(06-24-2021 08:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 11:59 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Buckeye: someone post a thread speculating that the SCOTUS ruling would kill Olympic sports, for that very reason.

IMO that thinking is unrealistic. There's no way the courts or congress or the general public will allow schools to use this need to pay players as a reason to eliminate women's sports or otherwise circumvent Title IX.

Title IX is reality and IMO is going nowhere, nor will its athletics requirements, even though IMO those requirements have always been nonsensical (ignore market realities) and even moreso now that the courts are telling the NCAA they have to honor free markets.

Free markets would truthfully eliminate almost all women's sports. Probably all of them.

What schools will be told is "you must honor free markets when it comes to paying players or at least NIL, but within the constraints of the massively market-distorting requirements of Title IX".

Crazy, but ....

Title IX requires gender equity in educational opportunities. Sports is drawn into its scope because it treats athletic scholarships and programs and educational opportunities. The SCOTUS ruling on player compensation effectively finds that players in revenue generating sports are employees. This is in direct conflict with the underlying rationale for applying Title IX to athletics. I think that it guts Title IX with respect to revenue sports.

This will have the greatest impact in regards to football, as Title IX requires a substantial number of women's sports to be offered by schools in order to balance out the number of scholarships offered for football. In other words, if football is removed from the scope of Title IX, football schools may be able to reduce significantly the number of women's sports offered.

(06-24-2021 11:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 09:59 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 06:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  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.

The Bush Administration withdrew their attempts to weaken the law in 2003. Polls back then showed 70% support among the public for Title IX. They got a lot of pushback from the public and politically it was not a wise move with an election coming up in 2004. They did sneak a change through in 2005, by allowing electronic surveys to gauge female students’ interest in playing sports. The Obama Administration reversed that decision in 2010.

In 1971, 7% of the athletes involved in high school sports were girls. In 2019, that number was 43%. In 1972, 43% of college students were female. In 2019, that number is about 57%. In 2019, women received 57% of bachelor’s degrees, 59% of master’s degrees. The country has changed and is not going backwards. Title IX is not going anywhere. There is no incentive for a politician to push for the elimination of the law or even change it.

I totally agree that Title IX is going absolutely nowhere and those who think these court rulings on pay will end up weakening it in the least are fooling themselves.

I also think the way Title IX enforcement has evolved over the past 50 years has resulted in weird ideological requirements that are divorced from economic reality or even social reality. But that is a hard message to get across to the public, because it means going in to the ideological weeds with the wackos to combat it, whereas supporters of these bizarro requirements can easily shout "that big bad conservative is trying to Kill Title IX and Send Your Daughter Soccer Players Back To Home-Ec Class!" or whatever.

So yes, it's just not a winning proposition for a politician to push on.

It has become kinda bizarro. When the law was passed in the early 1970's, 60% of the typical college student body was made up of men and only 40% were women. Now its completely reversed to the exact opposite extreme. Today, 60% of the campus student body are women and only 40% are men. If anything---a series of government actions aimed at increasing male higher education participation would probably make more sense---instead we are continuing to hammer the head of a nail that's already fully inserted simply because thats all the people in charge know how to do.

(06-24-2021 02:23 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 08:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 11:59 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Buckeye: someone post a thread speculating that the SCOTUS ruling would kill Olympic sports, for that very reason.

IMO that thinking is unrealistic. There's no way the courts or congress or the general public will allow schools to use this need to pay players as a reason to eliminate women's sports or otherwise circumvent Title IX.

Title IX is reality and IMO is going nowhere, nor will its athletics requirements, even though IMO those requirements have always been nonsensical (ignore market realities) and even moreso now that the courts are telling the NCAA they have to honor free markets.

Free markets would truthfully eliminate almost all women's sports. Probably all of them.

What schools will be told is "you must honor free markets when it comes to paying players or at least NIL, but within the constraints of the massively market-distorting requirements of Title IX".

Crazy, but ....

Title IX requires gender equity in educational opportunities. Sports is drawn into its scope because it treats athletic scholarships and programs and educational opportunities. The SCOTUS ruling on player compensation effectively finds that players in revenue generating sports are employees. This is in direct conflict with the underlying rationale for applying Title IX to athletics. I think that it guts Title IX with respect to revenue sports.

This will have the greatest impact in regards to football, as Title IX requires a substantial number of women's sports to be offered by schools in order to balance out the number of scholarships offered for football. In other words, if football is removed from the scope of Title IX, football schools may be able to reduce significantly the number of women's sports offered.

