UWM might consider football?

[GGGG]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/panthers/119736504.html

Jeez that athletic program is a mess.  Basketball is looking for an on-campus arena...the baseball facility is considered one of the worst in D1...and they are now talking football?

Good luck to their new AD.

[madtownwarrior]

Mount Mary has a better chance at starting a D1 football team than UW-M...

[GGGG]

Mount Mary has a better chance at starting a D1 football team than UW-M...

They certainly have the space to put a stadium.  Seriously for a school that is that much financial trouble, you'd think they'd sell off some of that Tosa land.

[JMcSteal]

The new AD certainly has his plate full, but it is nice to see he has some drive to get things going. I think it would be pretty cool if they got football. Like it says it is just an "idea" or whatever but at least someone in Milwaukee is thinking about bringing football back.

[BrewCity83]

UWM has a better chance of bringing football back than Marquette for two reasons:

1.  UWM has more alumni in the area
2.  UWM has an athletic director who is open to the idea.

[Bocephys]

UWM has a better chance of bringing football back than Marquette for two reasons:

1.  UWM has more alumni in the area
2.  UWM has an athletic director who is open to the idea.

3.  No one cares about UWM and would might make them relevant in the Milwaukee sports scene.

[GGGG]

They would lose a lot of games and a lot of money. This would have to be paid for by student fees. You think UWM students are going to go for this?  They don't even care about their basketball program now.

[JMcSteal]

"Although students have said they're willing to pay a new fee, a good chunk of the $68 million or so for a basketball facility would have to come from private funds. Costello knows it's going to be about persuasive fundraising among the more than 100,000 UWM alums"

I know that is for the Basketball stadium, but sounds like it would be the same for football. No way they would make the students pay for all of the football costs.

[madtownwarrior]

That the same as saying buying two lottery tickets and saying you have better chance to win than just buying 1 lottery ticket.

Ain't gonna happen.   Do you really think they will add a sport with 68 scholarships and create an additional 6 - 7 women's sports teams with the equal number of scholarships.  Not to mention needing a stadium to play in?   Not to mention they can't get 200 students to their home basketball games - oh yeah, and they need a home basketball arena too?

Really?

UWM has a better chance of bringing football back than Marquette for two reasons:

1.  UWM has more alumni in the area
2.  UWM has an athletic director who is open to the idea.

[BrewCity83]

I didn't say it was gonna happen.

Buying 2 lottery tickets does double your chances of winning, though.

[JMcSteal]

I didn't say it was gonna happen.

Buying 2 lottery tickets does double your chances of winning, though.

+1

[Mr. Nielsen]

The Dennis Krause Show has UWM AD, Rick Costello on this week. It's a great show.

The JSOnline part talks to much about football. The goal is to sell more tickets now and look how to get a new basketball arena going on-campus. Football will be talked about, but that's about it.

[GGGG]

Raising 60 million to build a basketball arena will be very difficult. Hell they can't get the $$ together to buy part of the county grounds from the county. I mean how much was the Al?  40 million?  And MU's alumni base is much wealthier and cares about basketball than UWMs.

[ChicosBailBonds]

All I can say is if UW-Milwaukee gets football it would torpedo everyone's argument here that we shouldn't or couldn't.

[tower912]

And if UW-Milwaukee bows to the cold hard economics of starting a program from scratch, it will bolster somebody's argument. 

[GGGG]

Chicos. We *can* start a program. The real questions are "Can we field a competitive program?" And "if we field a competitive program, what does that take away from other things MU can do with that money?"

[GGGG]

Let me also add that, while I love college football, I think its impact on about 90 pct of schools is neutral at best and mostly negative. Most schools could drop the sport with no adverse effect and my guess you will see just that given the costs and the money pressures that many schools are facing. Both MU and UWM would likely create blah programs that would celebrate making the Papa Johns Bowl some day...and would lose major $$$ in doing so.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos. We *can* start a program. The real questions are "Can we field a competitive program?" And "if we field a competitive program, what does that take away from other things MU can do with that money?"

That's one way of looking at it.  The other would be to see what can we do with starting a program that would benefit the university, make it more national in prestige, etc.  It would be an embarrassment to have UW-Milwaukee start a football program and MU not have one. 

[GGGG]

I wouldn't be embarrassed in the least. Especially since they'd be getting their ass handed to them regularly.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I wouldn't be embarrassed in the least. Especially since they'd be getting their ass handed to them regularly.

