(06-12-2017 09:53 AM)lew240z Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 09:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 06:21 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Dropping down to lower levels will actually cause more males from not applying at all which could be 1 male to 100 females. Title 9 is fine to help women, but it actually hurt the overall athletics on spending. Many schools dropped football because of the expense of women to be equal. But, without football? Where can funds come from to do women sports? I think a new rule should look at excluding football from the over all athletics department spending? You need the football to help fund women sports which should be the exception.

David, I'm actually going to applaud you on this one because what you said is brilliantly accurate. You need football to fund women's athletics or at least recoup some of what's spent. You shouldn't have to dump your money maker for the sake of equality.

Title IX has been an unmitigated disaster in college athletics. Sports are but one of many extracurricular activities available in the college experience. Men and women have different interests and will naturally gravitate towards what interests them. I don't see anyone rushing to make sure that their are equal opportunities for men in drama, art, and music. If title IX is going to be in place it needs to look at what opportunities you provide your students AS A WHOLE not just within a specific field or area. Having to cut men's sports to reach a quota is not creating opportunities for women--it's eliminating them for men.

The fallacy in DavidST's argument is that very few football programs pay for themselves let alone support other programs.

Schools that did not have a football team had an average of 70% + female students to about 30% or less male students. When several schools started adding a football team, the average female to male student population stabilized. In some cases, female enrollment at these schools like 54% to males 46%. The male students enrolled in a greater amount in a short period of time. Some schools are now like 50/50. That is why so many schools are weighing in on adding football which includes the Big West and other California schools.

(06-12-2017 04:07 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 09:53 AM)lew240z Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 09:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 06:21 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Dropping down to lower levels will actually cause more males from not applying at all which could be 1 male to 100 females. Title 9 is fine to help women, but it actually hurt the overall athletics on spending. Many schools dropped football because of the expense of women to be equal. But, without football? Where can funds come from to do women sports? I think a new rule should look at excluding football from the over all athletics department spending? You need the football to help fund women sports which should be the exception.

David, I'm actually going to applaud you on this one because what you said is brilliantly accurate. You need football to fund women's athletics or at least recoup some of what's spent. You shouldn't have to dump your money maker for the sake of equality.

Title IX has been an unmitigated disaster in college athletics. Sports are but one of many extracurricular activities available in the college experience. Men and women have different interests and will naturally gravitate towards what interests them. I don't see anyone rushing to make sure that their are equal opportunities for men in drama, art, and music. If title IX is going to be in place it needs to look at what opportunities you provide your students AS A WHOLE not just within a specific field or area. Having to cut men's sports to reach a quota is not creating opportunities for women--it's eliminating them for men.

The fallacy in DavidST's argument is that very few football programs pay for themselves let alone support other programs.

Schools that did not have a football team had an average of 70% + female students to about 30% or less male students. When several schools started adding a football team, the average female to male student population stabilized. In some cases, female enrollment at these schools like 54% to males 46%. The male students enrolled in a greater amount in a short period of time. Some schools are now like 50/50. That is why so many schools are weighing in on adding football which includes the Big West and other California schools.

That is a pretty good statement that I have found in my research. The non-football schools have 65% or higher female enrollment. The football schools have less than 60%. It seems like that 60% to 65% female majority put the most pressure on a lower end FBS school that doesn't have the budget to keep in line with Title IX.

(06-12-2017 04:29 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 04:07 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 09:53 AM)lew240z Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 09:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 06:21 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Dropping down to lower levels will actually cause more males from not applying at all which could be 1 male to 100 females. Title 9 is fine to help women, but it actually hurt the overall athletics on spending. Many schools dropped football because of the expense of women to be equal. But, without football? Where can funds come from to do women sports? I think a new rule should look at excluding football from the over all athletics department spending? You need the football to help fund women sports which should be the exception.

David, I'm actually going to applaud you on this one because what you said is brilliantly accurate. You need football to fund women's athletics or at least recoup some of what's spent. You shouldn't have to dump your money maker for the sake of equality.

Title IX has been an unmitigated disaster in college athletics. Sports are but one of many extracurricular activities available in the college experience. Men and women have different interests and will naturally gravitate towards what interests them. I don't see anyone rushing to make sure that their are equal opportunities for men in drama, art, and music. If title IX is going to be in place it needs to look at what opportunities you provide your students AS A WHOLE not just within a specific field or area. Having to cut men's sports to reach a quota is not creating opportunities for women--it's eliminating them for men.

