That is true
all the revenue losing sports teams which includes all women’s sports teams but volleyball should bow down and worship at the feet of what allows their existence
football
Expanding Football Roster Has Title IX, Logistical Issues
- Thread starter Mavric
- Start date
all the revenue losing sports teams which includes all women’s sports teams but volleyball should bow down and worship at the feet of what allows their existence
football
10_point_buck
Banned
I guess some of you need to read into what Title IX is. It is not like athletic departments have a choice but to offer all the sports they do, that is what rule is all about. It sounds like many of you would rather eliminate all sports not football and especially women’s sports, I just SMH at that kind of ignorance.
10_point_buck
Banned
How do athletic departments who operate at a loss offer everything they have to do? Oh right, the general student funds do it. Even if a school can’t afford it, they have to offer the women’s sports, welcome to Title IX
Please find me a significantly relevant portion of Husker fans who refuse to recognize what John Cook is doing and has done. Furthermore, please show us all where Bill Moos literally said something along the lines of 'our football program can do whatever we want and we'll disregard Title IX.'
I wager you can do neither. I just spent 10 seconds on Google and found a quote from Moos in the last couple days saying that he wants to accommodate Frost's desire for a large roster but has to be considerate of Title IX.
It appears like this is little more than a beef you have with all the attention football gets vs. volleyball and I'm not sure what you hope to gain by fighting it. You simultaneously acknowledge football as the pulse of our state yet criticize it all the same. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
John Cook is fantastic. His success is remarkable. He's one of the best coaches in the country. Period.
Football still matters more. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Last edited by a moderator:
10_point_buck
Banned
Volleyball = very relavent. Football=.makes $$, not relavent for ages.
No hate, just facts. Kool Aid drinkers hate facts, I know. Hope is all there is, hope we can win something, anything on the football field that matters. I guess we have a fabricated sell out streak to hang our hats on.
Football will always matter more, don’t disagree. People bashing on women’s sports, sad at the very least. Football is king, even when they suck and we have seen enough of that the last decade to last me forever.
Landlord
Banned
I don't think you're technically correct either :lol:
If I recall correctly, Title IX does not require equal opportunity for men and women. It requires proportionately equal opportunity based on the demographics of the student body. If the student body was 90% male, then the amount of student athletes could also be 90% male.
Where did you learn how to talk?
4skers89
Well-known member
It really is. It doesn't take into account the roster requirements for various sports such as football (the largest revenue generator) which requires schools to cut men's programs to balance out the numbers. Schools should have created women's touch football programs to satisfy title IX, 1 coach, no recruiting, no practices and games on Monday mornings.
Mierin
Well-known member
It seems pretty misogynistic to care more about men's programs being cut than women's programs not existing when neither make money. Unless of course you can show me examples of men's programs that were cut that were profitable.
Also, how would making one big women's football team fix the problem? Or is your idea just for revenge?
Last edited by a moderator:
4skers89
Well-known member
I don't think it's fair that a men's program is cut just because women don't play a sport that has as large of a roster need as football. Most men's sports are also played by women so there is equality- basketball, baseball & softball, track, lacrosse, tennis, soccer, gymnastics. Women play volleyball and men play football. The problem, which Title IX didn't consider, is the difference in roster sizes. To solve the inequality they should create a token women's football program to balance out the numbers. It's stupid to have to create a program that few women would be interested to participate in but it's the fairest solution. Title IX was meant to create equality but in my mind it created inequality when they had to cut men's programs in order to maintain a football program. Football should have been excluded from Title IX accounting which is fair because without the revenue it generates there wouldn't be as many sport programs for either gender. Title IX should be that if you have a sport program for either gender you must offer the same or equivalent sport for the other gender with the same number of athletes for both genders. For example, if you create a women's lacrosse program you also need to create a men's lacrosse program with same number of women and men athletes. Or if you start a men's hockey team then you must create a women's hockey or perhaps soccer program as long as the number of athletes is equal. I don't hate women, I hate stupid rules. If men's football didn't exist and there was a hugely popular women's pole dancing sports program with a roster of 150, when Title IX came along I'd be outraged if they cut the women's basketball program and men kept their basketball program.
Ulty
Well-known member
You don’t hate women, yet the example you choose is pole dancing? Listen to your contempt, man.
10_point_buck
Banned
It is amazing that people think that football is an income generator at all colleges and universities. You have to think outside of the red Kool Aid bubble of Nebraska and see that there are many schools that run their athletic departments in the red and no sports bring in a positive balance sheet. What about Division 2 schools or FCS ? They are not making money either as they don't have TV contracts. I'd love to l know how many of those making misguided comments have kids and especially have daughters. Your tone would change, I can almost guarantee it.
10_point_buck
Banned
Mierin
Well-known member
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.
Last edited by a moderator: