Title IX

[TheEgoHasLanded]

If you choose to delete this, or move it to another thread, that is perfectly fine, but because I was called a jerk, and probably somewhat in regards to what I said, I did a little digging, and I came up with this material...Please do not personally attack me as I have only found it, I invite comments or questions, but will probably succomb to personal attacks which I have no problem with as long as they still are in direct correlation as to what I am posting.

 

Title IX is part of the education amendments of 1972. Title IX states that no one can be excluded on the basis of their sex, or denied the benefits, of or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance.

 

Between 1992 and 1997 colleges added 5,800 female athletes but released 20,000 male athletes.

At one time there were over 200 male gymnastic squads, but today there is less than 20.

 

At many schools the majority of students are female, but if women have no interest in playing sports, male athletes must suffer. Colorado State University at Bakersfield is 64% female, but many of those females are in their 40ƒ€™s or 50ƒ€™s. These women got married or pregnant in their teens, decided to raise a family, and just recently returned to further their education. However, they do count towards the percentage of females on campus, thus they significantly raise the ratio.

 

Over 90% of Division 1 womenƒ€™s basketball teams failed to make money last year. Womenƒ€™s basketball is the only female sport where colleges are even close to meeting their budget.

 

Sadly, groups like the National Organization for Women are now targeting revenue enhancing sports, like football, because they feel those sports give out too many scholarships

 

Does Title IX give women the oppurtunity to participate in sports? Absolutely, but if they aren't making money, they are losing money...this loss of money results in students having higher tutions, less scholarships, and the releasing of males whose programs might be making money.

[ELA]

In NCAAA Division I and I-AA... no football team will even miss a few thousand dollars (of the millions they make every week) to be sent to the women's softball team. If the cost of tuition goes up 3-4% over a ten year span to help fund women's sports, so be it (it is the cost of doing business). Football and basketball are the only sports that make large sums of money at most colleges and high schools in America. Does that mean we should do away with all of the sports that don't cover their budget? Things have worked out well over the last thirty years with only a few problems. I don't hear many people complaining about this at the national level. It is just a fact of life in todays society.

[TheEgoHasLanded]

I was under the assumption that all NCAA D-1 teams make money, But I think it is only around 70% or so...I'll do some more homework on it.

 

And you aren't going to hear bad things about it, because who is going to bad mouth it? Politicians, News people, Coaches, presidents, advisors? You have to admit that I have a point on that one at least ELA.

 

 

Football teams don't make millions each week ELA, I always thought they made tons, but it's not as pretty as you think.

[Edited by TheEgoHasLanded on 7/19/02 10:13A]

[VolunteerGeneral]

Ela...I`ll move my question about Title IX over here, since you still haven`t answered it.

 

Is there any condition under which a school could have an all males on a female volleyball team?

 

Just a yes, no, or I don`t know will do. If the answer is yes though, would you elaborate some on it.

 

 

Thanks VG

[TheEgoHasLanded]

More information that may interest you...I would also like to say, I am against this if it is women getting put out on the street instead of men, like at Mississippi University for Women, I don't think it is right to have an equal ratio, even if just a few men go there.

 

Âú For every female participatory slot added, about four male slots have been eliminated. If this trend continues, all male Olympic sports programs will be extinct in 5-10 years. (Add 15,000 to the female numbers and subtract 60,000 from the male. That will mean that "gender equity" will be achieved at 140,000 athletes a piece.)

 

Presently, females have more sports programs/teams (7000+) to participate on at the college level than males have.

 

Âú Presently, females have more scholarships than men do in all counterpart sports (e.g. track - 18 to 12.5; swimming - 14 to 9.9; volleyball - 12 to 4.5; gymnastics 12 to 6

Âú

There are 35 high school wrestling programs for every college wrestling program. For females the ratio is 8 - 1 (soccer); 10 - 1 (tennis); 7 - 1 (field hockey); 11 - 1 (swimming); 11 - 1 (volleyball), etc. Does that seem fair?

 

These are just certain things, it is odd that there are more girls sports then mens.

