Don't blame Title IX, blame football & men's basketball.
wanna explain yourself todd?
I fail to see how football has anything to do with cuts seeing it is the ONLY self sufficient sport in the NCAA and, in fact, pays for all other athletic programs at least partially.
Unless you are referring to the scholarship limit which major D-1 schools eat up using sometimes up to 105 of them for football. But then, the scholarship limit is ONLY in place because it is outlined in Title IX.
Title IX has zero justification. It has become a strict quota program under the premise that even if more men than women are interested in sports, tough for them.
Polling consistently shows that men are much more interested in playing organized sports than women. People who have any knowledge of human nature whatsoever can see why this might be the case.
It is an abomination in practice.
Title IX does not even require strict quotas, it just started being enforced that way recently.
It is government mandated social engineering at its worst.
"The decisions to discontinue specific sports are made at the institutional level for a variety of reasons," Brand said. "But the decisions made to eliminate sports for gender equity reasons is because institutions have chosen this path, not because Title IX dictates it.That's a transparent lie.
"Title IX is not just money. It's also head counts," Koll said. "I have a squad limit. I have to cut kids off the team if they want to walk on, just because there aren't as many female athletes. ... What happens now is there's an incentive to drop a program, because then you don't have to add a women's sport."No kidding."You can't help but think that Title IX has hurt wrestling," he said. "But also, Title IX has a good purpose behind it, even if it's implemented in the wrong way sometimes."Good intentions are not enough. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Don't blame Title IX, blame football & men's basketball.100% BS. Football and basketball support themselves. They are money earners-- they produce more money for athletics.Title IX's strict sex quotas force schools to deny options to motivated men, while at the same time forcing them to spend advertising money to try to motivate females who might otherwise not be interested, all to make quota.
Title IX is fine. It is the way that it is being applied that causes the problem. It is true that creates a quota system. At present, porportionality is the only way that colleges feel that they are safely in compliance. It hurts several men's sports, but wrestlng takes the biggest hit.since there is no female counterpart for wrestling.
Just look at California. It is one of the top three high school wrestling states in the nation, and there are now only 21 junior college programs. San Francisco State is the only Div.II program in the state, Menlo is the only NAIA, and the Div. I programs are Fullerton, Cal Poly, Stanford, Fresno, and UC Davis. That is very few programs for such a large state.
At the University of Northern Iowa they had to advertise on campus to find people to "go out" for womens tennis so they could give away open scholarships. Meanwhile, they had to cut men's swimming a few years ago becuse of title IX.
At the University of Northern Iowa they had to advertise on campus to find people to "go out" for womens tennis so they could give away open scholarships. Meanwhile, they had to cut men's swimming a few years ago becuse of title IX.Precisely!If the quotas were based more on the relative percentage of men v. women seriously interested in pursuing sports rather than 50%/50%, then it would be slightly more fair.
Title IX is fine. It is the way that it is being applied that causes the problem. It is true that creates a quota system. At present, porportionality is the only way that colleges feel that they are safely in compliance. It hurts several men's sports, but wrestlng takes the biggest hit.since there is no female counterpart for wrestling.All true.Enforce obvious discrimination and don't require sex-based quotas.
what is the point of womens ahtletics really? where does it lead to? i concur that collegiate sports for women like softball, basketball, volleyball etc are fine, but do they really need to have the same money as men? the interest just isnt there from participants to spectators.
shat has just defecated a nice healthy correct.
Brand is being PC and horribly, horribly wrong.
Title IX is a discrace. The wrestling programs that produced Kerr and others are now gone due to garbage politics. Girl's sports produce no money and do not deserve the same money and consideration.
"Girl's sports produce no money and do not deserve the same money and consideration"
Am I the only one who doesn't think college sports should be about making money? The purpose of college is to educate & prepare you for the real world.
Playing sports teaches teamwork, dedication, goal setting, time management, etc. Skills every young person needs to develop if they want to be successful.
Schools wouldn't need to cut wrestling, men's volleball, etc if they didn't pay coaches 6 figure salaries and have 90+ football players.
Look at Rutgers. Year after year the worst team in its division. Heck probably the worst team in a division down. Loses tons of money, despite a huge (obnoxious) stadium they built for a constantly losing team.
A number of professors have said that rather than cut backs to the education budget, due to state shortfalls, they should just cut the football team, since despite its costs it isn't bringing in alum donations.
However, of course not. Ever school needs a football program. Feh.