This article details the questionable practices some schools are engaged in so as to appear to comply with the 'gender equity' requirements of Title IX. For example, some schools have padded their women's team rosters so as to count more women as athletes:

"At the University of South Florida, more than half of the 71 women on the cross-country roster failed to run a race in 2009. Asked about it, a few laughed and said they did not know they were on the team. ...... A primary strategy was to expand the women’s running teams. Female runners can be a bonanza because a single athlete can be counted up to three times, as a member of the cross-country and the indoor and outdoor track teams.

In 2002, 21 South Florida women competed in cross-country. By 2008, the number had grown to 75 — more than quadruple the size of an average Division I cross-country team.

When told of the team’s size, Mr. Daniel, a former investigator for the Office for Civil Rights, said: “Good gracious. That would certainly justify further examination.”

Since i think the gender-equity requirements are silly (there's no question that there is more interest, both participatory and in attending events, in men's athletics than women's), i say "nice job Bulls!" and hope we get away with it, LOL. Though thanks to this publicity, we probably won't.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/sports...ml?_r=1&hp

Some schools even count men as women's athletes. We need to get hip to this, as in the screwy world of Title IX, apparently it's actually legal:

"Texas A&M, which just won the women’s Division I basketball championship, reported 32 players in the 2009-10 academic year, although 14 were men. Cornell included 19 men among the women’s fencing, volleyball and basketball teams in the 2009-10 numbers reported to Bergeron’s office. Yet Cornell counted the five female coxswains for the men’s rowing team as female athletes."

Quote:Universities must demonstrate compliance with Title IX in at least one of three ways: by showing that the number of female athletes is in proportion to overall female enrollment, by demonstrating a history of expanding opportunities for women, or by proving that they are meeting the athletic interests and abilities of their female students.

I wouldn't be surprised if we get sued because of this article. I highlighted the second prong because I'm guessing that will be the solution: adding a women's sport. Hopefully a men's sport doesn't get cut, no one wants to see that.

Funny thing is, we got a B+ from the Women's Sport Foundation in 2007 for our Title IX compliance:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2...ades_N.htm

I don't find TitleIX in and of itself non-compelling, however I do find the sheer depth in which a school must take to comply with it and the unintended results it has had on certain sports to be pretty horrific.

71 runners on the cross country team huh? Quite a number since only the Top 5 runners count for scoring and once you get to the end of the season in conference and regional competition normally only the Top 7 from a team can compete in the race. Way to expand the roster to about 4 times anything that even resembles a realistic roster size.

(04-26-2011 09:47 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't find TitleIX in and of itself non-compelling, however I do find the sheer depth in which a school must take to comply with it and the unintended results it has had on certain sports to be pretty horrific.

Yes, like you, i have no problem with the underlying intent of Title IX. My problem is with how the courts have interpreted it over the years, which is to be completely unrealistic about what sports students are interested in, and demand something like "scholarships must be equal" or "scholarships must be equal to the gender proportions of the student population", when even women students are far more interested in men's football and basketball than in women's sports.

It's gotten to the point where if a men's basketball team, one that draws 12,000 fans a game and makes millions for the university, rides in a chartered jet to games, then the women's team has to be flown around in a private jet too, even if only 500 fans are showing up for games, it loses money for the school, etc.

Good Lord that is shady.

71 runners? Oh man, that would be slam dunk to file in federal court.

(04-26-2011 03:25 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Good Lord that is shady.

71 runners? Oh man, that would be slam dunk to file in federal court.

The funniest thing to me is that some schools count men as women athletes - and it's apparently legal!

Shows me how screwy the interpretation of T9 has become ...

You know what's funny? The biggest fans of college football I've ever known were female college coaches. They knew that without it, they'd be out of a job.

Title 9 sucks.

I hope to see USF's cross country team grow over 100. Screw title 9.

This is getting ridiculous. Instead of forcing schools to comply to these idiotic rules how about giving the schools the money to support these non-revenue (for the most part) athletic programs.

How many women teams do you buy tickets to watch? I have to say I buy none, but I am an annual donor to the Cardinal Athletic Fund, so I am indirectly funding Title IX.

(04-26-2011 10:41 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  How many women teams do you buy tickets to watch?

I have never bought a ticket to a women's college athletic event. Heck, when i was at USF, i'm not even sure admission was charged. IIRC you could watch all the women's games in any sport for free, just by wandering on in or flashing your student ID.

They were desperate for warm bodies in the stands ...

(04-26-2011 03:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-26-2011 03:25 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Good Lord that is shady.

71 runners? Oh man, that would be slam dunk to file in federal court.

The funniest thing to me is that some schools count men as women athletes - and it's apparently legal!

Shows me how screwy the interpretation of T9 has become ...

Well...one never wants to discriminate...so why not count guys as girls...others do it all the time!

PS. As someone noted above...the key word in their statement was COURTS (as in judicial, not Basketball or Volleyball)...thats the main problem right there.

(04-26-2011 03:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The funniest thing to me is that some schools count men as women athletes - and it's apparently legal!

Shows me how screwy the interpretation of T9 has become ...

Maybe each school should just get a female kicker and then declare that football is a womens sport. That way everyone can count their football headcount as women.

(04-26-2011 08:54 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  This is getting ridiculous. Instead of forcing schools to comply to these idiotic rules how about giving the schools the money to support these non-revenue (for the most part) athletic programs.

Where is the NCAA going to come up with that money for every single university? Just destroy Title 9 altogether...IMO.

I don't think it should be eliminated, per se, but it should be modified to a reasonable extent. I do think, that even at an additional cost to those supporting mens sports, there is a certain need to have relatively accessible collegiate sports for women. I think there is a need to give women the ability to earn scholarships to schools to play sports that no one wants to really watch, especially in the day and age of childhood obesity/schools cutting athletic requirements/etc.

I don't really have a model that I can think of that might work, but there was never any intention in the original passing of TitleIX to limit mens sports as a result of forcing womens sports onto colleges.

(04-27-2011 02:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't think it should be eliminated, per se, but it should be modified to a reasonable extent. I do think, that even at an additional cost to those supporting mens sports, there is a certain need to have relatively accessible collegiate sports for women. I think there is a need to give women the ability to earn scholarships to schools to play sports that no one wants to really watch, especially in the day and age of childhood obesity/schools cutting athletic requirements/etc.

I don't really have a model that I can think of that might work, but there was never any intention in the original passing of TitleIX to limit mens sports as a result of forcing womens sports onto colleges.

Yes, the problem is the lack of reasonableness of its interpretation. It's become a tit-for-tat thing, where if the men get X, the women have to get X, if the men get Y, the women have to get Y, etc. even if the differences in interest in the men's and women's sports are obvious and overwhelming.

I think Titled IX is fine, when it is being applied to non-revenue producing sports, but not to mens football and basketball.