The fallacy in DavidST's argument is that very few football programs pay for themselves let alone support other programs.

Schools that did not have a football team had an average of 70% + female students to about 30% or less male students. When several schools started adding a football team, the average female to male student population stabilized. In some cases, female enrollment at these schools like 54% to males 46%. The male students enrolled in a greater amount in a short period of time. Some schools are now like 50/50. That is why so many schools are weighing in on adding football which includes the Big West and other California schools.

That is a pretty good statement that I have found in my research. The non-football schools have 65% or higher female enrollment. The football schools have less than 60%. It seems like that 60% to 65% female majority put the most pressure on a lower end FBS school that doesn't have the budget to keep in line with Title IX.

And, none of those facts change the fact than very few football programs can support themselves.

Ok, folks, here's the answer. Proportion of females in total enrollment for schools that were FBS in 2015:
1980: 46.3%
1985: 47.3%
1990: 48.9%
1995: 50.3%
2000: 51.9%
2005: 52.3%
2010: 51.5%
2015: 51.3%

So since 2000, the percent of women has actually gone down. However it's been uneven.

Schools with biggest changes in %female since 2000:
Navy + 10%
Air Force + 8%
Troy +6%
Southern Cal (USC) + 5%
Tulane +5%
...............
Temple -5%
San Jose State -5%
Charlotte -6%
UTSA -6%
Tulsa -7%
Arizona State -9%

Schools with biggest changes in %female since 1980:
Notre Dame +19%
Tulane +19%
Navy +19%
Troy +18%
Wake Forest +15%
Southern Cal (USC) +15%
Florida +13%
Air Force +12%
Utah State +11%
Georgia Tech +11%
NC State +10%
Army +10%
Ole Miss +10%
Idaho +10%
LA Tech +10%
The school with the biggest decrease in women between 1980-2015 was Arizona State (-6%)


I got this data from IPEDS, which is freely available on the DOE website.

(06-11-2017 11:30 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 05:11 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Yes it does as it is based on athletic scholarship opportunities.
Cutting 22 football scholarships is cheaper than adding 1 or 2 women's sports to meet Title IX.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/incl...stions#how

Quote:Q. How is Title IX applied to athletics? 
Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics: 
Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;                          
Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and                          
Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; © travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.

The letter of the Title IX law only says participation. Nothing else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX

You have to look at the case law around it. Title IX has a 3 part test and a school (not under a consent decree) can fulfill one of the prongs and be in compliance.

http://www.richmond.com/sports/title-ix-...e6286.html

If you don't like my link google Title IX 3 Prong test and you will find a number of them.

(06-12-2017 04:07 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 09:53 AM)lew240z Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 09:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 06:21 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Dropping down to lower levels will actually cause more males from not applying at all which could be 1 male to 100 females. Title 9 is fine to help women, but it actually hurt the overall athletics on spending. Many schools dropped football because of the expense of women to be equal. But, without football? Where can funds come from to do women sports? I think a new rule should look at excluding football from the over all athletics department spending? You need the football to help fund women sports which should be the exception.

David, I'm actually going to applaud you on this one because what you said is brilliantly accurate. You need football to fund women's athletics or at least recoup some of what's spent. You shouldn't have to dump your money maker for the sake of equality.

Title IX has been an unmitigated disaster in college athletics. Sports are but one of many extracurricular activities available in the college experience. Men and women have different interests and will naturally gravitate towards what interests them. I don't see anyone rushing to make sure that their are equal opportunities for men in drama, art, and music. If title IX is going to be in place it needs to look at what opportunities you provide your students AS A WHOLE not just within a specific field or area. Having to cut men's sports to reach a quota is not creating opportunities for women--it's eliminating them for men.

The fallacy in DavidST's argument is that very few football programs pay for themselves let alone support other programs.

Schools that did not have a football team had an average of 70% + female students to about 30% or less male students. When several schools started adding a football team, the average female to male student population stabilized. In some cases, female enrollment at these schools like 54% to males 46%. The male students enrolled in a greater amount in a short period of time. Some schools are now like 50/50. That is why so many schools are weighing in on adding football which includes the Big West and other California schools.

