Title IX and Bush: Something I actually approve of - TennisForum.com
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 4 (permalink) Old Nov 17th, 2004, 11:18 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,964
                     
Title IX and Bush: Something I actually approve of

Well, not Bush personally.

But rather his nominee for Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings (good name for an education secretary). Spellings currently holds the title of assistant to the president for domestic policy and is responsible for developing and implementing White House policies on education, health, labor, transportation, justice, housing and other domestic matters. What this means, in practice, that she was, to an extent, the administration's referee in the thrown between the College Sport's Council and the Women's Sport's Foundation. Otherwise known as football vs women's sports.

(Skip everything in red ink if you don't care about the minutiae of Title IX. There is one other 'black ink' section below.)

At issue, in the main, is the 'proportionality' prong of
Title IX. If you're not familiar with it, Title IX is, among other things, the law that mandates that, high schools and colleges provide athletic opportunities to women. There are three ways you can be in compliance with the law, but the best defined is 'proportionality'. You have to provide athletic opportunities in proportional to the gender ratio of your student body (within either 1% or 5%. When I research this, my sources differed). Thus, if you're student body is 55% female, either 54% (or 50% depending on which number is the current law) of your athletes have to be female. There are similar rules governing scholarships, coach's salaries, facilities, and number of coaches.

It DOESN'T mandate that the sports have to be the same. 20 Women's soccer scholarships offset 20 men's gymnastics scholarship. There has been an effort to remove this require from the law over the past couple years. Primarily because a large number of men's programs have been dropped in the past two decades.

The two sides give different reasons for this.

* Dropping men's programs to field women's programs.

* Overspending on football (and to an extent basketball)

Margaret Spellings ultimately came down on the side of leaving the law principally as it is, which is what I favored. So she's now not only my favorite Bush appointee, she's my ONLY favored Bush appointee.

As to the 'why' of that, Division II and Division III colleges are, by and large, not having any trouble being in compliance, because they don't have the expenses associated with fielded a Division I-A men's football team, which is some cases takes up 70-75% of a university's athletic budget. If you're spending 70% of your money on ONE sport, that only one gender plays; you almost CAN'T get in compliance.

And while people often CALL football a 'revenue-generating' sport, over half of Division I football programs lose money. (Most collegiate sports teams do. They are not, ostensibly, for-profit entities.)

Participation of women in collegiate athletics has risen for 10% to 40% of the student body nation-wide since this law was enacted in 1972. If you're under 20, you probably can't even remember a time when the perceived wisdom was 'girls don't want to play sports'.

Still, even though it doesn't affect me, I don't like seeing men's collegiate 'non-revenue-generating' sports cut at Division I-A. Couldn't a school give 70 football scholarships instead of 100, and save men's wrestling and gymnastics?


Proud to be an American
Not blind. Not uninformed. We are party to atrocities. But the response of the world after 9/11 is worth noting. Even our most dire enemies offered aid. We should all be so lucky.
Volcana is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 4 (permalink) Old Nov 18th, 2004, 09:56 AM
Plainclothes Division
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South Park, CO
Posts: 6,323
                     
I always thought the government was too wimpy in enforcing Title IX. They should drop the hammer. Tell these schools "be in full compliance by the start of the new school year in September 2005, or lose federal funding". And none of this escaping through the "showing progress" prong. It's been 31 years since the law was passed. There should be more than "progress" in that time.

Solution? I would go a step further than even she would. I'd put a hard cap of 60 players per college football team, period. Scholarship, non-scholarship, walk-on, whatever. No more than 60 total players. NFL teams have 53, and they do 10 times the specialty substituting of colleges. The college season is shorter, the games are less physical, and the playbook is much simpler. It's time to end this welfare system for mediocre football players. Better to spend the money on other sports, including the "minor" men's sports that are always placed on the chopping block, and where the players can actually play worth a crap.

Every time something like this is suggested, the football coaches start their whining. For such a macho sport, a lot of the folks involved sure act like a bunch of wusses. Cut them to 60 players, and tell the coaches to grow up and, oh, coach. Instead of stockpiling good players on a handful of top teams, some will be distributed to other schools, raising the quality of play throughout the NCAA. Maybe that's what they're afraid of. They've got a cushy gig, and don't wnt it spoiled by actually having to work.

And as much as I chastise football, I must put some blame on some of these "minor" sports for buying their "blame the women" policy, instead of having the guts to stand up to football. Seems "wussy-itis" is contagious.
Brian Stewart is offline  
post #3 of 4 (permalink) Old Nov 18th, 2004, 01:57 PM
SMUstang
 
Lee-Waters' Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 8,482
                     
like it or not, without football there would be no athletics at many universities.

Go Lindsay Lee-Waters!

My Girls:
Ospina, Snyder, Irvin, Bradshaw, Dabek, Cargill, Frazier, Granville,
Craybas, Harkleroad, Schlukebir, Cochran, Seles, Mall, Reeves

Mouhtassine, Drake, Foretz, Camerin, Arvidsson, G Baker, Lubiani, Hantuchova,
Bartoli, Jidkova, Wheeler, Loeffler-Caro, L Reilly, Vakulenko, Pelletier, Tarabini, Molik


I Miss Zvereva, Cacic, Kelesi, Cristea, Ghirardi,
Reinach, Kandarr, Rottier, A Miller, Asa, Testud



Lee-Waters' Boy is offline  
post #4 of 4 (permalink) Old Nov 18th, 2004, 10:12 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,964
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee-Waters' Boy
like it or not, without football there would be no athletics at many universities.
That simply is not true. Name ONE case.

There are 40-50 Division I-A schools where the foorball program makes money. In the majority of Division 1-A schools, it loses money.

Division 1-AA, Division II and Division III, which make up the other 90% of NCAA schools, football doesn't make money, but it doesn't COST nearly as much. Either way, in the vast majority of schools, football is not providing money to other sports.

And EVERY Division 1-A school has the money to fund other sports if they drop football. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Proud to be an American
Not blind. Not uninformed. We are party to atrocities. But the response of the world after 9/11 is worth noting. Even our most dire enemies offered aid. We should all be so lucky.
Volcana is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome