I don't really have an issue with women's sports so much as I do with the requirement for a 1 to 1 ratio. That doesn't reflect the reality of interest in the respective sports and places a huge financial burden to support sports that can't financial support themselves.

(06-23-2021 09:45 AM)ken d Wrote:  I don't know that "most people" get partial scholarships. In fact, I doubt that they do. If a field hockey player is on half-scholarship (or even less) she gets a 50% discount on her tuition and a 50% discount on other costs. If, instead, they got 100% of the tuition and 0% of the other costs, would they have more money left in their pocket or less? I'm guessing more, and at some schools, a lot more.

And from the school's point of view, the true cost of a tuition only scholarship is less than the nominal amount of the tuition. The school only incurs additional cost to the extent that it has to increase faculty and staff to accommodate that many students. In many cases they don't. They just have fewer empty seats in the classrooms.

What you could see happen is fewer foreign students taking up scholarship slots that would otherwise go to American student athletes, especially in non-revenue sports like Tennis and Golf. I don't see that as a bad thing.

Equivalency sports work like that. Soccer has a maximum of 9.9 scholarships. If everyone had a scholarship, you'd be one short of a lineup. Some get a full, some get a half, some get a third.

Your true cost of tuition only applies if the school has no enrollment cap. For schools with fixed enrollment caps, it's a different issue.

As of 2017, less than 5% of men's athletic scholarships were offered to non-US citizens. That's a lot less than the foreign population at some schools.

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/res...ticipation

(06-22-2021 06:18 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think football should be exempted from the Title IX counts.

By all means, schools should sponsor women’s sports but I don’t like the insistence on a 1-for-1 equivalence

I agree Muskie

(06-23-2021 10:12 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 09:45 AM)ken d Wrote:  I don't know that "most people" get partial scholarships. In fact, I doubt that they do. If a field hockey player is on half-scholarship (or even less) she gets a 50% discount on her tuition and a 50% discount on other costs. If, instead, they got 100% of the tuition and 0% of the other costs, would they have more money left in their pocket or less? I'm guessing more, and at some schools, a lot more.

And from the school's point of view, the true cost of a tuition only scholarship is less than the nominal amount of the tuition. The school only incurs additional cost to the extent that it has to increase faculty and staff to accommodate that many students. In many cases they don't. They just have fewer empty seats in the classrooms.

What you could see happen is fewer foreign students taking up scholarship slots that would otherwise go to American student athletes, especially in non-revenue sports like Tennis and Golf. I don't see that as a bad thing.

Equivalency sports work like that. Soccer has a maximum of 9.9 scholarships. If everyone had a scholarship, you'd be one short of a lineup. Some get a full, some get a half, some get a third.

Your true cost of tuition only applies if the school has no enrollment cap. For schools with fixed enrollment caps, it's a different issue.

As of 2017, less than 5% of men's athletic scholarships were offered to non-US citizens. That's a lot less than the foreign population at some schools.

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/res...ticipation

I know how equivalency sports work. What I was questioning was your statement that most people get some form of scholarship. If you really meant "most student athletes" then I'm not sure what your point was.

(06-23-2021 10:12 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Your true cost of tuition only applies if the school has no enrollment cap. For schools with fixed enrollment caps, it's a different issue.

No, the true cost of tuition for each additional student enrolled is related to the "marginal cost" concept of economics.

As a rough example: Suppose I open a bakery, rent a huge warehouse, buy an industrial-scale oven, hire a baker and another employee or two, buy a truck to deliver the bread to stores and restaurants, etc. If the bakery bakes one loaf of bread and sells it, my cost to bake that one loaf of bread is enormous because it includes the cost of renting the space, buying the oven and truck, paying the utilities, buying packaging, paying the baker and any other employees, etc. But if my bakery bakes 1,000 loaves of bread a day, my cost per loaf goes down drastically because the rent, utilities, oven, packaging, and payroll are the same whether I sell one loaf or 1,000. There are additional costs for the bread ingredients and maybe extra cooking utensils, maybe more gasoline if the truck is delivering bread to more stores and restaurants, but those additional costs are tiny compared to the huge overhead investment of the rent/utilities/oven/truck/payroll.

The "marginal cost" of baking each additional loaf of bread is very small, unless I scale up enormously to something like 100,000 loaves of bread per day.