This is just not factually correct. Few California schools are looking to add Football. Especially the Cal States because they operate under the Cal NOW consent decree.

(06-12-2017 06:59 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Ok, folks, here's the answer. Proportion of females in total enrollment for schools that were FBS in 2015:
1980: 46.3%
1985: 47.3%
1990: 48.9%
1995: 50.3%
2000: 51.9%
2005: 52.3%
2010: 51.5%
2015: 51.3%

So since 2000, the percent of women has actually gone down. However it's been uneven.

Schools with biggest changes in %female since 2000:
Navy + 10%
Air Force + 8%
Troy +6%
Southern Cal (USC) + 5%
Tulane +5%
...............
Temple -5%
San Jose State -5%
Charlotte -6%
UTSA -6%
Tulsa -7%
Arizona State -9%

Schools with biggest changes in %female since 1980:
Notre Dame +19%
Tulane +19%
Navy +19%
Troy +18%
Wake Forest +15%
Southern Cal (USC) +15%
Florida +13%
Air Force +12%
Utah State +11%
Georgia Tech +11%
NC State +10%
Army +10%
Ole Miss +10%
Idaho +10%
LA Tech +10%
The school with the biggest decrease in women between 1980-2015 was Arizona State (-6%)


I got this data from IPEDS, which is freely available on the DOE website.

Awesome work. +3 rep for you.

Interesting info. It'll be curious to see how the data will change in the next few years.

(06-12-2017 06:59 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Ok, folks, here's the answer. Proportion of females in total enrollment for schools that were FBS in 2015:
1980: 46.3%
1985: 47.3%
1990: 48.9%
1995: 50.3%
2000: 51.9%
2005: 52.3%
2010: 51.5%
2015: 51.3%

So since 2000, the percent of women has actually gone down. However it's been uneven.

Schools with biggest changes in %female since 2000:
Navy + 10%
Air Force + 8%
Troy +6%
Southern Cal (USC) + 5%
Tulane +5%
...............
Temple -5%
San Jose State -5%
Charlotte -6%
UTSA -6%
Tulsa -7%
Arizona State -9%

Schools with biggest changes in %female since 1980:
Notre Dame +19%
Tulane +19%
Navy +19%
Troy +18%
Wake Forest +15%
Southern Cal (USC) +15%
Florida +13%
Air Force +12%
Utah State +11%
Georgia Tech +11%
NC State +10%
Army +10%
Ole Miss +10%
Idaho +10%
LA Tech +10%
The school with the biggest decrease in women between 1980-2015 was Arizona State (-6%)


I got this data from IPEDS, which is freely available on the DOE website.

Look at Charlotte? That is a good example of when adding football helped increased the male population-wise.

Pressure on Men's sports will come from alumni and students that are indifferent at best to collegiate athletics. You're already starting to see the effects are certain schools such as Cal, UMD, and UVA. People are entertained differently than they were 10-15 years ago, and the jock is continuing to fall out of favor in America.

Even if you had more men, it wouldn't help you by as much as you think. Kids don't give two fricks about the football team anymore.

(06-13-2017 12:27 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Pressure on Men's sports will come from alumni and students that are indifferent at best to collegiate athletics. You're already starting to see the effects are certain schools such as Cal, UMD, and UVA. People are entertained differently than they were 10-15 years ago, and the jock is continuing to fall out of favor in America.

Even if you had more men, it wouldn't help you by as much as you think. Kids don't give two fricks about the football team anymore.

Unless it's SEC where the football game is the party.

(06-12-2017 06:59 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Ok, folks, here's the answer. Proportion of females in total enrollment for schools that were FBS in 2015:
1980: 46.3%
1985: 47.3%
1990: 48.9%
1995: 50.3%
2000: 51.9%
2005: 52.3%
2010: 51.5%
2015: 51.3%

So since 2000, the percent of women has actually gone down. However it's been uneven.

Schools with biggest changes in %female since 2000:
Navy + 10%
Air Force + 8%
Troy +6%
Southern Cal (USC) + 5%
Tulane +5%
...............
Temple -5%
San Jose State -5%
Charlotte -6%
UTSA -6%
Tulsa -7%
Arizona State -9%

Schools with biggest changes in %female since 1980:
Notre Dame +19%
Tulane +19%
Navy +19%
Troy +18%
Wake Forest +15%
Southern Cal (USC) +15%
Florida +13%
Air Force +12%
Utah State +11%
Georgia Tech +11%
NC State +10%
Army +10%
Ole Miss +10%
Idaho +10%
LA Tech +10%
The school with the biggest decrease in women between 1980-2015 was Arizona State (-6%)


I got this data from IPEDS, which is freely available on the DOE website.

