| |
|
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Nov 14, 2006
|
|
Women's basketball is the poster child for what is wrong with title IX. By forcing just about every school who has a men's BB program to add a women's (because it's not that expensive), a situation has been created where a MUCH smaller talent pool has been stretched very thin. There is just no getting around the reality that the number of boys who play basketball on all levels his higher than the number of girls. You can try to force girls to "like" sports, but you just aren't going to get nearly as many girls to actually want to play on a competitive level.
So what does that mean for a tournament of 64 teams? It means that the top programs will have a lot of talent, everyone else will have horrible players by comparison. If you think having 4 number 1s in the final four for the men is boring, how about a "perfect 8" on the women's side: 4 1s and 4 2s. Nobody else even had a chance!
You might as well just field a 16 team tourney each year and leave it at that. The 8 best conference winners and the 8 best at large teams. Because in the women's games, there are no GWs or Davidsons. It's impossible...
|
|
|
Reputation:91
Level:All-Star
Since:Sep 7, 2006
|
|
Nice post, Voice.
You can take your note about the Elite 8 one step further. I took a look at their Sweet 16 brackeet. No team below 6 made it to the Sweet 16. There were two 5 seeds and two 6 seeds that made it.
I guess technically a 6's and 5's are underdogs in the second round but come one. Is there no team below a 6 that can compete with the higher seeds?
|
|
|
Reputation:90
Level:All-Star
Since:Aug 18, 2006
|
In fairness, Title IX does give those less talented women a chance to play competitive ball and at least experience competition at a high level. While they aren't as talented, at least they have the opportunity and think that's what Title IX set out. Assuming the goal of college sports isn't to make money (ha!), Title IX has succeeded in that regard.
Still, you're exactly right, good post.
|
|
|
Reputation:91
Level:All-Star
Since:Sep 7, 2006
|
|
NYC...Good point about Title IX.
Most people, including myself, who have a problem with Title IX isn't due to the goal of fairness but more to how it is applied. Football skews everything so much that now there are often less men's sports at schools so that the school can achieve the "fair"balance in participation.
Personally, I think football should be either exempted or the number of players capped when it applies to Title IX fairness.
|
|
|
Reputation:90
Level:All-Star
Since:Jan 7, 2008
|
Absolutely right.
I went to school at the University of Georgia and was involved with the Crew team there. In our situation Title IX was a huge pain for the whole team. Because UGA has a football team the University was forced to have a bunch of extra women's sports to make up for all the Fball players. I agree that women should get an equal opportunity to compete in their sport of choice but it never works out that way. Our Women's Crew team was passed over for varsity status because of the complications it would create because they are so tightly tied to the men's team. Instead UGA got an equestrian squad, funded by the football team. It definitely gets on my nerves that the football team not only takes up most of the spots for men, but it also funds the majority of the budgets for all the other sports.
There needs to be some kind of consideration given to the fact that it is big time football or in some cases basketball that generate the funds to keep the athletic departments running.
To hell with Title IX, it is out-dated and fails in its attempt to level the playing field.
|
|
|
Reputation:18
Level:Amateur
Since:Nov 19, 2007
|
|
Women's basketball id bay far the worst thing that is on sports television. I'll watch soccer before that crap. And soccer is a communist plot to destroy america's youth. Who goes to the games? Familiy members? And you can't tell me that even the dad wants to watch. Go take ballet lessons, cooking classes or something, and stop putting this garbage on my TV when i could be watching some real sports in its place. I went to East Carolina University, and I played basketball daily at our gym. Every now and then some members of the women's team would be there to play pick-up. And the male hack's like myself that were playing were so much better than these "chicks'" (I use that term loosely), that it makes me wonder how Freeman can have a serious job in sports journalism. I graduted with a broadcast journalism degree from ECU, and I am dying to get a job in sports. How does he have this gig? I hope that his wife made him write that article. And if that's the case, he needs his man card taking away anyway. Horrible. Doyel, I must say that your article was right on. There is nothing to say. Freeman needs to be fired.
|
|
|
Reputation:97
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 25, 2006
|
There a a couple of really good posts on Title IX in this thread. Nice work guys.
One misconception I'd like to clear up though is that football funds all the lesser sports. While this is true at a lot of the big-time football schools, the football programs at a majority of colleges actually lose money.
But seeing that football is the only sport with no female equivalent I agree it needs to be an exception to the rule.
|
|
|
Reputation:98
Level:Superstar
Since:Jan 18, 2008
|
|
When I was a student at the University of Michigan, there were only three sports to make money or break even...Football, Hockey and Men's Basketball. Basketball broke even, Hockey made enough money to even out with the loss from women's basketball. Football paid for the other approximately 25 teams on the campus.
The other problem with Title IX, is how many men's teams have been eliminated due to the rule to make room for a women's team. I believe women deserve the right to play and participate but at some point it makes no sense to have these sports with large expenses that are funded by one or two teams. The other amusing point was these other sports would complain about all the press the Football and Hockey teams got in the papers even though if it wasn't for them they wouldn't even have a team.
|
|
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 20, 2006
|
The problem with Title IX is that the NCAA encourages the proportionality test, i.e. if there are 100 students at a school and 53 are female, then 53% of the athletes must be female. However, there are other acceptable ways to determine compliance.
Proportionality should be the least preferable for numerous reasons:
1. Women are much less likely to walk-on to teams or ride the bench. Men don't mind as there is a prevailing attitude that it's better to be a part of a team, even if you don't play. Many schools struggle to find women to fill rosters while having to turn back guys from merely walking on.
2. It discourages schools from adding sports. It's more work to keep 40 sports within a ratio than 16, the minimum for division-I.
3. If the school is failing to maintain an equitable ratio, it will likely drop a sport. Again, it is much easier to reach balance if you drop a sport than go through the work of adding a sport. Also, it's much cheaper. If a school does add a sport to come into compliance, rarely will it add a men's sport.
The better solution would be compliance based on opportunity. If every opportunity for the underrepresented sex is met, then the school is in compliance. So the school can add as many men's sports as it desires so long as there isn't a demand for more women's sports. There will be a demand for men's sports. There is. Look at the protests that are lobbied for wrestling programs to be added around the country. Meanwhile, University of Florida has added women's lacrosse. There are 357 high school wrestling programs in the state and 59 high school women's lacrosse programs. There are 0 collegiate wrestling programs on the division-I level in the state. Something about those numbers fails to make sense.
But the biggest shame is that these big state schools do not add every sport. It's a joke. Do you think the history department at Indiana is profitable? No, it isn't. Yet the school will not run a deficit in its athletic department to add sports. These schools should provide as many opportunities as possible, whether it is in academic departments or extracuriculars. They have nearly-unlimited funding. Additionally, the big schools have funding from boosters, such as Oklahoma State. Why doesn't Oklahoma State, which just got a $150 million athletic donation, offer all 46 NCAA sports? It's a joke. That should be the priority of the school. Then it doesn't matter who walks on because every opportunity would have been met. If every sport is offered, then by definition every possible opportunity is accou | |