 

The only reason I bring this up, is to show that adding numbers to private schools just like adding numbers to sports programs is on the whole...not fair.

[ELA]

DIVISION I football teams bring in millions EVERY week! A game gate alone at a big game is in the hundreds of thousands, not to mention TV revenue (if broadcast), rebroadcast on Sports South (etc.), Radio Revenue, Concession sales and the marketing of licensed NCAA hats, T-Shirts, Jerseys, electronic games, mutli-media, and the list goes on and on! MTSU earned almost $400,000 for just playing Texas A & M a few years back. Why do you think some of these teams play games they probably can't win? MONEY. NO NCAA D-I team is hurting for cash! They can all afford to drop a few thousand dollars into the girl's funds each year!

 

VOLUNTEER... I don't know for sure! I wasn't avoiding your question, but this is a busy time of the year for me!

[Edited by ELA on 7/19/02 2:27P]

[Edited by ELA on 7/19/02 2:29P]

[VolunteerGeneral]

ELA...that`s ok. I figured you might know. I`ve always been under the impression that Title IX was, in part, set up to allow girls to play boy`s sports if they didn`t have a girl`s team in that same sport so I`ve often wondered if it would work the opposite way with volleyball. You know me, I always like a good controversy...(LOL), plus I`d like to see boy`s volleyball adopted by the TSSAA.

[TheEgoHasLanded]

ELA,

 

So you are telling me right now, that teams like the University of Memphis are making Millions of dollars a week. If thats what your saying, I'm going to hold you to it, I realize UT does it, but if you think Memphis is getting millions of dollars for playing games on the road, you are wrong...U of M's budget is only 16 million...

[TheEgoHasLanded]

Among NCAA football programs in all competitive divisions, 81 percent spend more than they bring in and contribute nothing to other sport budgets. Even among Division IA football programs (the largest schools), more than a third are running deficits in excess of $1 million per year.

http://www.macalester.edu/~vball/titleIX.html

 

Let's take a clear and rational look at the facts: Fact: At about 90% of all NCAA member institutions, football does not pay for women's sports or even itself. Fact: Among the supposedly lucrative big-time football programs in Division I-A, 45% are running deficit programs averaging $650,000 losses annually. Fact: 90% of Division I-AA football programs are running deficits averaging $535,000 per year. Fact: 40% of all Division I-A men's basketball programs run annual deficits averaging $250,000 dollars a year. Fact: 75% of all other Division I men's basketball programs run annual deficits of close to $225,000 per year.

 

http://home.earthlink.net/~tfakehany/gender.html

 

ELA, I am sorry but college teams are not making the money you think they are...Yes UT and Texas are exceptions, but when you include scholarships, trainers, practice equipment, game equipment, medical attention, food, travel, hotel (most d1 football teams stay in a hotel before a home game), it's not what you think...these people are telling you, and so am I, they don't make money.

 

Even if you go to a bowl game, like the liberty bowl, they payout is only around 1 million, keep in mind you stay at a hotel for at least a week, travel...and then have to split that with the other teams in your conference...Title IX should be changed...not thrown away, but amended...it was 30 years ago...a lot of things change in that time.

[just1np]

Did you include alumni contributions in your digging?

There are programs in all sports that aren't breaking even, but there are a lot of factors in the equation.

I'd like to know where you got your information, and what school(s) where included. Did you call Arthur Anderson or someone?

[just1np]

Here are some excerpts from this link:

-Link

 

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brentwood Academy (Brentwood Academy v.

Tennessee Secondary Schools Athletic Association) in a case that addressed the private high school‹¨›‹¾ª"s

activities to recruit student-athletes. The Brentwood case involved the recruitment of middle school

student-athletes through mailings to young people in the community that invited them to attend football team

tryouts. The Tennessee Secondary Schools Athletic Association (TSSAA) prohibits a member institution

from using "undue influence" to entice an athlete to enroll. The TSSAA found Brentwood‹¨›‹¾ª"s practice to be in

violation of that rule. The Supreme Court examined whether the TSSAA is a private, voluntary membership

organization consisting of secondary schools or, as Brentwood Academy alleged, a state regulatory body

for the state‹¨›‹¾ª"s secondary school‹¨›‹¾ª"s athletics programs. The Supreme Court determined that the TSSAA is

considered to be a state actor under the Equal Protection Clause and must adhere to federal laws including

freedom of speech and Title IX.