Logically, I think the way you frame this is correct. Logically, the SCOTUS ruling should "gut" Title IX with respect to football and hoops.

But I do not believe that logic will prevail here. Rather, a logic based on liberal social-engineering will prevail, namely, what I said in the previous post.

(06-24-2021 02:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 11:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 09:59 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 06:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  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.

The Bush Administration withdrew their attempts to weaken the law in 2003. Polls back then showed 70% support among the public for Title IX. They got a lot of pushback from the public and politically it was not a wise move with an election coming up in 2004. They did sneak a change through in 2005, by allowing electronic surveys to gauge female students’ interest in playing sports. The Obama Administration reversed that decision in 2010.

In 1971, 7% of the athletes involved in high school sports were girls. In 2019, that number was 43%. In 1972, 43% of college students were female. In 2019, that number is about 57%. In 2019, women received 57% of bachelor’s degrees, 59% of master’s degrees. The country has changed and is not going backwards. Title IX is not going anywhere. There is no incentive for a politician to push for the elimination of the law or even change it.

I totally agree that Title IX is going absolutely nowhere and those who think these court rulings on pay will end up weakening it in the least are fooling themselves.

I also think the way Title IX enforcement has evolved over the past 50 years has resulted in weird ideological requirements that are divorced from economic reality or even social reality. But that is a hard message to get across to the public, because it means going in to the ideological weeds with the wackos to combat it, whereas supporters of these bizarro requirements can easily shout "that big bad conservative is trying to Kill Title IX and Send Your Daughter Soccer Players Back To Home-Ec Class!" or whatever.

So yes, it's just not a winning proposition for a politician to push on.

It has become kinda bizarro. When the law was passed in the early 1970's, 60% of the typical college student body was made up of men and only 40% were women. Now its completely reversed to the exact opposite extreme. Today, 60% of the campus student body are women and only 40% are men. If anything---a series of government actions aimed at increasing male higher education participation would probably make more sense---instead we are continuing to hammer the head of a nail that's already fully inserted simply because thats all the people in charge know how to do.

I agree, and I think the answer is, in addition to sheer force of habit, that some people have an interest - sometimes monetary, sometimes psychological - in continuing to fight battles that have been won.

It's also ideological in a broader sense. Maybe some gender-warriors can't bring themselves to admit maybe colleges are at least in some respects actually designed more favorably for women these days than men, because their whole ideology is based on a concept of Patriarchy, which says that society is always and fundamentally pro-men and anti-women. If they concede that women are thriving in college more than men, than that whole conceptual edifice is called in to question.

(06-24-2021 01:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  I have question without an agenda - I just want to know the answer. Are intercollegiate team sports widely played outside the US and Canada?

No - college sports in terms of what we see in the US doesn't exist in other countries (even Canada). There are true purely extracurricular athletic activities in colleges in other countries, but not the financial industrial complex around them at all. To my knowledge, no other countries have the concept of athletic scholarships (even in Canada for hockey or other sports).

The US is completely unique in how it treats college sports. Virtually everywhere else, getting into college is strictly a matter of grades and test scores with no consideration of extracurricular activities at all (sports or non-sports).

(06-24-2021 01:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 01:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  I have question without an agenda - I just want to know the answer. Are intercollegiate team sports widely played outside the US and Canada? For that matter, are they played in high schools?

It seems to me there is some justification for high school athletics as a way to serve the national interest by promoting physical fitness in our youth, apart from any lessons that might be learned about teamwork and leadership and perseverance (though those are a bonus). In a less agrarian society, and in a world where hand to hand combat skills are no longer as valuable as they were centuries ago, organized sports seem somewhat vestigial. Yet they persist.

If my memory serves me correctly (and it's been 60 years since I was in high school) a lot of guys played football because it seemed like a way to improve their chances of getting laid. Maybe that's not so true any more. What does the trick today?

Honest question from someone who last walked a high school 20 years after you did, in the early 1980s:

Did "getting laid" take place in high schools back in the early 1960s? From movies of that era, I get the idea that the most that happened back then was kissing and maybe some under-the-sweater fondling in the back seat of cars at Drive-In movies. But were some guys actually hitting triples and home runs in American high schools before the Beatles hit these shores? Girls were actually up or down with that when Fabian, the Four Seasons and Dion & the Belmonts were playing on the radio?

