Jump to content


Expanding Football Roster Has Title IX, Logistical Issues


Mavric

Recommended Posts


9 hours ago, Enhance said:

Some of this discussion is just nonsensical - Title IX has been around since the 70's and is a federal mandate. It's about opportunity and fairness. It's not going to change.

 

Opportunity and fairness for who? Certainly not any male swimmers, divers, or soccer players who hoped to play for the University and obtain a scholarship. Ask them how ‘fair’ this politically correct nonsense is.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Opportunity and fairness for who? Certainly not any male swimmers, divers, or soccer players who hoped to play for the University and obtain a scholarship. Ask them how ‘fair’ this politically correct nonsense is.

You already answered your own question of why fairness needs to be protected with your previous post:

On 3/3/2018 at 4:11 PM, Ric Flair said:

 

I’m pretty sure most of the boosters want to see their money going to football and basketball...not women’s bowling or rifle shooting.

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

You already answered your own question of why fairness needs to be protected with your previous post:

 

 

There are two separate issues here. Why is it somehow ‘fair’ to have the same number of male and female scholarships? After 50 or so years of Title IX, women’s sports should be able to stand on their own and pay for themselves. If they can’t, then end them.

 

But a fairer system in my view, is to either 1) eliminate sports that don’t pay for themselves, or 2) limit Title IX to non-revenue generating sports. When football not only pays for itself, but generates the money that funds everything else, why are those scholarships counted in such a way that limits other scholarships that could be available to male athletes in other sports? 

 

Why do we simply accept these quotas as ‘fair’?

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

There are two separate issues here. Why is it somehow ‘fair’ to have the same number of male and female scholarships? After 50 or so years of Title IX, women’s sports should be able to stand on their own and pay for themselves. If they can’t, then end them.

 

But a fairer system in my view, is to either 1) eliminate sports that don’t pay for themselves, or 2) limit Title IX to non-revenue generating sports. When football not only pays for itself, but generates the money that funds everything else, why are those scholarships counted in such a way that limits other scholarships that could be available to male athletes in other sports? 

 

Why do we simply accept these quotas as ‘fair’?

If we were talking about professional sports that are businesses designed to create profits, then I'd agree with you. But we're talking about universities that are supposed to be about learning. How is a revenue metric even relevant for a university? An equally valid question is: why not eliminate revenue in university sports? Answer: because it provides funds for additional learning opportunities outside the specific sport making money. That's how you end up talking about fairness and equality - fairness and equality in opportunity of education. If we're not talking about sports in the university as part of education and learning, then split those sports out as minor league teams and let them profit or fold as a business.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

47 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

If we were talking about professional sports that are businesses designed to create profits, then I'd agree with you. But we're talking about universities that are supposed to be about learning. How is a revenue metric even relevant for a university? An equally valid question is: why not eliminate revenue in university sports? Answer: because it provides funds for additional learning opportunities outside the specific sport making money. That's how you end up talking about fairness and equality - fairness and equality in opportunity of education. If we're not talking about sports in the university as part of education and learning, then split those sports out as minor league teams and let them profit or fold as a business.

 

If it’s all about learning, then get rid of intercollegiate sports entirely. 

 

How Is fairness and opportunity to be based simply on gender? So Oprah’s daughter (if she had one) gets a bowling scholarship, but there’s no swimming team for some poor kid from Appalachia to be able to qualify for a scholarship for? Smells like bull**** to me.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

There are two separate issues here. Why is it somehow ‘fair’ to have the same number of male and female scholarships? After 50 or so years of Title IX, women’s sports should be able to stand on their own and pay for themselves. If they can’t, then end them.

 

But a fairer system in my view, is to either 1) eliminate sports that don’t pay for themselves, or 2) limit Title IX to non-revenue generating sports. When football not only pays for itself, but generates the money that funds everything else, why are those scholarships counted in such a way that limits other scholarships that could be available to male athletes in other sports? 

 

Why do we simply accept these quotas as ‘fair’?

 

thats gonna leave like 10-15 schools playing football. lets do it.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Opportunity and fairness for who? Certainly not any male swimmers, divers, or soccer players who hoped to play for the University and obtain a scholarship. Ask them how ‘fair’ this politically correct nonsense is.

Male athletes have historically had clear advantages in college athletics, particularly in football and basketball. This particular portion of Title IX was implemented to ensure female athletes had equal opportunities at these institutions. Your personal opinion is, quite honestly, misguided and irrelevant.

 

You can stick your feet in the dirt and cry foul as much as you want but you have no legal standing in this battle and Title IX has mostly overwhelming support at all levels of government.

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

On 2/23/2018 at 2:06 PM, Moiraine said:

Add women's hockey or women's lacrosse. 

 

We should do that anyway. I think hockey would generate more $.

 

I would prefer we not add women's hockey until we add a men's hockey program--if we add women's hockey without the men's program being added, we'll never see men's hockey at DoNU. 

 

I would like to see lacrosse and women's rugby be added for now, then hopefully look at hockey down the road, especially after all of the asinine budget cut talk/action has been exhausted.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, VectorVictor said:

 

I would prefer we not add women's hockey until we add a men's hockey program--if we add women's hockey without the men's program being added, we'll never see men's hockey at DoNU. 

 

I would like to see lacrosse and women's rugby be added for now, then hopefully look at hockey down the road, especially after all of the asinine budget cut talk/action has been exhausted.

 

 

If that's the case I agree. But if we're never getting men's hockey anyway, we should get women's.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

If it’s all about learning, then get rid of intercollegiate sports entirely. 

 

How Is fairness and opportunity to be based simply on gender? So Oprah’s daughter (if she had one) gets a bowling scholarship, but there’s no swimming team for some poor kid from Appalachia to be able to qualify for a scholarship for? Smells like bull**** to me.

As I said, getting rid of intercollegiate sports is one way to achieve equality, but it's obviously ridiculous because we've found another way to do it that keeps sports.

 

The reason it's gender-based is partially based on historically under-represented groups (women in sports) and also because we have separate men's and women's sports teams.

 

And your weird theoretical example at the end makes no sense.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
12 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

If it’s all about learning, then get rid of intercollegiate sports entirely

 

How Is fairness and opportunity to be based simply on gender? So Oprah’s daughter (if she had one) gets a bowling scholarship, but there’s no swimming team for some poor kid from Appalachia to be able to qualify for a scholarship for? Smells like bull**** to me.

 

Does anyone else have the feeling we're slowly but surely gravitating this way?  If the NCAA continues to operate as it has, we'll soon be there.  When one looks at what's going on with college basketball right now, it's just a matter of time before college football gets the same look.  It would be naïve to think college football hasn't been operating similar to college basketball. 

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...