Jump to content


Expanding Football Roster Has Title IX, Logistical Issues


Mavric

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

 

My point about awarding athletic scholarships by race was not a serious one, but rather intended to demonstrate how ridiculous awarding athletic scholarships by gender is. Even if you want to make the argument that is was necessary 50 years ago, it is far more difficult to argue that it is necessary now. The whole logic behind affirmative action programs is to provide a temporary remedy for a historical injustice. By definition then, those programs need to eventually be phased out and end.

 

An entirely new chapter is unfolding right now.  In the state of Texas, they have high school girls wrestling separate from boys wrestling.  For the second year in a row, a transgender athlete won a state championship.  The state of Texas has a rule where the athlete has to wrestle as the sex recorded on their birth certificate.  The transgender athlete has been taking male hormones in preparation for a sex reassignment surgery.  This is where the fine line gets blurred.  Any other girl wrestling in the state of Texas who was randomly selected for a drug test would be banned from competition if found taking male hormones.   

Link to comment

48 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

My point about awarding athletic scholarships by race was not a serious one, but rather intended to demonstrate how ridiculous awarding athletic scholarships by gender is. Even if you want to make the argument that is was necessary 50 years ago, it is far more difficult to argue that it is necessary now. The whole logic behind affirmative action programs is to provide a temporary remedy for a historical injustice. By definition then, those programs need to eventually be phased out and end.

Why in your opinion is it far more difficult to argue gender-based programs like Title IX are necessary in 2018? Almost every viable data point is tied to Title IX, but outside of the data, it exists because there's still obvious gender bias in our society. It's in place to prevent the very thing you've been discussing - the judgement of sports based on quality and revenue. If this is how we did things nationwide then you would say goodbye to any semblance of gender-balance in college athletics. I for one believe that would be a huge disappointment. Most universities would scrap or get rid of the majority of their female sports. And the men's sports, particularly ones with significant advantages already, would get even more powerful.

 

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but if the basis of your argument is we shouldn't have to worry about any of this stuff, then I agree. The problem is that this viewpoint is unrealistic and naive to the realities of society.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Enhance said:

Why in your opinion is it far more difficult to argue gender-based programs like Title IX are necessary in 2018? Almost every viable data point is tied to Title IX, but outside of the data, it exists because there's still obvious gender bias in our society. It's in place to prevent the very thing you've been discussing - the judgement of sports based on quality and revenue. If this is how we did things nationwide then you would say goodbye to any semblance of gender-balance in college athletics. I for one believe that would be a huge disappointment. Most universities would scrap or get rid of the majority of their female sports. And the men's sports, particularly ones with significant advantages already, would get even more powerful.

 

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but if the basis of your argument is we shouldn't have to worry about any of this stuff, then I agree. The problem is that this viewpoint is unrealistic and naive to the realities of society.

 

If, fifty years after Title IX, women’s sports haven’t gained traction, that is they can’t pay for themselves because no one cares enough to watch or buy tickets, what does that say? Do we just prop them up and subsidize them forever? 

 

I can think of a LOT of things I care FAR more about than whether there are enough female bowlers on campus to even out the numbers of male and female athletes. You want women to have opportunities to play sports. So let them play intramural sports. Who says we have to give them a free ride because they can play some psuedosport no one cares about? You want female athletes to have scholarships. So let them. Who says they have to get an equal number to male athletes? Why not exempt revenue-generating sports and have men and women get equal numbers for non-revenue generating sports? Then schools are subsidizing the same number of scholarships for sports no one cares about.

 

I’ll be curious as well how the current trend of gender fluidity/confusion affects Title IX and intercollegiate athletics. If a boy identifies as a girl or vice versa, how is s/he classified? Which team does s/he play on? Does s/he count as male or female for Title IX purposes? What if the individuals fails to identify or identifies as non-binary? Then what? 

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, junior4949 said:

 

An entirely new chapter is unfolding right now.  In the state of Texas, they have high school girls wrestling separate from boys wrestling.  For the second year in a row, a transgender athlete won a state championship.  The state of Texas has a rule where the athlete has to wrestle as the sex recorded on their birth certificate.  The transgender athlete has been taking male hormones in preparation for a sex reassignment surgery.  This is where the fine line gets blurred.  Any other girl wrestling in the state of Texas who was randomly selected for a drug test would be banned from competition if found taking male hormones.   

 

Yep. It’s a crazy new world we live in. The irony is that it could easily destroy women’s athletics if men who identify as women or women taking hormones are allowed to compete with a substantial advantage. 

Link to comment
On 2/23/2018 at 8:35 AM, Mavric said:

 

Moos said there are not firm plans yet on how to accomplish that, but he expects to begin discussions with Frost, compliance and finance experts in the athletic department by early March. Those discussions will then be factored into athletic department budget plans for the 2018-2019 fiscal year that begins in July.

 

"Begin discussions with Frost"?  Begin??   Seems like someone may have put the cart before the horse.  

Link to comment

Is this really that big of a deal? I doubt they were going to add those 20+ walkons to expand the roster in one class. If the add an extra 4 or 5 walkons a year wouldn't that give them time to expand women's sports by either adding a walkon or two to certain women's teams or add another team?

 

I just dont think this will be that hard to do over a extended period of time.

Link to comment
On 3/4/2018 at 8:45 PM, Ric Flair said:

After 50 or so years of Title IX, women’s sports should be able to stand on their own and pay for themselves.

 

But a fairer system in my view, is to either 1) eliminate sports that don’t pay for themselves

 

 

Why do you continue to ignore the responses to these 2 comments?

After centuries of men being involved in sports, men's sports should be able to stand on their own and pay for themselves. Well, that's not the case for pretty much any sport other than football and basketball.

 

So you want there to be 2 college sports.

You say things are so unfair for male swimmers, male divers, and male soccer players.

 

There isn't a single men's soccer program in the entire country that turns a profit. I haven't found any swim teams that turn a profit, and I'm not even going to look up diving. Your argument has been terrible from the beginning and still is. College athletics isn't supposed to be about money making, and that's what a lot of people like about it. Even the athletic departments that don't turn a profit overall see the benefit in having an athletic department.

Edited by Moiraine
  • Plus1 4
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Why do you continue to ignore the responses to these 2 comments?

After centuries of men being involved in sports, men's sports should be able to stand on their own and pay for themselves. Well, that's not the case for pretty much any sport other than football and basketball.

 

So you want there to be 2 college sports.

You say things are so unfair for male swimmers, male divers, and male soccer players.

 

There isn't a single men's soccer program in the entire country that turns a profit. I haven't found any swim teams that turn a profit, and I'm not even going to look up diving. Your argument has been terrible from the beginning and still is. College athletics isn't supposed to be about money making, and that's what a lot of people like about it. Even the athletic departments that don't turn a profit overall see the benefit in having an athletic department.

 

I’m not ignoring anything. Football and basketball didn’t even exist hundreds of years ago. Collegiate sports are fairly recent as well.

 

I’m pointing out that simply dividing athletic scholarships 50/50 between men and women isn’t necessarily fair. Due to the number of scholarships football requires, Title IX makes it so female bowlers, swimmers, divers, etc. can receive college scholarships while male athletes cannot. Is that fair and equitable? I doubt it seems so to the male athletes who had their college teams eliminated as a part of the pursuit for political correctness.

 

I’m pointing out that programs that generate revenue or pay for themselves should be exempted from Title IX. If you’re not going to get rid of Title IX, at least make it make sense. So make it require that college subsidize the same number of scholarships for men and women in the sports that don’t pay for themselves. That’s more equitable than the current system.

