Expanding Football Roster Has Title IX, Logistical Issues

GSG said:
Vnl.gif
Click to expand...




His hind quarters aren’t all that. 

 
Moiraine said:
That's just weird. You're applying thoughts of discrimination to the sports themselves. Why does it matter how many sports there are? What should matter is how many athletes can play. Replacing the women's sports with touch football wouldn't do anything except reduce the # of sports on one side and increase it on the other. It changes nothing about the opportunity for athletes - except there's a good chance there wouldn't be enough interest of athletes to fill the roster, which translates to not enough female athletes in the AD. Great plan there. You're talking about fairness in sport # as if the sports themselves have feelings. It makes no sense. You seem to just be mad your pet male sport that generates no revenue isn't there. I'd like there to be hockey too, but it has literally nothing to do with fairness in gender - it only has to do with my personal desires.

It just makes no sense to force schools to do the same sports for each gender. The sports they pick should be determined by interest and the # of athletes available, while keeping the genders fairly equal. That's what they're doing.

btw, why would it need to be touch football? f#&% that. And why are you sadistic about it, wanting the games to be on Mondays and no practices and 1 coach. Why do you want to punish the women playing the sport you want to allow them to play? Why are you calling this team you're creating a "token" women's football team? All of these things you're saying are pretty damn mysoginist.
Click to expand...
I have no pet male sport other than football and my argument is mostly from a logical standpoint although I am outraged that Title IX is unfair to one gender simply because it didn’t account for roster size of one sport-football.  That being the case, they should have created a women’s football program just to balance out the numbers. I don’t care if it’s touch or tackle and nobody will turn down a free scholarship no matter how unpopular the sport. You could probably even get walkons willing to compete for scholarships.  Tuesday night might be a better game time in order to not compete with HS-NFL. None of this matters since it will never be popular and is just there to even out numbers to satisfy a well meaning but misguided rule. Once the numbers for football are even then it’s easy to equitably and fairly balance out the other sports. Pick and choose whatever sports to do so- women’s lacrosse to balance out men’s tennis as long as the numbers even out. It’s logical if we are trying to be equitable that one rule should be for sports such as basketball that are played by both genders they are required to have same number of athletes on the men’s team as the women’s team. That doesn’t mandate that a school must have the opposite gender if a sport is played by one gender.  Nebraska shouldn’t be required to add a men’s volleyball team. If they choose to then they should be given same number of athletes as the women’s team even though it won’t be as popular.  I have no interest in hockey, these are examples.

In my scenario, some men and women’s sports would probably be cut which to me seems fair. Once other sports start to suffer then it’s possible that the 85 limit will be reduced (affecting both men and women football) which is also fair. What happened instead was men’s sports were cut while the women’s team for the same sport remained. That doesn’t seem right. 

All of this silliness could have been  avoided with common sense by recognizing that women play volleyball and men play football. Now balance out athletes for genders across all the other programs.

 
4skers89 said:
I have no pet male sport other than football and my argument is mostly from a logical standpoint although I am outraged that Title IX is unfair to one gender simply because it didn’t account for roster size of one sport-football.  That being the case, they should have created a women’s football program just to balance out the numbers. I don’t care if it’s touch or tackle and nobody will turn down a free scholarship no matter how unpopular the sport. You could probably even get walkons willing to compete for scholarships.  Tuesday night might be a better game time in order to not compete with HS-NFL. None of this matters since it will never be popular and is just there to even out numbers to satisfy a well meaning but misguided rule. Once the numbers for football are even then it’s easy to equitably and fairly balance out the other sports. Pick and choose whatever sports to do so- women’s lacrosse to balance out men’s tennis as long as the numbers even out. It’s logical if we are trying to be equitable that one rule should be for sports such as basketball that are played by both genders they are required to have same number of athletes on the men’s team as the women’s team. That doesn’t mandate that a school must have the opposite gender if a sport is played by one gender.  Nebraska shouldn’t be required to add a men’s volleyball team. If they choose to then they should be given same number of athletes as the women’s team even though it won’t be as popular.  I have no interest in hockey, these are examples.

In my scenario, some men and women’s sports would probably be cut which to me seems fair. Once other sports start to suffer then it’s possible that the 85 limit will be reduced (affecting both men and women football) which is also fair. What happened instead was men’s sports were cut while the women’s team for the same sport remained. That doesn’t seem right. 

All of this silliness could have been  avoided with common sense by recognizing that women play volleyball and men play football. Now balance out athletes for genders across all the other programs.
Click to expand...






Ya, your argument still makes no sense. The number of athletes matters when it comes to fairness for the athletes. But even if we pretend it’s the # of sports that matters when it comes to the athletes (you yourself said it doesn’t - “nobody will turn down a free scholarship”), your math doesn’t make sense either. 