And by that I mean on a reasonably regular basis, not like once in a blue and red moon?

I don't know about succeeding, but trying was a 24-7 activity. And whether it was true or not, guys believed that playing football increased their chances. Movies notwithstanding, your generation didn't invent high school sex any more than mine did. It predates all of us.

(06-24-2021 03:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 01:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 01:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  I have question without an agenda - I just want to know the answer. Are intercollegiate team sports widely played outside the US and Canada? For that matter, are they played in high schools?

It seems to me there is some justification for high school athletics as a way to serve the national interest by promoting physical fitness in our youth, apart from any lessons that might be learned about teamwork and leadership and perseverance (though those are a bonus). In a less agrarian society, and in a world where hand to hand combat skills are no longer as valuable as they were centuries ago, organized sports seem somewhat vestigial. Yet they persist.

If my memory serves me correctly (and it's been 60 years since I was in high school) a lot of guys played football because it seemed like a way to improve their chances of getting laid. Maybe that's not so true any more. What does the trick today?

Honest question from someone who last walked a high school 20 years after you did, in the early 1980s:

Did "getting laid" take place in high schools back in the early 1960s? From movies of that era, I get the idea that the most that happened back then was kissing and maybe some under-the-sweater fondling in the back seat of cars at Drive-In movies. But were some guys actually hitting triples and home runs in American high schools before the Beatles hit these shores? Girls were actually up or down with that when Fabian, the Four Seasons and Dion & the Belmonts were playing on the radio?

And by that I mean on a reasonably regular basis, not like once in a blue and red moon?

I don't know about succeeding, but trying was a 24-7 activity. And whether it was true or not, guys believed that playing football increased their chances. Movies notwithstanding, your generation didn't invent high school sex any more than mine did. It predates all of us.

Yeah even Eve got caught talking with a different trouser snake!

WWI and WWII had "the Yanks coming over there." In WWII the Brits were concerned that GI's were overpaid, over sexed, and over there.

Ragtime, Jazz, Swing, Rock & Roll, and Hip Hop were all euphemisms for illicit attempts at procreation.

We went weird with Rap and haven't been the same since. More violence, less contact. My father said it was due to a Misdemeanor, "The more you miss, the meaner you get!" Seriously though when we quit dancing and replaced talking with texting interpersonal relationships and personal commitment took a nose dive. I don't see an immediate upside.

(06-24-2021 02:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 01:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  I have question without an agenda - I just want to know the answer. Are intercollegiate team sports widely played outside the US and Canada?

No - college sports in terms of what we see in the US doesn't exist in other countries (even Canada). There are true purely extracurricular athletic activities in colleges in other countries, but not the financial industrial complex around them at all. To my knowledge, no other countries have the concept of athletic scholarships (even in Canada for hockey or other sports).

The US is completely unique in how it treats college sports. Virtually everywhere else, getting into college is strictly a matter of grades and test scores with no consideration of extracurricular activities at all (sports or non-sports).

Don’t know much about other countries but intercollegiate team sports are common at least in Japan and Korea. They are not as popular as in the U.S., but many of these college athletes do join pro teams. Somewhat similar to the ivy league, six colleges in Tokyo formed a small league to play baseball:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Bi...all_League

Also high school baseball is very popular in Japan. For college admission, the students seeking to be professionals usually go through a different admission process and major in sports related majors. The sports skills is a major consideration for that admission. Not all colleges have this special admission. Intercollegiate sports in Japan and Korea are not commercialized like in the U.S. and as far as I know no sports scholarship is available. Lastly, there is no such thing as Title IX.

(06-24-2021 12:04 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I have two daughters and I believe I am quite Americanized but this thing is confusing to me.

Does the US government believe physical capacity of men and women are different?

If no, then the Title IX doesn’t make sense.

If yes, then the US government understands that certain physically demanding jobs can only be handled by certain (not all) men? Are we OK with this logic? It seems like we are being taught there is no such work in the world.

Also, if the equal access is that important, I guess the equal responsibilty is eqaully important. Why are only men required to register for the draft?

Title IX consists of 37 words:
"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."

There is no mention of athletics or sports. The law just ensured equality for women in educational and athletic programs that receive federal funding. Just like the 19th Amendment in 1920 gave women the right to vote just like men, Title IX was about equal opportunity regardless of gender. Which should be a positive thing for your daughters.