(06-22-2021 03:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  TBH, it's a ridiculous question. Title IX goes way beyond athletics and, without question, my daughter should have just as many opportunities as my son in academics, athletics and anything else in the education sphere.

In athletics, Title IX actually causes girls to have much higher opportunity than boys.

Boys tend to be more interested in sports. Many girls who would be great athletes have no interest in playing sports (like my daughter, who is a natural athlete but cried and begged us to NOT sign her up for t-ball).

As a result, it is MUCH harder for a boy to win a sports scholarship. There's a lot more competition for the spots available.

If Title IX was applied to individual majors in the same way it is applied to sports, a lot of outstanding female nurses and male engineers would not be able to find a spot in a program. Instead, those spots would go to mediocre male nurses and mediocre female engineers.

(06-23-2021 10:38 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 06:18 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think football should be exempted from the Title IX counts.

By all means, schools should sponsor women’s sports but I don’t like the insistence on a 1-for-1 equivalence

I agree Muskie

Putting aside one's personal opinions about Title IX, that type of exemption would completely undercut the purpose of the law.

The law is about balance of resources, so it's a completely pointless law if the sport that clearly causes the biggest imbalance of resources of them all is exempted.

It would be like exempting superstar players from a salary cap in the NFL or NBA (e.g. "Let's have a salary cap, but the truly super valuable players like LeBron and Aaron Rodgers should be excluded"). That completely defeats the purpose of having a salary cap in the first place!

If you're arguing that football should be exempted from Title IX, then what you're essentially arguing is that Title IX shouldn't exist in the first place (as an overarching point of Title IX is that schools can't get away with just funneling money and resources to the most valuable male sports, which we all know effectively means football).

This discussion is all moot since Title IX isn't going anywhere. You might as well try proposing a Constitutional amendment to the First Amendment - you'd probably get more traction trying that these days compared to trying to weaken Title IX.

Frank: I think he's arguing to exempt it because there's no equivalent sport for women.

(06-23-2021 02:04 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 03:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  TBH, it's a ridiculous question. Title IX goes way beyond athletics and, without question, my daughter should have just as many opportunities as my son in academics, athletics and anything else in the education sphere.

In athletics, Title IX actually causes girls to have much higher opportunity than boys.

Boys tend to be more interested in sports. Many girls who would be great athletes have no interest in playing sports (like my daughter, who is a natural athlete but cried and begged us to NOT sign her up for t-ball).

As a result, it is MUCH harder for a boy to win a sports scholarship. There's a lot more competition for the spots available.

If Title IX was applied to individual majors in the same way it is applied to sports, a lot of outstanding female nurses and male engineers would not be able to find a spot in a program. Instead, those spots would go to mediocre male nurses and mediocre female engineers.

I don't disagree with the practical effect regarding scholarships.

However, in economic terms, that's a demand side issue that's out of the reasonable control of the government or, frankly, any school. The fact that there's higher demand for male scholarships compared to female scholarships may be due to cultural factors, participation, etc. (which is a major point that Title IX is trying to address).

In contrast, the government and schools *can* regulate the supply side of the ratio of male/female scholarships, which is essentially what Title IX does.

The key difference between majors and athletic spots is that schools aren't reserving a specific number of spots for engineers, nurses or any other major specifically for males or females (at least explicitly - it's acknowledged that they may give preferences to underrepresented groups in practice). The fact that there are more male engineering majors compared to female engineering majors reflects demand, but it's not because a school has *structurally* put into place reserved slots for males and females.

In contrast, schools *do* state whether specific athletic spots are for males or females, which is why Title IX directly applies. In that sense, it's a big reason why Title IX comes up so much regarding athletics because it's a clear area where the number of opportunities are directly allocated based on sex, whereas other areas (e.g. more female nursing students or more male engineering students) aren't of a result of explicit school allocations.

(06-23-2021 02:31 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Frank: I think he's arguing to exempt it because there's no equivalent sport for women.

The point is that it doesn't matter if there's an equivalent sport for women. Even if you could somehow apply that standard, who defines equivalent sport? Why can't there be a women's flag football team at every school that has a men's football team? Would a women's rugby team qualify? You could argue that those sports are tangentially related in a way that's similar to baseball and softball.

People can argue whether the law is a good thing or not, but in terms of its application, it *has* to be neutral in terms of looking at athletic departments across the board or else you get into rabbit hole arguments about what's equivalent or not.

