Harvard newspaper doesn't want a 4th sorority

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

It's not clear that these are different things, or opposed to each other, or are even true on face.

You can argue that they're the same point, but I stand my opinion that IX - as it applies to college sports - has an equalizing effect. I won't feel bad because a school can't ONLY cut womens sports to save money but must cut both.

Since Title IX was designed and implemented in what amounts to a different era (both in terms of sports and society in general, but particularly w/re: to major college athletics), and since the Title wasn't really designed with sports in mind, I'm not entirely sure it even achieves its goals.

I don't think anybody will argue against enforcing equal opportunity for men and women - educational entities that receive federal funds are a great place to start. I'm not entirely sure the broad application of something like Title IX makes sense given the wide rift between the "haves" and "have-nots" in the major college sports world. It's inefficient and may create more problems than it solves.

Plenty of people will argue against enforcing equal opportunity for men and women, that's why I argue for it.

I won't disagree that the college sports world is broken, I just suspect I disagree on WHY it is broken. I don't know when sports went from a (healthy) fun, sporting activity to a money-maker for schools but I see it as a serious problem and a primary reason for a lot of the continuing inequality (or desired inequality) in mens and womens sports teams.

But you'd have to go more indepth on what you mean by haves and have-nots for me to follow what you're suggesting.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I won't disagree that the college sports world is broken, I just suspect I disagree on WHY it is broken. I don't know when sports went from a (healthy) fun, sporting activity to a money-maker for schools but I see it as a serious problem and a primary reason for a lot of the continuing inequality (or desired inequality) in mens and womens sports teams.

I'd probably argue that it doesn't much matter, since that particular genie is out of the bottle, but that's neither here nor there.

But you'd have to go more indepth on what you mean by haves and have-nots for me to follow what you're suggesting.

I mean it in a very literal sense: Texas football brings in much more money than U of Pacific basketball. UCONN women's basketball brings in much more money than Minnesota-Duluth volleyball. Many of these top programs are completely self-sufficient and receive no outside federal funding - those are the "haves", the lucky few with a constant income stream for their particular sport. The rules, which did not envision this situation, have not evolved at all.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I'd probably argue that it doesn't much matter, since that particular genie is out of the bottle, but that's neither here nor there.

Eh, it's something that could be fixed, if people wanted to. Whether that'd ever happen is another issue.

I mean it in a very literal sense: Texas football brings in much more money than U of Pacific basketball. UCONN women's basketball brings in much more money than Minnesota-Duluth volleyball. Many of these top programs are completely self-sufficient and receive no outside federal funding - those are the "haves", the lucky few with a constant income stream for their particular sport. The rules, which did not envision this situation, have not evolved at all.

I don't think that ultimately matters. (Or should matter.) It shouldn't be about whether a team is self-sustaining or not. This isn't professional sports and it isn't the Yankees compared to the Pirates. Universities shouldn't be focused on making their money on TV deals and if that means states need to be contributing more, or programs need to be cut back to club, I'm actually ok with that. While I realize that IX is in place on the presumption that schools will receive federal funds, I don't know of any accredited school except perhaps Liberty University that doesn't accept federal funds in some way shape or form. And some states have passed laws prohibiting discrimination in sports regardless of the funding sources. As long as schools are in the business of athletics IX will apply.

I think athletics are important, even if I can't actually verbalize the "purpose" of college sports overall. But for something that started as boat clubs at Harvard and Yale and pickup games of that new fangled "base-ball" I think it's gone WAY off track. The US is pretty unique in its college athletics system, other countries just don't DO sports the way we do, and honestly I'm not convinced ours is the best way. And the way things are now is, I believe, fundamentally broken.

Also to address concerns about "We're trying but women just don't WANT to play ultimate frisbee" here's the three prong test for Title IX. (C/o Wiki)

Prong one - Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR
Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, OR
Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex.
A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

a convincing case for prioritizing football above all.

That would be this.

Originally Posted by 33girl

I don't want to think about the alum support my D-2 school would lose if we got rid of the football team - it would make the athletic funding situation even worse.