UWM might consider 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