Depends what kind of program they start.  Are they going to start a program like Butler's football program?  San Diego?  Dayton?  Villanova?  FCS?  Or are they going to start a FBS program?

I see no reason why we couldn't start a FCS program and be competitive.  I suspect UW-Milwaukee would go down that path.

[GGGG]

Does an FCS program add to a schools national prestige?  Is Eastern Washington now on their way to recruiting more students and raising more money due to their glorious national championship?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Does an FCS program add to a schools national prestige?  Is Eastern Washington now on their way to recruiting more students and raising more money due to their glorious national championship?

With that red turf and the amount of exposure they got from it, I'd say it has paid some dividends for them and will continue in the next few years.

Does it for everyone?  No.   Down here in So. Cal when Jim Harbaugh was the head coach, it certainly helped them.  Others, I'd agree that the benefit probably isn't there.  It depends on the school, the community, etc. 

I'm looking at it from the aspect of longer term.  I'd much rather be in Villanova's position right now than Marquette's because they at least have a building block in football from which to expand.  We do not.

[Ari Gold]

I'm looking at it from the aspect of longer term.  I'd much rather be in Villanova's position right now than Marquette's because they at least have a building block in football from which to expand.  We do not.

This!

I feel like we've had this argument before somewhere...
I will applaud UWM for "talking" about it. Marquette has never even entertained the idea. A headline of "MU exploring Football program" on page 6 of the JS Sport section with the final like of "It's just not feasible at this time" would suffice
The only think that would bother me would be even my UWM friends could say "Hows MU football doing?"

..I wouldn't complain about a baseball program either

[GGGG]

The only think that would bother me would be even my UWM friends could say "Hows MU football doing?"

Really?  That would bother you?  Honestly, I wouldn't even give it a second thought.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Really?  That would bother you?  Honestly, I wouldn't even give it a second thought.

It would bother me.  It would show me that they think big, they are bold and willing to take some risks.

[GGGG]

You see them as risk takers, I see them as foolhardy.  Marquette knows its niche and tries to excel within that niche.  I'm fine with that.

[Coleman]

Gotta agree with Chicos here.

Sultan, people were saying the same thing about USF and UConn when they were trying to start their programs. They have made prestigious bowls in 15-20 years of existence.

MU wouldn't just jump into the Big East. You build the program through the FCS. You do what Villanova is doing. If you are invited to jump to FBS, you explore the option. You still might not do it. No one would just make rash uneducated decisions on such important matters.

The fact is, not having having a football team is a major sticking point to getting a national reputation. UW will always have an advantage of the in-state fan base as long as they have a football team. Not to mention, in the long run it could hurt our chances of staying in the Big East. One big conference realignment is all it takes.

Will it cost money? Yes, a lot. Would we suffer through some really bad building years? Of course, every team thats started a football team has. But many of those teams have come out of it with decent programs. UConn and USF are examples. And doing so did not hurt UConn's basketball program (USF never really had a strong one). And Villanova has already remained a basketball power. So I don't think that argument holds water.

I'm not saying WE SHOULD. I'm saying I don't know why people are so against EXPLORING the idea. Kudos to UWM for thinking progressively. They might not do it. But at least they aren't afraid to explore options. I wish MU was as forward thinking.



And a serious related question: do you think UWM trying to establish a football would prod MU into thinking about it? I mean not only would it be an in-city athletics fan base threat, but there are also possibilities for partnership. For example, that stadium everyone cites as being an impossible expense could be split between the schools and shared at an off-campus site. If it was for 2 city universities (including one state school), maybe even the city/county/state would pitch in. Just something to think about.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You see them as risk takers, I see them as foolhardy.  Marquette knows its niche and tries to excel within that niche.  I'm fine with that.

I completely get your POV and it's a solid POV.  No question there are schools that don't do it right and are in the dustbin as a result.  However, long term MU is going to be at a significant disadvantage because of the path we have taken.  A lot easier to go from FCS to FBS then to start right into FBS, which we will never do.  No one has the appetite for it currently.  Baby steps.

I look at all of these "basketball" Catholic schools that have football...Villanova, Georgetown (Jesuit), San Diego, Dayton, Fordham (Jesuit), Duquesne, Holy Cross (Jesuit), Iona, LaSalle, Sacred Heart, Marist, etc, etc and I struggle to see how MU can't be in that conversation.   

