Title IX?

[CID1990]

I rub out my morning wood every morning at about 0645.

Looking at the picture in the first post of this thread has ruined that for me tomorrow morning. Thanks

[UNI88]

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.

2 issues with that SH:
1) We've had Title IX for a while so there already is balance. New scholarships are going to be offset by the loss of scholarships elsewhere.
2) Even if this was done when Title IX was implemented it still would have led to the loss of some men's sports and there would be fewer women's sports.

Athletic departments cannot just give away scholarships. My understanding is that they are charged for those scholarships by the school so they have to have the funding to support them. This might violate the spirit of the law but the schools can't afford to expand their athletic programs in order to comply with the spirit of the law. They might be able to afford to comply with the spirit of the law in the land of sugar plum fairies but in the real world they're going to comply with the letter of the law and manage their bottom line or there won't be an athletic department.

[Gil Dobie]

One advantage men's sports still have is that boosters that are men, have been and continue to make more money in general, than women in corporate America. Let's start with stadium and arena's. A majority are named after men that have donated a large amount of money. As women close the gap on equal pay for equal work, we will see more big time women's boosters. It's taken over 100 years to get many of these men's sports to where they are today and it may take that long to get the women's sports to that level. Title IX will help prevent this progress from going backwards.

[dal4018]

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.

Southern Methodist had to drop men's track because of Title IX.

[Gil Dobie]

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.

Southern Methodist had to drop men's track because of Title IX.

Do they have to drop these sports, or do they decide to drop these sports?

[dal4018]

Southern Methodist had to drop men's track because of Title IX.

Do they have to drop these sports, or do they decide to drop these sports?

I don't know but they kept the women's track program.

[MSUDuo]

They don't have to drop them. They can add womens sports to make things even. Schools are choosing to drop mens sports because of $$$

[Gil Dobie]

They don't have to drop them. They can add womens sports to make things even. Schools are choosing to drop mens sports because of $$$

Exactly. A few years back the University of Minnesota threatened to drop Men's Golf. Supporters of the team raised enough money to keep the team and they ended up winning the National Title. If a University doesn't have enough support for a program, then can choose to drop it.

[dal4018]

They don't have to drop them. They can add womens sports to make things even. Schools are choosing to drop mens sports because of $$$

Exactly. A few years back the University of Minnesota threatened to drop Men's Golf. Supporters of the team raised enough money to keep the team and they ended up winning the National Title. If a University doesn't have enough support for a program, then can choose to drop it.

That is shocking considering SMU was powerhouse in men's track& field!!!

[Pwns]

Exempt sports that generate the bulk of the revenue. At a school where football generates the vast majority of revenue there is no discrimination if scholarship numbers are out of balance only because of football.

[Gil Dobie]

Exactly. A few years back the University of Minnesota threatened to drop Men's Golf. Supporters of the team raised enough money to keep the team and they ended up winning the National Title. If a University doesn't have enough support for a program, then can choose to drop it.

That is shocking considering SMU was powerhouse in men's track& field!!!

Must not have had the support to continue.

[ASUMountaineer]

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.

Good Lord, you're a moron. I would exempt football from Title IX.

Add women's football and 63 (or 85) more scholarships. Yeah, that's the answer! That'll save money!