have been hit hard by cuts.

I would argue that Title IX should have been implement differently, not that is should not have been implemented at all.

So how would you change it?

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Cap'n Conky

andy7171 wrote:I have done a complete 180 degree turn on Title IX since having three daughters.

Good to know that at least you're a man who sticks to his principles.

dbackjon wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
Like a lot of things Title IX was implemented with good intentions but without enough in-depth consideration of what the unintended consequences might be.

From a female athletic perspective, Title IX has been a success. Opening up opportunities and getting more girls interested in sports and scholarships. You learn things such as teamwork and dealing with loss/failure playing sports that are harder to teach in the classroom.

From a male athletic perspective, Title IX has been a failure for athletes and fans of sports that have been hit hard by cuts.

I would argue that Title IX should have been implement differently, not that is should not have been implemented at all.

So how would you change it?

Remove football for starters...

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Good. Boys playing field hockey = deserves derision. Worst sport in history.

89Hen wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Good. Boys playing field hockey = deserves derision. Worst sport in history.

True that...it's up there with lacrosse.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

andy7171 wrote:I have done a complete 180 degree turn on Title IX since having three daughters.

Good to know that at least you're a man who sticks to his principles.

Hey man. Things change. My girls are good at lacrosse, the fastest growing womens collegiate sport, starting to play year round, in the hot bed of the sport.

I gots to get mine!

dbackjon wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
Like a lot of things Title IX was implemented with good intentions but without enough in-depth consideration of what the unintended consequences might be.

From a female athletic perspective, Title IX has been a success. Opening up opportunities and getting more girls interested in sports and scholarships. You learn things such as teamwork and dealing with loss/failure playing sports that are harder to teach in the classroom.

From a male athletic perspective, Title IX has been a failure for athletes and fans of sports that have been hit hard by cuts.

I would argue that Title IX should have been implement differently, not that is should not have been implemented at all.

So how would you change it?

Good question. Other than exempting football I'm not sure what I would do. Football is different than other college sports in that it:
- Can produce revenue that helps fund the rest of the athletic department,
- Can increase awareness of the school among the general public more than the other sports (excepts Men's BBall and certain sports at individual schools), and
- Has a lot more scholarships than other sports at the D1 level (how many women's programs had to be created to offset football?).

Growing up in Iowa I really appreciated wrestling as a sport (even as a former BBall player) and I hate that schools across the country have dropped wrestling in order to get their numbers in line. Exempting football very likely would have reduced the number of wrestling programs that were dropped. Yes there would be fewer women's programs but there would still have been an increase in scholarships and opportunities.

I would not recommend a rush to make changes without adequate consideration because then the pendulum is just going to swing too far the other way and Title IX has done a lot of good.

Towson had to drop mens soccer this year and attempted to drop baseball to become Title IX complicate. Towson is in a unique siuation because athletic scholarships have to match the student population percentage and Towson is close to 70% female.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

So how would you change it?

Remove football for starters...

Wrong answer. As is deleting ANY male sport. Deletion of male sports to become "compliant" is a violation of the spirit of the law, which is to increase female participation, NOT decrease male participation.

As much as some of you male chauvinist pigs hate to admit it, the CORRECT answer is to balance football with football. In other words, add women's football as a varsity sport. Two benefits to that: 1. All debates about whether or not to delete a minor male sport cease. 2. All debate about whether or not a female belongs on the men's football team becomes moot.

SuperHornet wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
Remove football for starters...

Wrong answer. As is deleting ANY male sport. Deletion of male sports to become "compliant" is a violation of the spirit of the law, which is to increase female participation, NOT decrease male participation.

As much as some of you male chauvinist pigs hate to admit it, the CORRECT answer is to balance football with football. In other words, add women's football as a varsity sport. Two benefits to that: 1. All debates about whether or not to delete a minor male sport cease. 2. All debate about whether or not a female belongs on the men's football team becomes moot.

Come on SH. You think creating women's football will generate money?(which is what drives sports in college...right?) You do understand creating a sport that will use as many resources as all women's sports combined makes cents?

SuperHornet wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
Remove football for starters...