Plenty of other small "basketball only" schools that also have football.

There are only two FBS Catholic Universities...Boston College (Jesuit) and Notre Dame.   There is a void but you have to start small.

[GGGG]

I look at all of these "basketball" Catholic schools that have football...Villanova, Georgetown (Jesuit), San Diego, Dayton, Fordham (Jesuit), Duquesne, Holy Cross (Jesuit), Iona, LaSalle, Sacred Heart, Marist, etc, etc and I struggle to see how MU can't be in that conversation.   

What "conversation?"  There isn't any.  They all suck with exception of Villanova....at the FCS level.  And I don't know what that does for you anyway.

The fact is, not having having a football team is a major sticking point to getting a national reputation. UW will always have an advantage of the in-state fan base as long as they have a football team. Not to mention, in the long run it could hurt our chances of staying in the Big East. One big conference realignment is all it takes.

National reputation in what?  The only legit argument made is the BE one, but that is why I think MU chose the other alternative...LAX.

[Coleman]

National reputation in what?  The only legit argument made is the BE one, but that is why I think MU chose the other alternative...LAX.

In people outside of Wisconsin knowing that Marquette is a school in Milwaukee, not northern Michigan.

[GGGG]

We should start a football team to help people with their geography?

But seriously, I don't think Nova's reputation is affected one bit by their football program. 

[Ari Gold]

Chicos-

At some point we're going to have to learn -if we haven't already- that Sultan is an old fart who hates change and college football. You could literally offer Marquette full funding for football and he'd say he wouldn't want it, because "we'd suck for awhile." It's best if we try to progress the future Football at Marquette conversations in a productive direction and just ignore sultan, who seems to love pooping all over this board

[Coleman]

We should start a football team to help people with their geography?

But seriously, I don't think Nova's reputation is affected one bit by their football program.  

I'd argue that the university's overall reputation has been affected positively (mostly through fan interest) more than the basketball program has been affected negatively. And I think that's whats important. In fact, since 1985 when football was instituted, the basketball program has taken off. I'm not suggesting one caused the other, but it clearly didn't hinder it either.

What's the negative?

[Coleman]

The more I think about it, if UWM gets a football team (BIG IF, I know), there's no way Marquette doesn't at least consider it. Keeping up with the athletic Joneses*, and the possibility for shared facilities make it so tempting. And I think for the foreseeable future these schools would be looking at the FCS level, no doubt.

Consider me a fan of UWM for looking into this, if for no other reason than to get MU thinking about it as well.


*I am in no way suggesting we are the ones having to keep up with UWM in men's basketball. Obviously, thats not the case. But them having a football team, and us not, when we had the more historically prestigious football program, would just be embarassing.

[GGGG]

Ari. I love college football. My favorite sport by far. I also know how hard it is to compete with limited resources.

[GGGG]

I'd argue that the university's overall reputation has been affected positively (mostly through fan interest) more than the basketball program has been affected negatively. And I think that's whats important. In fact, since 1985 when football was instituted, the basketball program has taken off. I'm not suggesting one caused the other, but it clearly didn't hinder it either.

What's the negative?

The negative is that it will be a money drain.  And I am not aruging that it will take away from basketball, but it will take away from a University that is relatively poorly endowed and frankly isn't as competitive from a financial aid point than many of its peer institutions.

And Ari, if someone stepped forth to build a stadium and completely endow the football program, I would be all over it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

What "conversation?"  There isn't any.  They all suck with exception of Villanova....at the FCS level.  And I don't know what that does for you anyway.


National reputation in what?  The only legit argument made is the BE one, but that is why I think MU chose the other alternative...LAX.

Should the Ivy League drop football since they "suck"?

Holy Cross had a Heisman candidate some years back, they've had 6 players drafted into the NFL since the 1980's...slightly less than the number Marquette basketball players drafted (yes, I realize there are more football players drafted than basketball players)

Dayton does not "suck" winning two national championships in that sport alone (that's one more than MU has won in all of our sports COMBINED). Chuck Noll, Jon Gruden, Hugh Devore, etc might also disagree since they either played or coached at Dayton.

San Diego had a player drafted just 3 years ago by the Tampa Bay Bucs...quarterback Josh Johnson.

Etc, etc.