 

And let’s be real. There’s a reason people would rather see men play sports than women. Men are bigger, faster, stronger, and more athletic. It’s a novelty when even a woman playing professional basketball slam dunks a basketball. Men do that multiple times a game as a matter of course. Another way to be equitable would be to eliminate the “separate but equal” gendered sports and make all athletes compete for spots on teams that disregard gender. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

I’m not ignoring anything.


Yes you are. In fact, you just did it again. Here is your quote:
 

Quote

eliminate sports that don’t pay for themselves


You think all sports except football and basketball should be eliminated.

Edited by Moiraine
  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Moiraine said:


Yes you are. In fact, you just did it again. Here is your quote:
 


You think all sports except football and basketball should be eliminated.

 

Not necessarily. I proposed that as one option. They’re sports that people care about and make money, which pays for the scholarships women get for rifle, bowling, etc. 

 

You’re a pretty vocal advocate for women’s sports. So when’s the last time you went to a women’s bowling match? Or stopped by a rifle match?

Link to comment

10 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Not necessarily. I proposed that as one option. They’re sports that people care about and make money, which pays for the scholarships women get for rifle, bowling, etc.

 

You’re a pretty vocal advocate for women’s sports. So when’s the last time you went to a women’s bowling match? Or stopped by a rifle match?


Who else does it pay for scholarships for? You know only 2 men's sports are profitable, and you know they, and volleyball, are paying for men's sports and women's sports. Stop beating around the damn bush over and over.

I'm an advocate for Title IX to stay the way it is. I haven't been to a male or female sporting event in at least 5 years. The university gets more out of sports than just the flat revenue they make from them. I think society benefits from having both men and women involved in college athletics. I promise you the men on these teams want there to be women in official sports too.

Edited by Moiraine
  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Moiraine said:


Who else does it pay for scholarships for? You know only 2 men's sports are profitable, and you know they, and volleyball, are paying for men's sports and women's sports. Stop beating around the damn bush over and over.

I'm an advocate for Title IX to stay the way it is. I haven't been to a male or female sporting event in at least 5 years. The university gets more out of sports than just the flat revenue they make from them. I think society benefits from having both men and women involved in college athletics. I promise you the men on these teams want there to be women in official sports too.

 

I think society and the university system would benefit far more from more subsidizing of scholarships and grants for poor kids and less subsidizing of scholarships and grants for people good at obscure sports. Many of those kids come from families wealthy enough to pay for lessons, club teams, etc. for those obscure sports and could send their kids to school without a scholarship.

 

 

Link to comment
Quote

I think society and the university system would benefit far more from more subsidizing of scholarships and grants for poor kids boys and less subsidizing of scholarships and grants for people good at obscure sports almost all female athletes, and some male athletes too

 

Moiraine, you're being too vocal here, pipe down. Leave the speaking up to men who want to gut Title IX.

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

I alluded to this earlier. The vast majority of fbs football is subsidized by the individual schools. It hasnt been until recently that more than a handful of schools actually made money off football. 

 

Having intercollegiate sports enhances the college experience for regular students as well as the student athletes. Eliminating the non-revenue and female sports would just push students to other colleges that offer them. Title IX does more than just help female athletes. And if someone cant see that they are being willfully ignorant about it.

  • Plus1 4
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

I think society and the university system would benefit far more from more subsidizing of scholarships and grants for poor kids and less subsidizing of scholarships and grants for people good at obscure sports. Many of those kids come from families wealthy enough to pay for lessons, club teams, etc. for those obscure sports and could send their kids to school without a scholarship.

The end result would ultimately be the elimination of female sports and most male sports at the collegiate level. Keep in mind, as stated previously, that most major sports do not turn revenues. This subsidization you speak of would include the possible and likely elimination of baseball, lacrosse, softball, volleyball, bowling, hockey and the list goes on. In the end, the primary winner is young men who play football and basketball. That's a big disappointment in many ways.

  • Plus1 2
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...