Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille
I'm aware of how it works, they shuffled rugby to club sports and then cut two women's sports and two men's sports entirely and about an equal number of male and female athletes. The shuffling was more about Title IX and the others were about money.
And I really have little sympathy for schools who complain about Title IX. I get that football's the money maker, but schools also do fine without it if it's such a "burden." If they'd been funding women's sports in the first place it wouldn't have been an issue. Fielding a women's rugby or even *gasp* football team would honestly solve a lot of their problems and a school that advertised for it might even succeed if they didn't fall into the "make it sexy" trap.
Ultimately college should be about the academics.
|
Forcing a women's football team into existence is simply paying a "fine" of sorts to bring about another insanely expensive non-revenue sport. There's no mechanism (other teams/conferences, etc.) in most cases to support it anyway - it's throwing good money after bad. (Note that this is why baseball is often on the chopping block - it's only 12ish scholarships, but it's an exceptionally expensive 12 - lots of travel, bats/equipment, facilities management, long season, etc.)
It's clearly important to protect equal opportunity for both genders. It's also clear that revenue sports and non-revenue teams operate under a completely different reality, and likely should be treated differently in nearly every respect.
Football and basketball (for both genders) are big business - to an extent not even imagined when Title IX was designed and implemented. I'm not sure there is a better solution, but it seems like it's worth looking.
Threaded Mode