On this day in history, 49 years ago, Title IX was signed into law:
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist...ix-enacted

Title IX consists of 37 words in an education bill that changed everything for women:
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

I was heading into my senior year in high school when this passed. In those days, we had no athletic programs for girls at my high school. Back then, it never occurred to me how unfair that was. It was just the way it was. Title IX changed all of that.

(06-23-2021 02:04 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  If Title IX was applied to individual majors in the same way it is applied to sports, a lot of outstanding female nurses and male engineers would not be able to find a spot in a program. Instead, those spots would go to mediocre male nurses and mediocre female engineers.

Your hypothetical would be a lot less problematic if all varsity athletes were walk-ons, but they're not. Handing out free college educations to more than twice as many male athletes as female athletes (which is effectively what would happen if everyone who wants football to not count for Title IX purposes got their wish) is one of the things Title IX is designed to prevent.

It's another example of how the NCAA and the colleges make a situation worse and more complicated by pretending that athletic scholarships are compensation, and the only compensation permitted by the NCAA cartel, for the athletes' hard work.

The easiest solution is non gender sports programs. There is no women's volleyball, soccer etc. Same for men's football and basketball. Let the best athletes compete for those slots regardless of gender. The fact that selective service registration exists for men only is absurd.

(06-23-2021 02:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 02:31 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Frank: I think he's arguing to exempt it because there's no equivalent sport for women.

The point is that it doesn't matter if there's an equivalent sport for women. Even if you could somehow apply that standard, who defines equivalent sport? Why can't there be a women's flag football team at every school that has a men's football team? Would a women's rugby team qualify? You could argue that those sports are tangentially related in a way that's similar to baseball and softball.

People can argue whether the law is a good thing or not, but in terms of its application, it *has* to be neutral in terms of looking at athletic departments across the board or else you get into rabbit hole arguments about what's equivalent or not.

Id like to see Title 9 revised so it makes more sense. I dont think anyone argues that a reasonable equality should exist in opportunity. There doesnt need to be an actual 1-for-1 balance in sports because there isnt a real 1-for-1 balance in interest in sports. I'd look at participation at the high school level in each state and then use that ratio---balanced to reflect the male-female ratio at any given college as the basis for defining "equal opportuntity". The truth is---if there was an equal number of athletic opportunities in college for men and women---it would actually favor women because there are fewer women interested in chasing those opportunitues. Perhaps rather than balancing athletics---maybe simply balance scholarship opportunities by offering additional womens scholarships in areas women might tend to have a greater interest/participation than men.

Id also like to see the legislation updated to address some of the topics we've discussed here. What counts as equal and if pay-for-play comes to schools---do female rowers need to be paid the same as a male college QB?

(06-23-2021 02:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 02:31 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Frank: I think he's arguing to exempt it because there's no equivalent sport for women.

The point is that it doesn't matter if there's an equivalent sport for women. Even if you could somehow apply that standard, who defines equivalent sport? Why can't there be a women's flag football team at every school that has a men's football team? Would a women's rugby team qualify? You could argue that those sports are tangentially related in a way that's similar to baseball and softball.

People can argue whether the law is a good thing or not, but in terms of its application, it *has* to be neutral in terms of looking at athletic departments across the board or else you get into rabbit hole arguments about what's equivalent or not.

I would argue that the fact you have to invent a womens sport in the interest of "balance" tells you that theres really isnt an interest. Why does the scholarship balance need to be concentrated in athletics when relatively few women in high school participate in athletics compared to men?

Im all for there being equal scholarship opportunities---I just dont see that the balance need be present entirely in sports. In 2018, only 25% of high school women participated in sports compared to 43% of men. If the collegiate sports opportunity is exactly equal---that would roughly translate into it being almost twice as easy for a women to get a athletic scholarship than it would be for a man. Some of this balance stuff---while well intended---starts to become naval gazing at some point. As long as there are an equal number of scholarship opportunities (be they athletic or scholastic), I think you are creating a pretty balanced environment of gender opportunity. A lot has happened since the early 1970's when Title 9 passed. Today---women easily outnumber men at most every college campus (strangely, in almost an exact reversal of the same gender ratios that were present in the early 1970's when men dominated). When it comes to access to higher education---its more likely that the typical daughter will be college bound after high school graduation than the typical son.

(06-23-2021 05:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 02:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 02:31 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Frank: I think he's arguing to exempt it because there's no equivalent sport for women.