Under the Military Selective Service Act, women are not required or even permitted to register for the draft. I am not sure I see the point in anyone registering for the draft since there is no actual military draft. Congress should change the law to either require everyone to register or eliminate the need to register for the draft, especially since active conscription through the military draft ended in 1973.

(06-24-2021 04:29 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 12:04 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I have two daughters and I believe I am quite Americanized but this thing is confusing to me.

Does the US government believe physical capacity of men and women are different?

If no, then the Title IX doesn’t make sense.

If yes, then the US government understands that certain physically demanding jobs can only be handled by certain (not all) men? Are we OK with this logic? It seems like we are being taught there is no such work in the world.

Also, if the equal access is that important, I guess the equal responsibilty is eqaully important. Why are only men required to register for the draft?

Title IX consists of 37 words:
"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."

There is no mention of athletics or sports. The law just ensured equality for women in educational and athletic programs that receive federal funding. Just like the 19th Amendment in 1920 gave women the right to vote just like men, Title IX was about equal opportunity regardless of gender. Which should be a positive thing for your daughters.

Under the Military Selective Service Act, women are not required or even permitted to register for the draft. I am not sure I see the point in anyone registering for the draft since there is no actual military draft. Congress should change the law to either require everyone to register or eliminate the need to register for the draft, especially since active conscription through the military draft ended in 1973.

As some of us discussed above---its more about tweaking how its applied and its priorities than any real beef with the basic concept. By the way---by their very definition---every womens sport technically violates the exact wording of Title-9 (read the first 12 words). We all understand why---but Im just showing how we let some things slide if only men are excluded. Imagine the outcry if the Vandy female kicker was not allowed to play because it was a "mens football team".

(06-24-2021 04:29 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 12:04 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I have two daughters and I believe I am quite Americanized but this thing is confusing to me.

Does the US government believe physical capacity of men and women are different?

If no, then the Title IX doesn’t make sense.

If yes, then the US government understands that certain physically demanding jobs can only be handled by certain (not all) men? Are we OK with this logic? It seems like we are being taught there is no such work in the world.

Also, if the equal access is that important, I guess the equal responsibilty is eqaully important. Why are only men required to register for the draft?

Title IX consists of 37 words:
"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."

There is no mention of athletics or sports. The law just ensured equality for women in educational and athletic programs that receive federal funding. Just like the 19th Amendment in 1920 gave women the right to vote just like men, Title IX was about equal opportunity regardless of gender. Which should be a positive thing for your daughters.

Under the Military Selective Service Act, women are not required or even permitted to register for the draft. I am not sure I see the point in anyone registering for the draft since there is no actual military draft. Congress should change the law to either require everyone to register or eliminate the need to register for the draft, especially since active conscription through the military draft ended in 1973.

I believe that bolded part should read "programs at schools that receive federal funding". It requires that athletics be considered an educational program, which the NCAA vigorously asserts through its use of the term "student athlete".

(06-24-2021 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 03:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 01:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 01:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  I have question without an agenda - I just want to know the answer. Are intercollegiate team sports widely played outside the US and Canada? For that matter, are they played in high schools?

It seems to me there is some justification for high school athletics as a way to serve the national interest by promoting physical fitness in our youth, apart from any lessons that might be learned about teamwork and leadership and perseverance (though those are a bonus). In a less agrarian society, and in a world where hand to hand combat skills are no longer as valuable as they were centuries ago, organized sports seem somewhat vestigial. Yet they persist.

If my memory serves me correctly (and it's been 60 years since I was in high school) a lot of guys played football because it seemed like a way to improve their chances of getting laid. Maybe that's not so true any more. What does the trick today?

Honest question from someone who last walked a high school 20 years after you did, in the early 1980s:

Did "getting laid" take place in high schools back in the early 1960s? From movies of that era, I get the idea that the most that happened back then was kissing and maybe some under-the-sweater fondling in the back seat of cars at Drive-In movies. But were some guys actually hitting triples and home runs in American high schools before the Beatles hit these shores? Girls were actually up or down with that when Fabian, the Four Seasons and Dion & the Belmonts were playing on the radio?

And by that I mean on a reasonably regular basis, not like once in a blue and red moon?

I don't know about succeeding, but trying was a 24-7 activity. And whether it was true or not, guys believed that playing football increased their chances. Movies notwithstanding, your generation didn't invent high school sex any more than mine did. It predates all of us.