Thanks for the research!

However ...... sorry, but I have to criticize it. If you don't include the "starting point", then just throwing out the percent change is somewhat meaningless.

For example, if Notre Dame was historically a place where just men were accepted (not saying it was ...) then for it to gain 19% female enrollment would just reflect a normalization in the student body with respect to gender. But if an institution went from 50-50 to 70-30 female ... that would definitely reflect what the thread is talking about.

(06-12-2017 07:55 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  You have to look at the case law around it. Title IX has a 3 part test and a school (not under a consent decree) can fulfill one of the prongs and be in compliance.

http://www.richmond.com/sports/title-ix-...e6286.html

If you don't like my link google Title IX 3 Prong test and you will find a number of them.

The three-part test is aptly described in the link I provided. However, this point doesn't counter anything I said, and does not say anything about scholarships. Again, it's entirely based on participation opportunities for the underrepresented sex.

Quote:1. Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollment.
2. Demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).
3. Accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.

Schools use mens sports as a marketing tool to attract male applicants. Low visibility Olympic sports are already in danger for other reasons - budget, participation, etc.

If schools applied common sense, most football programs would be profitable. They choose not to because the better the teams do, the more applicants you get.

(06-13-2017 06:22 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 12:27 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Pressure on Men's sports will come from alumni and students that are indifferent at best to collegiate athletics. You're already starting to see the effects are certain schools such as Cal, UMD, and UVA. People are entertained differently than they were 10-15 years ago, and the jock is continuing to fall out of favor in America.

Even if you had more men, it wouldn't help you by as much as you think. Kids don't give two fricks about the football team anymore.

Unless it's SEC where the football game is the party.

Certain parts of the country like the southeast or in places don't have pro teams do have fan support because it is the only entertainment in town. California, Maryland and Virginia I believe have pro teams nearby that took away the fans.

(06-13-2017 09:08 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 06:59 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Ok, folks, here's the answer. Proportion of females in total enrollment for schools that were FBS in 2015:
1980: 46.3%
1985: 47.3%
1990: 48.9%
1995: 50.3%
2000: 51.9%
2005: 52.3%
2010: 51.5%
2015: 51.3%

So since 2000, the percent of women has actually gone down. However it's been uneven.

Schools with biggest changes in %female since 2000:
Navy + 10%
Air Force + 8%
Troy +6%
Southern Cal (USC) + 5%
Tulane +5%
...............
Temple -5%
San Jose State -5%
Charlotte -6%
UTSA -6%
Tulsa -7%
Arizona State -9%

Schools with biggest changes in %female since 1980:
Notre Dame +19%
Tulane +19%
Navy +19%
Troy +18%
Wake Forest +15%
Southern Cal (USC) +15%
Florida +13%
Air Force +12%
Utah State +11%
Georgia Tech +11%
NC State +10%
Army +10%
Ole Miss +10%
Idaho +10%
LA Tech +10%
The school with the biggest decrease in women between 1980-2015 was Arizona State (-6%)


I got this data from IPEDS, which is freely available on the DOE website.

Thanks for the research!

However ...... sorry, but I have to criticize it. If you don't include the "starting point", then just throwing out the percent change is somewhat meaningless.

For example, if Notre Dame was historically a place where just men were accepted (not saying it was ...) then for it to gain 19% female enrollment would just reflect a normalization in the student body with respect to gender. But if an institution went from 50-50 to 70-30 female ... that would definitely reflect what the thread is talking about.

The thread is talking about the change putting pressure on budgets. Not the level of % women.

A school like Army that used to be 90% male but today is 79% male must change the gender composition of their athletic teams. By definition, this requires either 1) an increase in the athletic budget, or 2) a decrease in the men's budget (i.e. putting "more pressure on Men's Sports" aka the title of the thread)

But the varsity roster participation numbers must match (roughly) the actual gender percentage of the student body, at the end of the day to be in compliance. Yes, if it changes +10% then participation numbers need to reflect that ... but it's still very helpful to have the gender numbers either before or after the changes.