Your bad idea (a women’s football team to balance things) decreases the # of women’s sports while keeping the # of men’s sports the same. There is a budget. Adding a female football team doesn’t magically mean we can then add more men’s sports. 

You’re obssessing on the # of sports and it makes no sense. It’s not unfair to men to have the same # of scholarships available (it’s actually higher) and you yourself just said nobody would turn down a scholarship so it doesn’t matter if there are fewer sports. 

The only thing that’s unfair is if we’re focusing only on capitalism, in which case the only teams that should exist are football, men’s basketball, and women’s volleyball. Perhaps only football since more $ toward football would probably increase profits by more than what we get from the other 2. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some schools do have other men's sports such as hockey , soccer, and volleyball and they too must find a way to create the balance required by Title IX.  You just don't "invent" a college sport to satisfy the boundaries of Title IX, it has to make sense and have kids playing that sport to feed into it.  If you look at the total number of sanctioned NCAA sports, there are a lot we don't have here in Nebraska.  If your football coach wants 150 or more men on the football team, even if they are walk-on's, the AD has to see if they can make it work and that is either by elimination of other men's opportunities or creating new opportunities for women.  Nebraska had a men's gymnastic team at one time and I am sure there are others we used to have.  For the benefit of all athletes, I have no problem with Title IX as schools (from junior high to college) were not doing justice towards female sports on their own.  

College Athletic Scholarship Limits

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
Ya, your argument still makes no sense. The number of athletes matters when it comes to fairness for the athletes. But even if we pretend it’s the # of sports that matters when it comes to the athletes, your math doesn’t make sense either. 

Your bad idea (a women’s football team to balance things) decreases the # of women’s sports while keeping the # of men’s sports the same. There is a budget. Adding a female football team doesn’t magically mean we can then add more men’s sports. 

The only mathematical way to increase the # of men’s sports, keep within the budget, and have somewhat fair representation of genders is to reduce the # of football players. Having a women’s football team wouldn’t accomplish what you’re saying it would, at all.
Click to expand...
You can still have fairness that most people would find acceptable by acknowledging that football requires a larger roster then other sports and make an allowance for it.

 
4skers89 said:
You can still have fairness that most people would find acceptable by acknowledging that football requires a larger roster then other sports and make an allowance for it.
Click to expand...
Title IX's intent is to be equitable. Allowing for exceptions completely undermines the law, and is sort of a moot point anyways, because it's not going to change.

Title IX was put in place because of bias and unfairness. People in power (typically white, wealthy, educated men) kept proving time and again that they wanted to help other white, wealthy, and educated men. So, until humanity can be trusted in this country without any concern, we need these types of laws. I wish we lived in a world where it wasn't necessary but we don't. A billion dollars, world peace, and the ability to fly would be really cool, too.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cdog923 said:
Making an allowance for the largest men's sport to not count when it comes to a fair allotment of sports and scholarships is inherently unfair. 
Click to expand...
That’s true. The difference would be between the men’s football and women’s volleyball roster. Since Title IX indirectly limits how large a football roster can be (only because women don’t play football) it would need a hard limit.  If women’s football was introduced then no hard limit would be necessary except to preserve other sports.  If an athletic department has 10 sports then there is an equitable allotment of scholarships across 90% of sports which most people would probably find acceptable.

 
4skers89 said:
That’s true. The difference would be between the men’s football and women’s volleyball roster. Since Title IX indirectly limits how large a football roster can be (only because women don’t play football) it would need a hard limit.  If women’s football was introduced then no hard limit would be necessary except to preserve other sports.  If an athletic department has 10 sports then there is an equitable allotment of scholarships across 90% of sports which most people would probably find acceptable.
Click to expand...






The true solution to your problem is to get rid of football. It eats up far more scholarships than any other sport. It’s unfair to the men who are good at other sports. /s

That’s why I don’t agree with you that it’s a problem.

Also, your math still doesn’t make sense. It literally doesn’t matter one bit if there are 15 women’s sports with 10 players each or 1 women’s sport with 150 players. The #s of players need to be equal.

Now it seems to me that the only thing you think is unfair is that the football team can only have 150 players instead of 500.

But again, that could be fixed by having more women’s sports. Your bad idea of having one huge women’s team isn’t necessary to accomplish the goal of a bigger men’s football roster. 

The way to get more men’s sports is to reduce the # of players on the football team or increase the budget so you can add more women.

The way to get more football players is to decrease the # of men’s sports or increase the budget so you can add more women. 

Your women’s football team would accomplish nothing more than any other solution that adds more women or more women’s sports. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top