Women‹¨›‹¾ª"s participation in intercollegiate sports at 4-year colleges and universities has increased while

men‹¨›‹¾ª"s participation has dropped slightly, although they still participate at a higher rate than women.

 

From Title IX‹¨›‹¾ª"s enactment to the 1997-98 school year, the number of women in intercollegiate

sports grew from an estimated 30,000 (1.7 percent of fulltime enrolled undergraduate women) to

157,000 (5.5 percent of full-time enrolled undergraduate women).

 

Over the same time period, the number of men participating fell from about 248,000 (10.4 percent of

full-time undergraduate men) to about 234,000 (9.5 percent of full-time undergraduate men).

 

During the 1998-99 school year, NCAA member institutions spent more per male student-athlete

than female student-athlete in the areas of recruiting, coaches‹¨›‹¾ª" salaries, and operations. However,

institutions spent more on athletic scholarships for women than for men. Men continue to hold the

majority of athletics director positions in intercollegiate athletics.

From academic years 1981-82 to 1998-99, women‹¨›‹¾ª"s participation in athletics increased from

90,000 to 163,000. During the same time period men‹¨›‹¾ª"s participation increased from 220,000 to

232,000.

 

Growth in women‹¨›‹¾ª"s participation grew at more than twice the rate of female student growth in

undergraduate enrollment; growth in men‹¨›‹¾ª"s participation more closely matched the male student

growth in undergraduate enrollment.

 

The total number of women‹¨›‹¾ª"s teams increased from 5,695 to 9,479 (+3,784). The total number of

men‹¨›‹¾ª"s teams increased from 9,113 to 9,149 (+36).

 

For women, the largest net decrease in teams and participants was in the sport of gymnastics (-100

/-683). For men, the largest net decrease in teams and participants was in the sport of wrestling

(-171 /-2,648).

 

For women, the largest net increase in teams and participation was in the sport of soccer (+846

/+18,132). For men, the largest net increase in participation was in the sport of football (7,199) but

there was a reduction in number of teams (-37).

 

Among all sports where there was a reduction in participation, men lost a total of 9,602 participation

opportunities. However, overall there was an increase of 11,688 opportunities for men, fueled by an

increase in football participation that accounted for 62 percent of the total.

Among all respondents, most indicated that they added both men‹¨›‹¾ª"s and women‹¨›‹¾ª"s teams primarily "to

satisfy student interest" (49 percent gave this response as the reason why they had added men‹¨›‹¾ª"s

teams and 52 percent gave this answer for increasing women‹¨›‹¾ª"s teams). Changes in student interest

was also the primary reason given for the discontinuation of men‹¨›‹¾ª"s and women‹¨›‹¾ª"s sports team.

However, among Division I institutions, meeting "gender equity goals and requirements" were the

primary reason given in adding women‹¨›‹¾ª"s sports teams and discontinuing men‹¨›‹¾ª"s sports teams.

 

The second most common response institutions gave to the question of why women‹¨›‹¾ª"s teams were

added was "to meet gender equity goals and requirements." When adding men‹¨›‹¾ª"s teams, "sufficient

community interest" was the second most common response cited by institutions

[Edited by coacht on 8-3-02 3:06P]

 

[ie3]

In taking a look at the links EGO has included, I see he has merely copied the content from those sites. If read, in their entirety, they show a substantial bias against the amending of Title IX. In fact, there appears to be an extreme bias against football in particular. I see no evidence as to the source of the 'facts' quoted on those websites. Whether or not the data are correct, the souce should have at least been included for us to make an informed decision. I am not arguing against Title IX, but the articles quoted here make it seem as if all Title IX supporters are merely blaming the sport of football for all of the problems on college campuses. If there are facts out there, let's see some from reputable sources.