HAPPY 40TH ANNIVERSARY TITLE IX

[CALSGR8]

Happy Anniversary Title IX!

 http://espn.go.com/espnw/mobile/touch/title-ix/7945901/title-ix-40th-anniversary-tv-schedule

[CALSGR8]

http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/en/home/advocate/title-ix-and-issues/what-is-title-ix/title-ix-myths-and-facts

[CALSGR8]

MYTH: Title IX has resulted in the loss of athletic opportunities for men's sports.

FACT: Overall, men's athletic opportunities since Title IX's passage have increased. Title IX has been wrongly blamed by its critics for cuts to some men's sports teams at some educational institutions.

Schools choose to support, eliminate or reduce particular sports opportunities on both men's and women's specific teams for a variety of reasons, including varying interests in specific sports and choices about how to allocate budget resources among the sports teams the school decides to sponsor or emphasize. The number, competitive level and quality of sports programs are individual institutional decisions, just as the number and quality of academic programs are institutional prerogatives. The government cannot dictate that particular varsity sports be added, retained or discontinued for men or women.

Opponents of Title IX have tried to mislead the public into believing that the loss of men's wrestling and a few other sports at some schools is a sign of massive loss of men's participation opportunities overall when exactly the opposite is true – men's sports participation continues to grow. Athletic programs add and drop teams all the time. Men are not losing.

This misinformation campaign takes the focus away from the facts that (1) women continue to be significantly underrepresented among high school and college athletes, (2) the gap between men's and women's sports participation and support is not closing and (3) it is the wealthiest athletic programs in NCAA Division I-A that are dropping men's minor sports, typically because they are shifting these monies to compete in the football and men's basketball arms race.

[mitlen]

I just got out of the Army (drafted) when Title IX was enacted.    Didn't see anybody demanding equality at my draft board.   Funny how that works.   

[Slateman]

I just got out of the Army (drafted) when Title IX was enacted.    Didn't see anybody demanding equality at my draft board.   Funny how that works.   

Ironic, isn't it.

To be fair, there was legislation passed that if the draft were re-instated, women folk would be drafted as well.

[PANatsFan]

I just got out of the Army (drafted) when Title IX was enacted.    Didn't see anybody demanding equality at my draft board.   Funny how that works.   

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/05/women-soldiers-sue-military-remove-bulletproof-glass-ceiling/52745/

[HalfSmokes]

MYTH: Title IX has resulted in the loss of athletic opportunities for men's sports.

FACT: Overall, men's athletic opportunities since Title IX's passage have increased. Title IX has been wrongly blamed by its critics for cuts to some men's sports teams at some educational institutions.

Schools choose to support, eliminate or reduce particular sports opportunities on both men's and women's specific teams for a variety of reasons, including varying interests in specific sports and choices about how to allocate budget resources among the sports teams the school decides to sponsor or emphasize. The number, competitive level and quality of sports programs are individual institutional decisions, just as the number and quality of academic programs are institutional prerogatives. The government cannot dictate that particular varsity sports be added, retained or discontinued for men or women.

Opponents of Title IX have tried to mislead the public into believing that the loss of men's wrestling and a few other sports at some schools is a sign of massive loss of men's participation opportunities overall when exactly the opposite is true – men's sports participation continues to grow. Athletic programs add and drop teams all the time. Men are not losing.

This misinformation campaign takes the focus away from the facts that (1) women continue to be significantly underrepresented among high school and college athletes, (2) the gap between men's and women's sports participation and support is not closing and (3) it is the wealthiest athletic programs in NCAA Division I-A that are dropping men's minor sports, typically because they are shifting these monies to compete in the football and men's basketball arms race.

I'd love to see numbers in that, title ix + football not having a female equilivent seems almost certain to squeeze other men's sports

[GburgNatsFan]

I'd rather them just end all athletic scholarships and have minor leagues for professional sports. Not saying athletes can't compete for their school, but schools should be about education, not athletics.

I just got out of the Army (drafted) when Title IX was enacted.    Didn't see anybody demanding equality at my draft board.   Funny how that works.   

[Slateman]

I'd rather them just end all athletic scholarships and have minor leagues for professional sports. Not saying athletes can't compete for their school, but schools should be about education, not athletics.

Ba ha ha ha

For one, there's too much money in it.

Second, how would that work? They'd simply just not go to college?

[HalfSmokes]

Most schools bleed money on sports and the overwhelming majority of atheletes never go pro

[Slateman]

Most schools bleed money on sports and the overwhelming majority of atheletes never go pro

lol, since when? Sports are huge money makers. Advertising, sponsorships, donations, ect.

[HalfSmokes]

lol, since when? Sports are huge money makers. Advertising, sponsorships, donations, ect.