The point is that it doesn't matter if there's an equivalent sport for women. Even if you could somehow apply that standard, who defines equivalent sport? Why can't there be a women's flag football team at every school that has a men's football team? Would a women's rugby team qualify? You could argue that those sports are tangentially related in a way that's similar to baseball and softball.

People can argue whether the law is a good thing or not, but in terms of its application, it *has* to be neutral in terms of looking at athletic departments across the board or else you get into rabbit hole arguments about what's equivalent or not.

I would argue that the fact you have to invent a womens sport in the interest of "balance" tells you that theres really isnt an interest. Why does the scholarship balance need to be concentrated in athletics when relatively few women in high school participate in athletics compared to men?

That raises a good point about Title IX. There are some dumb rules about how to measure female "interest" in athletics at a school.

For example, IIRC, about 20 years ago the Bush administration came up with a commonsense approach that would involve surveying the student body, and if little to no interest was expressed in a sport, the school could drop it and not be out of compliance (or something like that, I forget the details).

This resulted in a howl of criticism from feminists, who invoked weird ideological theories, such as saying that of course females won't show interest because they have been Trained By Patriarchy or something to not care about athletics. So the schools need to have these sports whether any real women students care about them or not to undo the Legacy of Patriarchy and social conditioning, or something like that.

And amazingly, the wacko feminist ideology carried the day and the recommendation was withdrawn.

(06-23-2021 06:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  For example, IIRC, about 20 years ago the Bush administration came up with a commonsense approach that would involve surveying the student body, and if little to no interest was expressed in a sport, the school could drop it and not be out of compliance (or something like that, I forget the details).

That would be a dishonestly-used tool in the hands of people who just want to get rid of women's sports; they would only survey students to seek out low levels of interest in women's sports. You think they're going to let students (many of whom have no interest in *any* college sports, btw) vote no interest in football and cause football to be dropped? There are schools in FBS where football would be dropped if the students could make the decision themselves; for that matter there are D-I schools where all varsity sports would be dropped if it was up to the students. Hell, there are academic departments that would be dropped at any given university if it was left up to a vote of the entire student population.

I hate the way the interpretation of T9 has turned into this head-counting witch hunt. In essence, the law says if you’re going to offer men the opportunity to play sports there has to opportunities for women to play sports too. Why it’s turned into a 1-for-1 male-to-female scholarship athlete is a bizzaro interpretation run amuck.

If you’re going to be going through the athletic department beam counting men and women, then every academic and extracurricular program should be similarly scrutinized.

(06-23-2021 07:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 06:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  For example, IIRC, about 20 years ago the Bush administration came up with a commonsense approach that would involve surveying the student body, and if little to no interest was expressed in a sport, the school could drop it and not be out of compliance (or something like that, I forget the details).

That would be a dishonestly-used tool in the hands of people who just want to get rid of women's sports; they would only survey students to seek out low levels of interest in women's sports. You think they're going to let students (many of whom have no interest in *any* college sports, btw) vote no interest in football and cause football to be dropped? There are schools in FBS where football would be dropped if the students could make the decision themselves; for that matter there are D-I schools where all varsity sports would be dropped if it was up to the students. Hell, there are academic departments that would be dropped at any given university if it was left up to a vote of the entire student population.

The survey doesn't have to be a dishonesty tool. It could be impartially administered, etc.

Beyond that, I totally agree that at many schools, athletics is rammed down the throats of a majority of students who have no interest and would rather not be paying fees for them.

They are prevented from having a say in that by administrators and boosters who like having athletics for ego and/or career building reasons. In those situations I think that these surveys should be used to get rid of football and other sports as well.

Truth is, at most schools, something like a 12-person women's scholarship softball team doesn't provide any "educational opportunities" to the general female student body nor is there any substantive interest among females in watching the team. It provides very nice benefits to the 12 girls who make up the team (they profit from it, are not 'exploited') and even greater benefits to whoever is making $150,000 a year coaching the team, but is irrelevant to everyone else. That is also true of many mens sports as well. Sports like these should be done away with.

(06-22-2021 03:43 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  It seems that many here think Title IX is a waste and that it infringes on the ability of football and MENS hoops to flourish in the way you want. So, I ask: do you want to abolish Title IX?

I like women's sports, and I think they should have opportunities as well. The issue is that basically none of them make any money. In the past that hasn't been a problem, but if we start paying players... There will be even more of a focus on revenue producers. But to answer the OP, no I don't think it should be abolished.