Yeah even Eve got caught talking with a different trouser snake!

WWI and WWII had "the Yanks coming over there." In WWII the Brits were concerned that GI's were overpaid, over sexed, and over there.

Ragtime, Jazz, Swing, Rock & Roll, and Hip Hop were all euphemisms for illicit attempts at procreation.

We went weird with Rap and haven't been the same since. More violence, less contact. My father said it was due to a Misdemeanor, "The more you miss, the meaner you get!" Seriously though when we quit dancing and replaced talking with texting interpersonal relationships and personal commitment took a nose dive. I don't see an immediate upside.

I must confess that my personal experience with high school sex was mostly vicarious and anecdotal. That's what you get when you are a 13 year old freshman attending an all male high school in 1958 in a different state than the one you live in.

(06-23-2021 02:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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.

Call me a crazy free-marketer, but I don't think it's the government's job to intentionally move supply way out of whack with demand.

I get that there's structural differences because co-ed sports competitions aren't as fair as co-ed engineering competitions.

I don't have the solution here. The 1950s solution of "no sports for girls" wasn't fair, but at least it was closer aligned to the actual interest in sports participation than the current system. In terms of matching supply with demand, it was fairer than today's system.

Today, women's sports are self-sustaining. If Title IX was repealed, women's sports wouldn't disappear. But you would see an end to ridiculous recruiting efforts like UC publicly begging women to join the golf team just to meet a Title IX requirement (yes, that actually happened in the early 2000s. It happened at my wife's D3 college also, and she got a whole lot of cool gear by joining the team golf team for a year even though she's an awful golfer).

(06-23-2021 08:47 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  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.

correct, which is what they will do in those other programs.

(06-24-2021 05:36 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Call me a crazy free-marketer, but I don't think it's the government's job to intentionally move supply way out of whack with demand.

I agree. And I think the intent of Title IX was in no way designed to do that (if I'm wrong and it was, then that's IMO pretty wacky).

But it does seem clear that how Title IX enforcement has evolved is along the lines of feminist theory. Namely, a theory that denies that women "naturally" have less desire to play sports, but rather says that lesser female interest in sports is instead the result of artificial suppression of their natural desire to do so via traditional Patriarchal social norms and practices.

So to the feminist, it doesn't bother them at all that schools are forced to supply equal scholarships to men's and women's sports despite the manifestly lesser female interest in sports, to the contrary, that lesser interest is itself viewed as evidence that More Work Needs To Be Done to overcome the Vestiges Of Patriarchy, or something like that.

These feminists also believe that the reason the public e.g. cares far more about watching men's sports like football or men's basketball isn't because of natural preferences, but is also because we've all been brainwashed by Patriarchy to value men's sports more, such that absent Patriarchy, there would be 80,000 people paying $100 each to watch women's volleyball or something like we do for the NFL. So that needs to be overcome, too.

It's pretty wild stuff, but amazingly influential in academia, corporations and politics - IOWs the power centers of society. It's basically why the NBA has been willing to lose $10 million a year on the WNBA for the past 1/4 century.

(06-24-2021 05:36 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Call me a crazy free-marketer, but I don't think it's the government's job to intentionally move supply way out of whack with demand. ...

It shouldn't be, which is why the use of the funds of public universities to subsidize minor leagues for the NFL and NBA is so suspect.

If the falsehood that those minor leagues are actually primarily educational opportunities for students of the school was abandoned, and they were set up as for profit organizations with a formal affiliation with the school ... with the affiliation agreement possibly including a right to take coursework at the school if the player wishes to do so ... then the remaining sports programs of Universities would be more balanced, just as the programs of the D1 Non Football Subdivision schools tend to have much more gender balance in their sports sponsorships than the programs of D1 FBS schools.

(06-25-2021 06:44 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 05:36 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Call me a crazy free-marketer, but I don't think it's the government's job to intentionally move supply way out of whack with demand. ...

It shouldn't be, which is why the use of the funds of public universities to subsidize minor leagues for the NFL and NBA is so suspect.

If the falsehood that those minor leagues are actually primarily educational opportunities for students of the school was abandoned, and they were set up as for profit organizations with a formal affiliation with the school ... with the affiliation agreement possibly including a right to take coursework at the school if the player wishes to do so ... then the remaining sports programs of Universities would be more balanced, just as the programs of the D1 Non Football Subdivision schools tend to have much more gender balance in their sports sponsorships than the programs of D1 FBS schools.