Last year 22 schools turned a profit, 98 FBS schools lost money,

The numbers weren't nearly as rosy for everyone else. At the 98 other programs in the NCAA's Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A), the median deficit in 2010 was $11.6-million, barely changing from the previous year, while no programs in the Football Championship Subdivision (formerly Division I-AA) or at Division I programs without football operated in the black. At those programs, losses continue to grow each year

http://chronicle.com/article/22-Elite-College-Sports/127921/

[GburgNatsFan]

The model is right in front of your nose. Baseball. Why not minor league football?

Take the athletic scholarships out and let colleges do what they are supposed to do.

Ba ha ha ha

For one, there's too much money in it.

Second, how would that work? They'd simply just not go to college?

[GburgNatsFan]

Which is why a major university like University of Maryland had a multi-million dollar sport budget issue.

One of my kids plays at a Div III school (no athletic scholarships) for the love of her game. They pay their own way, for the most part.

lol, since when? Sports are huge money makers. Advertising, sponsorships, donations, ect.

[MarquisDeSade]

Any chance there's some "Hollywood Accounting" going on?

[JCA-CrystalCity]

One thing about college sports money - it's not just the direct revenues.  It's also the prestige, visibility, and alumni support tied to it.   Win the rivalry game, the donations go up. 

Doug Flutie built half the BC campus with the added publicity and donations he got for the school (Tip O'Neill and Silvio Conte built the other half).  Applications from around the country went through the roof when the school became the attractive non-Harvard in the Boston area, and when the revenues kicked in, the school was able to leverage that into a better faculty.   

In terms of direct revenues, half smokes is right that the vast majority of bowl games are money losers for teams going ($500K does not cover much when you are sending 100+ people across the country).  Even the big bowls, it is almost better to get the conference's share than to send your team.

Back to title V - I remember that our men's volleyball team was a big early beneficiary.  It went from club to varsity status because the women's team had varsity status.  But the Ivies have more varsity sports teams than any other conference in the country, and most are division 1 other than hoops and football.

[RD]

It absolutely is not a myth that it has a direct effect on mens sports and their numbers.

This is something that is what Title IX has been based on. At schools with a football program, cutting mens sports is step #1 when it comes to complying with this rule.

My school cut its baseball program because of Title IX and I lost my scholarship after my junior season because of it.

They expanded their women's soccer and swimming teams on top of it. Budget wasn't an issue either, despite them claiming so. They began building a women's lockerroom just for soccer right after baseball was axed. Football and basketball don't even have their own lockerrooms. Baseball didn't get to use ANY lockerrooms, period. But no AD or school official is going to go on record criticizing Title IX as the sole reason for getting rid of a sport.

Most schools have more women's sports than men's sports, because of football. There is no single women's sport that requires as many athletes as football does, which makes this rule horribly out of place and inaccurate.

Im all for womens opportunities in sports. I have a daughter, and would love for sports to be an avenue for a free education. However, it has become unfair for male athletes that dont play football. Thats not a myth.

[Mathguy]

I'm sure there were some, particularly those who would have fit President Clinton's definition of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".  I see them all over Andrews AFB

I just got out of the Army (drafted) when Title IX was enacted.    Didn't see anybody demanding equality at my draft board.   Funny how that works.   

[CALSGR8]

I watched ESPN.  The number of male teams has INCREASED since 1972 not decreased!

[HalfSmokes]

http://m.jsonline.com/sports/title-ix-has-two-faces-in-wisconsin-sports-jk5rtqb-159950735.html

Here's something balanced and a good read, but to say title ix is good for men's sports is absurd. Title IX corrected a horrible imbalance, but resources are limited, so to give women more, men's sports had to suffer

[hammondsnats]

title IX is not good for men's sports.

[OldChelsea]

...in the meantime, Saudi Arabia is allowing women to compete on its Olympic teams - for the first time ever: http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-arabia-enter-women-london-olympics-100953392--oly.html

[HalfSmokes]

...in the meantime, Saudi Arabia is allowing women to compete on its Olympic teams - for the first time ever: http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-arabia-enter-women-london-olympics-100953392--oly.html

Maybe

The head of the kingdom's Olympic mission, Khalid al-Dakheel, told Reuters on Sunday evening however he was unaware of any developments allowing women to participate.

[OldChelsea]

Maybe

Basically true, given how close the start of the Games is and that many if not most of the qualifying rounds are over...still, baby steps....

[RD]

I watched ESPN.  The number of male teams has INCREASED since 1972 not decreased!

Not related to Title IX.

40 years ago, college and pro sports weren't  as lucrative as they are now. The rising cost of education and the quest for the $ in professional sports has pushed more people to get scholarships and play sports collegiately. Roster sizes are larger than they were 40 years ago. Athletes have become more specialized as well. You don't see as many multi sport athletes either. A kid that played basketball and football is one athlete. With less kids pulling double duty, it means 2 athletes fill those spots. You also have the rise of sports such as lacrosse and soccer as compared to 40 years go. More sports = more athletes. That is completely independent of Title IX. Not a result of it.