I'm not expecting them to compete with Ohio State or Wisconsin.  Much like the NBA vs College game argument....you clearly like paid pros (like Wisconsin Badgers.    and the Packers), I love college football and the NFL equally.  I don't see us adding football as a bad thing if done right.  If UWM adds football, it would be an embarrassment that MU could not. 

[cheebs09]

If they add it and it turns out to be an awful decision for UWM, does that still make it an embarrassment? You seem to think that just them starting it will make MU look bad, but it doesn't mean it was a good decision. As an MU student I would really only care if we were playing at a BCS conference level, granted I'm not a big college football fan. I may be in the minority on that, but I think the novelty would wear off after awhile.

[Coleman]

If they add it and it turns out to be an awful decision for UWM, does that still make it an embarrassment?

Yes. Simply because it shows UWM was able to do something, and has something, we don't have. W-L performance is really irrelevant (for the first few years at least. No one will expect a new program to be good). The only way it wouldn't be embarrassing is if UWM would have to shut it down again after only a few years, which I think is unlikely if they do the proper planning.

No one is saying they are going to garner FBS attention. I'd be happy with a draw of 8,000-10,000 a game, which I think would be pretty middle of the road for FCS. That's half of our typical Big East basketball attendance. For a game on a saturday, when no one is working or has classes. It'd be another excuse to drink for students. You're talking at most 6 Saturdays a year. No way we couldn't draw those numbers on six Saturdays, especially if you made the tickets part of the student Fanatics package, which I'm sure they would (and maybe up the price another $50).

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yes. Simply because it shows UWM was able to do something, and has something, we don't have. W-L performance is really irrelevant (for the first few years at least. No one will expect a new program to be good). The only way it wouldn't be embarrassing is if UWM would have to shut it down again after only a few years, which I think is unlikely if they do the proper planning.

No one is saying they are going to garner FBS attention. I'd be happy with a draw of 8,000-10,000 a game, which I think would be pretty middle of the road for FCS. That's half of our typical Big East basketball attendance. For a game on a saturday, when no one is working or has classes. It'd be another excuse to drink for students. You're talking at most 6 Saturdays a year. No way we couldn't draw those numbers on six Saturdays, especially if you made the tickets part of the student Fanatics package, which I'm sure they would (and maybe up the price another $50).

I'd be happy at 3,500 to 5,000 a game to start. 

For me, it's more about a can do attitude.  Tired of hearing all the constant crap here that MU can't get a football program and it would cost $100M and all this other fairy tale crap.  I hope UW-Milwaukee does it just to prove those clowns making those outlandish claims wrong.  Even better, I hope they do it and play at Marquette at Valley Fields...wouldn't that be ironic as hell.

[🏀]

I'd be happy at 3,500 to 5,000 a game to start. 

For me, it's more about a can do attitude.  Tired of hearing all the constant crap here that MU can't get a football program and it would cost $100M and all this other fairy tale crap.  I hope UW-Milwaukee does it just to prove those clowns making those outlandish claims wrong.  Even better, I hope they do it and play at Marquette at Valley Fields...wouldn't that be ironic as hell.

No self-respecting AD would have scholarship football players play on the football field at the Valley.

[ChicosBailBonds]

No self-respecting AD would have scholarship football players play on the football field at the Valley.

Some FCS schools offer no scholarships for football.  It will be interesting to see what approach is taken if UWM adds a team.

[🏀]

Some FCS schools offer no scholarships for football.  It will be interesting to see what approach is taken if UWM adds a team.

Wouldn't it be entirely on their Title 9 position?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Wouldn't it be entirely on their Title 9 position?

Doesn't matter...if you are scholarship or walk-on, still counts against Title IX.

Now, what some schools have done is add football to help ADD male students to the school and provide a better male to female ratio, or proportionality as the call it.  Of course, the use of proportionality is a fatally flawed execution of Title IX, but that's what you get from the "A" students that run things in this world. 


Title IX was a load of crap back then and it's a load of crap today.  As is typical, the idea is fine but the execution pathetic.

[🏀]

Doesn't matter...if you are scholarship or walk-on, still counts against Title IX.

Now, what some schools have done is add football to help ADD male students to the school and provide a better male to female ratio, or proportionality as the call it.  Of course, the use of proportionality is a fatally flawed execution of Title IX, but that's what you get from the "A" students that run things in this world. 