Wrong answer. As is deleting ANY male sport. Deletion of male sports to become "compliant" is a violation of the spirit of the law, which is to increase female participation, NOT decrease male participation.

As much as some of you male chauvinist pigs hate to admit it, the CORRECT answer is to balance football with football. In other words, add women's football as a varsity sport. Two benefits to that: 1. All debates about whether or not to delete a minor male sport cease. 2. All debate about whether or not a female belongs on the men's football team becomes moot.

Well then the spirit of the law was trampled as EWU dropped wrestling a decade after winning an NAIA NC, Baseball (we were Pac-10 North at the time), and Mens Golf. And for what...so that a bunch of crappy, underserving female "athletes" could "earn" scholarships?

Perhaps schools should develop Men's Studies curriculums and/or offer schollies in sammy making.

I'm pretty sure no one is suggesting that football be removed from existence, just that it should be removed from Title 9 equity consideration on account of women are simply incapable of producing a sport that anyone outside of parents, aunts and uncles, and stalkers would pay money to watch.

Spoiler: show

Speaking of which, University of Portland women's soccer averages more in attendance than probably half of the FCS programs.

SuperHornet wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
Remove football for starters...

Wrong answer. As is deleting ANY male sport. Deletion of male sports to become "compliant" is a violation of the spirit of the law, which is to increase female participation, NOT decrease male participation.

As much as some of you male chauvinist pigs hate to admit it, the CORRECT answer is to balance football with football. In other words, add women's football as a varsity sport. Two benefits to that: 1. All debates about whether or not to delete a minor male sport cease. 2. All debate about whether or not a female belongs on the men's football team becomes moot.

Your are correct that "All debates about whether or not to delete a minor male sport cease" in that if you add women's football and an equal number of scholarships as men's football the debate about which sports to drop will expand to include women's sports. 63-85 scholarships for women's football will mean 63-85 fewer scholarships for other women's sports. Athletic Departments have budgets and they're not going to just add a sport without consideration of the bottom line.

Just need to find a way to make women's athletics work. Women have every right to participate in sports that men have. Maybe they need to find better ways to attract fans and money, but they deserve equal opportunity and equal funding.

UNI88 wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:
Wrong answer. As is deleting ANY male sport. Deletion of male sports to become "compliant" is a violation of the spirit of the law, which is to increase female participation, NOT decrease male participation.

As much as some of you male chauvinist pigs hate to admit it, the CORRECT answer is to balance football with football. In other words, add women's football as a varsity sport. Two benefits to that: 1. All debates about whether or not to delete a minor male sport cease. 2. All debate about whether or not a female belongs on the men's football team becomes moot.

Your are correct that "All debates about whether or not to delete a minor male sport cease" in that if you add women's football and an equal number of scholarships as men's football the debate about which sports to drop will expand to include women's sports. 63-85 scholarships for women's football will mean 63-85 fewer scholarships for other women's sports. Athletic Departments have budgets and they're not going to just add a sport without consideration of the bottom line.

The only problem with THAT, 88, is that it wouldn't work. If the schollies are taken away from other women's sports, then the balance isn't achieved. The schollies HAVE to be new schollies to balance men's football. That's assuming, of course, that the entire athletic program isn't already balanced toward the women's side through a ton of minor sports nobody goes to (crew, field hockey, etc.) Of course, when I say that "nobody" goes to those, I'm speaking in West Coast terms; Sac has a female-dominated crew program, and UOP has women's-only field hockey, which have very little in terms of attendance. (Of course, the Hornet crew program DOES have a men's club aspect. The attendance is problematic, though, because the regatta location is nowhere near campus. This is strictly my opinion; other Hornet fans here may, and probably do, have other opinions. SD is generally the best informed of us.)

If the balance is achieved strictly from the addition of women's football, then it works. Sure, the attendance likely won't equal that of men's football. But it SHOULD approximate the difference between men's and women's hoops at schools where men's hoops is considered the "bigger" of the two.

Requiring balance between the two doesn't make any sense.

Gil Dobie wrote:Just need to find a way to make women's athletics work. Women have every right to participate in sports that men have. Maybe they need to find better ways to attract fans and money, but they deserve equal opportunity and equal funding.

No, they don't!