Indeed.

What if some farsighted corporation in the entertainment business (someone like, say, Disney) were to decide to go into the sports business by establishing a new professional football league? They could negotiate licensing and facilities leasing arrangements with some of the top universities (say about 72 of them) and divide them into two conferences consisting of 6 six team divisions each with a sort of college super bowl matching the two conference champions.

Then colleges would be free to do away with athletic scholarships entirely, and grant need-based scholarships instead. Title IX would still require that they sponsor a comparable number of athletic teams based on gender, and they would still be required to allow NIL payments by third parties in all sports. But the cost of sponsoring teams would be substantially lower than it is now, given that they wouldn't have to pay their coaches the outrageous salaries the current athletic arms race dictates.

I can see some of the team names for this new league: the Alabama Crimson Tide, the Oklahoma Sooners, the Ohio State Buckeyes, the Central Florida Knights, the Boise Broncos, etc.

I think it could work.

(06-25-2021 07:13 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-25-2021 06:44 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 05:36 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Call me a crazy free-marketer, but I don't think it's the government's job to intentionally move supply way out of whack with demand. ...

It shouldn't be, which is why the use of the funds of public universities to subsidize minor leagues for the NFL and NBA is so suspect.

If the falsehood that those minor leagues are actually primarily educational opportunities for students of the school was abandoned, and they were set up as for profit organizations with a formal affiliation with the school ... with the affiliation agreement possibly including a right to take coursework at the school if the player wishes to do so ... then the remaining sports programs of Universities would be more balanced, just as the programs of the D1 Non Football Subdivision schools tend to have much more gender balance in their sports sponsorships than the programs of D1 FBS schools.

Indeed.

What if some farsighted corporation in the entertainment business (someone like, say, Disney) were to decide to go into the sports business by establishing a new professional football league? They could negotiate licensing and facilities leasing arrangements with some of the top universities (say about 72 of them) and divide them into two conferences consisting of 6 six team divisions each with a sort of college super bowl matching the two conference champions.

Then colleges would be free to do away with athletic scholarships entirely, and grant need-based scholarships instead. Title IX would still require that they sponsor a comparable number of athletic teams based on gender, and they would still be required to allow NIL payments by third parties in all sports. But the cost of sponsoring teams would be substantially lower than it is now, given that they wouldn't have to pay their coaches the outrageous salaries the current athletic arms race dictates.

I can see some of the team names for this new league: the Alabama Crimson Tide, the Oklahoma Sooners, the Ohio State Buckeyes, the Central Florida Knights, the Boise Broncos, etc.

I think it could work.

What would be cooler is if there were two 24 team leagues (4X6), one owned by Fox and the other by ESPN. They could have 70 man rosters, and each league could have its own draft of high school players (which means players drafted by both would have a choice, setting up potential salary competition for the five star players.)

I'm guessing the rest of the FBS would still want to be able to offer scholarships (they've always been gluttons for punishment). With most of the top talent going to the new salary leagues (3,360 players on the 70 man rosters plus some who are signed to practice squads) these schools could lower the level of the recruiting arms race and overall athletics department costs by eliminating the classification of "headcount sports" and making all teams' limits FSE's (full scholarship equivalents). Football teams could have a 36 FSE limit, meaning you could have 72 players on half scholarship). That would help a lot with Title IX.

In regards to the high school and college athletics portion of Title IX, there needs to be a way to exempt or requantify Football participation numbers. It has such a high number of participants that it makes having a balanced sports lineup almost impossible for most colleges. Men's sports, especially at the collegiate level, have been disproportionately effected and it needs to be rectified if we want M Olympic sports to survive.

(06-25-2021 11:15 AM)Shox Wrote:  In regards to the high school and college athletics portion of Title IX, there needs to be a way to exempt or requantify Football participation numbers. It has such a high number of participants that it makes having a balanced sports lineup almost impossible for most colleges. Men's sports, especially at the collegiate level, have been disproportionately effected and it needs to be rectified if we want M Olympic sports to survive.

The problem isn't so much that there are too many participants in football. The problem is that there are too many scholarships allowed. Other sports have to get by with far fewer scholarships than roster sizes. Football is the prima donna, so coaches get to have bloated rosters and tons of full scholarships. Reduce the limit from 85 to 45 and allow partials and you don't have much of a problem.