Title IX was a load of crap back then and it's a load of crap today.  As is typical, the idea is fine but the execution pathetic.

That I did not know.

So if it was an entire walk-on only program, there would have to be those positions for a women's sport as well?

[Coleman]

That I did not know.

So if it was an entire walk-on only program, there would have to be those positions for a women's sport as well?

I don't know everything about Title IX, but I think its all about $$$$

So you wouldn't necessarily have to match player for player in another woman's sport. I think the key thing is you spend an equal amount of money or have an equal amount of sports, etc. I don't think this would be a major hangup if we had a FCS Football team without spending $$ on scholarships.

[Abode4life]

I don't know everything about Title IX, but I think its all about $$$$

So you wouldn't necessarily have to match player for player in another woman's sport. I think the key thing is you spend an equal amount of money or have an equal amount of sports, etc. I don't think this would be a major hangup if we had a FCS Football team without spending $$ on scholarships.

No it is not technically about $$$.  It is about giving men an women an equal opportunity to participate in sports.  Meaning, If you have a football program, and you spend $25 million dollars on it, you don't have to spend $25 million dollars on a women's sport(s). 

My friends and I have had multiple talks about this, so we had to look it up in the past.  The wording is a little bit hazy but it has to do with proportional equality.  I think it depends on enrollment, so if you have more males than females, you can get away with having more male scholarships.  If you have more females in your student body then you would have to have more female scholarships.  It also talks about providing the same general quality in facilities, but I remember it specifically stated that you do not have to spend the same amount of money for men vs women's sports; you just have to provide the same opportunities. 

[GGGG]

It is a three prong test...

1. There has to be a relatively equal number of "participation slots" as there is male/female ratio
2. There has to be a relatively equal number of scholarships as there is male/femal ratio
3.  For every "first class" facility for a men's sport, there has to be one for a women's sport.

That is another very valid reason to not start up a football team.  We would have to add a woman's sport of some type and/or drop a men's sport or drop a number of scholarships from a men's sport.

[Coleman]

No it is not technically about $$$.  It is about giving men an women an equal opportunity to participate in sports.  Meaning, If you have a football program, and you spend $25 million dollars on it, you don't have to spend $25 million dollars on a women's sport(s). 

My friends and I have had multiple talks about this, so we had to look it up in the past.  The wording is a little bit hazy but it has to do with proportional equality.  I think it depends on enrollment, so if you have more males than females, you can get away with having more male scholarships.  If you have more females in your student body then you would have to have more female scholarships.  It also talks about providing the same general quality in facilities, but I remember it specifically stated that you do not have to spend the same amount of money for men vs women's sports; you just have to provide the same opportunities. 

Right but opportunities (scholarships) cost money, no?

[Coleman]

It is a three prong test...

1. There has to be a relatively equal number of "participation slots" as there is male/female ratio
2. There has to be a relatively equal number of scholarships as there is male/femal ratio
3.  For every "first class" facility for a men's sport, there has to be one for a women's sport.

That is another very valid reason to not start up a football team.  We would have to add a woman's sport of some type and/or drop a men's sport or drop a number of scholarships from a men's sport.

I'd happily drop Men's LAX (and keep women's) to support football.

[ChicosBailBonds]

It is a three prong test...

1. There has to be a relatively equal number of "participation slots" as there is male/female ratio
2. There has to be a relatively equal number of scholarships as there is male/femal ratio
3.  For every "first class" facility for a men's sport, there has to be one for a women's sport.

That is another very valid reason to not start up a football team.  We would have to add a woman's sport of some type and/or drop a men's sport or drop a number of scholarships from a men's sport.

Actually not necessarily true.  Some schools have added FCS football for the very reason of NOT having to add women's teams.  In situations where the women's enrollment is higher than the men's, adding 100 male members of the football team takes up your general men's enrollment and can change the proportionality equation. 