I'm not going to ask you to re-do the whole research, but I just want to point that out.

(06-09-2017 03:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  I don't think recruiting is the issue. Enough males are applying. The problem is that women on average outperform men in most of the selection criteria schools use. So, either they change the criteria or assign quotas based on gender. The second option is problematical on several grounds.

What criterion would that be? I can understand why that would be a tightly kept secret, because my google search in the other tab has articles about women being 1.5x more likely to drop from a STEM program after taking calculus and women's SAT score keeping them from attending "elite colleges", which casts a dubious cloud over said criterion...whatever they may be. There are certain (((folks))) who claim gender is a mere social construct, but maybe we aren't all equal after all.

(06-09-2017 05:41 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  That 57-43% F to M ratio means almost 1/3 more F in college.

For every 9 men that means their is 12 women. Nice guy to girl ratio these days.

When you realize that roughly 2/3s of women are clinically obese....the average American woman is creeping up towards a buck eighty on the scales, that's rather subjective.

My experience in college was anything but "nice" regarding scenery.

(06-10-2017 12:40 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  You guys are talking sports. But it doesn't matter much if 100 guys play football on a 30,000 student campus.

When you get a divergence between the genders in college attendance like that it points to bigger social problems underlying it. I think part of it has been the success of getting more girls to focus on study. But the flip side, we are boys and young men. We need a culture change in schools, and we need to make it a priority to have more boys advance to college.

We also have to look at the utility of degrees when you get so many girls compared to boys. In urban areas where incarceration of young men is high, a similar bad ratio exists. This has shown to lead to lower sexual behavior standards for women due to competition for men, and leads men to behave very poorly. We get a glimpse of this in college athlete behavior and the sexual assault frequency. When you have an excess of women you get social instability. CCU cheer is not unusual behavior these days. This is just one effect.

But I think a larger effect is the impact on success, or rather the failure in life, of so many more young men you don't make it to college. Point is we have a much bigger problem than athletics here.

Agreed. Roughly half of women doctors and lawyers never actually work full time in their fields because they decide that racking up six digits of debt wasn't quite as important as starting a family on the cusp of age 40 after all. On the flip side, garbage humanities degrees are easy money for schools. Where I went for my bachelors, they gladly tout junk feminist studies when the STEM program I was in gained rather rare ABET accreditation. No need to cater to a wasteful demographic.

One point to amend is that too few women actually leads to instability. Whether it be a North Dakota oilfield camp, the middle east, or a local sausagefest bar, too few women leads to trouble. This wasn't quite a problem before smart bombs or advances in medicine, as the natural 1.05:1 M/F demo mother nature drops on us seems to unhincky itself over time. Now, not so much. If you dig 40+ women, then the USA is great for you. Those of us who want families? Not really.

http://jonathansoma.com/singles/

(06-12-2017 08:42 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Maybe OT but I had a discussion about this not long ago. I think the reason you are seeing less men go to college is because college is having less of an impact on employment.

True. I may have rethought this college idea if I had forseen a Bangladeshi chick who drives 30 in a 5 MPH parking lot get a promotion over me while getting us kicked of a project (that same day) a few weeks early.

(06-09-2017 03:26 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Or how about recruiting more men?

As women enter/have entered traditionally male occupations, emphasis needs to be put on recruiting males to female dominated professions, like nursing and other health care, education, etc. In fact, I see the lack of male teachers as a major flaw in an education system.

They recruit fine by the k-12 system is set up for women to succeed, the college environment is set up for women to succeed, the aid and scholarships out there are set up for women to succeed.

In short we start to stifle 4-10 year old boys who, as a whole don't learn and behave the same way as girls. Those boys go on to struggle a bit more in High School and then those that get to college are treated like the need to be taught how not to rape.

edit: oh yea, and if you talk about this you're labelled as a woman hater.

(06-09-2017 03:46 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  This goes to the NCAA rules regarding minimum number of sports/teams for men.

If a school only wants to have football and basketball as varsity men's sports, while having 10 women's varsity sports, and that level of participation satisifies Title IX ... it should be allowed to do so.

This to me is the most sensible and quickest compromise to cover athletics, but the underlying reasons for fewer men in school should be taken up separately.

why did this get moved here?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app