The execution of Title IX has been an abortion and I use that word intentionally.  When I was in grad school earning my MS in Sports Marketing I took one semester only on Title IX.  All we did was study this issue three times a week with plenty of additional research.  To say it was interesting was an understatement.  We met with the FEDS to hear their side of enforcing TITLE IX, we heard from Athletic Directors, Conference Commissioners, as well as student athletes of both genders.  We met with male athletes that had their sports disbanded as a result....world class men's programs at UCLA, etc.   Fascinating stuff.  One of the studies I'll never forget was similar to those espoused by the College Sports Council, though it was under a different group in the mid 1990's.  Their argument was using the proportionality ratio is fatally flawed because women as a whole do not participate in sports as much as men based on interest levels.  We're not talking about college sports, but sports up and down the spectrum from AYSO to softball to volleyball.  The participation and interest levels just aren't the same, yet Title IX is enforced with one of the three test prongs as if they are.  That's ridiculous and a terrible implementation as a result.  The idea that 55% of your student body is women and therefore 55% of the athletes (give or take) should be proportionally getting the goods via TITLE IX ignores the realities that a good chunk of that 55% not only don't care about sports, don't participate in sports and want nothing to do with them at all.

Personally, I think football should be removed entirely from the Title IX equation.  The Bush Administration was going down this path in 2005 and then they backed off.  There is no equivalent for football in women's sports

[ChicosBailBonds]

People forget that over 650 colleges and universities play football.  People also forget that while some schools dropped football in the 1990's and 2000's, far MORE schools added football in that time period.  42 football programs were added while 23 were dropped. 

Charlotte is just the latest.  They will play in 2013 with a stadium cost of $40.5 Million with student fees covering over 80% of the cost.

Title IX has scared people out of their minds, unnecessarily.  We have the National Women's Law Center suing schools that are not in compliance with Title IX and that's what scares schools and administrators.  The Obama administration has also eliminated "interest" surveys because they show overwhelmingly that women don't care or participate in sports at anywhere near the rate of men, so by wiping out those surveys it helps to sweep that one under the rug.  Case in point, there are 3 women's collegiate soccer players for every 2 male collegiate soccer players, despite the number of men's high school players at nearly a 5:1 ratio. 

 

[GGGG]

Yeah, Chicos we get it.  You don't like Title IX.

[Abode4life]

Right but opportunities (scholarships) cost money, no?

Yes.  My point was only that its not all about money.  (ie. not having to spend the same amount of money on men vs women's sports.)   

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yeah, Chicos we get it.  You don't like Title IX.

Laws that are discriminatory in an attempt to end discrimination are the height of hypocrisy in my opinion.  I am not alone in that viewpoint just as there are others that take another POV.  Free country. 

[GGGG]

Well, Title IX isn't discriminatory.  The law reads like this:

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."

Now there have been follow-up laws and clarifications, but the essential problem is how you practically apply what is essentially high-minded and fuzzy language.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well, Title IX isn't discriminatory.  The law reads like this:

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."

Now there have been follow-up laws and clarifications, but the essential problem is how you practically apply what is essentially high-minded and fuzzy language.

Two things, I'm not against Title IX in principle, I'm against how it is implemented.

You hit it on the head, it's the implementation that's the problem.  No different than Affirmative Action and other programs...the proof is in the details and the implementation and often have the results that the very law is supposed to stop, that of a discriminatory nature.

[GGGG]

Part of the problem is that how do you prove that an organization systematically "excludes participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination?"  Eventually the Department of Education has to provide meat to these bones, and courts have to verify the legislative meaning.  What this always does, almost out of necessity, is provide black and white standards where shades of gray are more appropriate.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Part of the problem is that how do you prove that an organization systematically "excludes participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination?"  Eventually the Department of Education has to provide meat to these bones, and courts have to verify the legislative meaning.  What this always does, almost out of necessity, is provide black and white standards where shades of gray are more appropriate.

Yet here we are almost 30 years later and plenty of those questions remain. 

[Lennys Tap]

Two things, I'm not against Title IX in principle, I'm against how it is implemented.

You hit it on the head, it's the implementation that's the problem.  No different than Affirmative Action and other programs...the proof is in the details and the implementation and often have the results that the very law is supposed to stop, that of a discriminatory nature.

What was it Speaker Pelosi said about the Health Care Bill? "We have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in the bill". Don't know if this was a malaprop or an admission that government bureaucrats would have a lot of leeway in how the bill was "enforced". There are always unintended consequences. The more ambitious the legislation, the bigger the problem.

[ChicosBailBonds]

What was it Speaker Pelosi said about the Health Care Bill? "We have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in the bill". Don't know if this was a malaprop or an admission that government bureaucrats would have a lot of leeway in how the bill was "enforced". There are always unintended consequences. The more ambitious the legislation, the bigger the problem.

Amen