Title IX: A Touchy Topic
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 9:19 pm
It is the 40th anniversary of Title IX and I honestly think it is the best law that is the most abused or misinterpreted law of all time.
I recently saw some quotes about how women still have a ways to go to catch up to men in sports, and why men still have the advantage:
At the most competitive level, Division I-FBS schools, women make up 51% of students, yet they have only 45% of the opportunities to play intercollegiate sports. Female athletes at these schools receive 42% of the total athletic scholarship dollars, 31% of the dollars spent to recruit new athletes, and just 28% of the total money spent on athletics.
HOWEVER: I believe these people making stats know nothing about sports and just look at numbers. This above is the most argued thing I see. But the way I look at it. For instance the school I go to has 60% women and 40% men. So according to the above comment (and most interpretations of Title IX I have heard), that means that at our university 60% of the athletes should be women and 40% should be men. But Title IX fans and number crunches do not pay attention to the details. The percent of male vs. women has nothing to do with the athletes, athletes make up a very small percent of the student population. And since the athletes are not picked from the student population, that has little to do with anything. It is great that my university has 18,000 women and 12,000 men.. huge fan of that ratio.. however, the coaches are not recruiting from within the university, they are using the given 18 scholarships the NCAA allows and getting as many girls as they can for that amount of money from all around the country, the same way schools that are 40% women, 60% men are. So this interpretation hurts institutions that have more males than females. We have a 40 man roster while some of the military academies have over 70 guys!
Female athletes receive 28% of the money: Track and field has no ground to stand on because there is probably not a male track and field team that comes close to covering their own cost. However men's teams do pay for college sports. No one can argue that football and basketball do not bring in 90% or more of the money for the entire athletic department! People argue that even football and basketball do not even make a profit at most universities and that is probably true. However the money from advertising, television contracts, and donations are what cover the cost for 90% of the entire athletic department. The vast majority of boosters donating millions of dollars at a time are doing it for the big three sports (football, basketball, and baseball). If the school did not have those three sports they would not have enough money to cover any other men or women sports at a highly competitive level.
How this affects male sports: People group all male sports into one category and all female athletes into another category. But this is not fair due to the fact that one sport (football) has 120 men on the roster and takes up the equivalent of about 5 female sports in money and roster spots. But for any male that did not grow up playing football they are pretty much out of luck when it comes to their equal opportunity. Not only do males that do not play football have less sports available, on those sports they have even less scholarships.
What needs to happen: People have to stop comparing any female sports to football. You are never going to get what they get and due to the fact that everything is about money, and unless you can fill a 80,000 person stadium to watch a volleyball game, you are not going to come close. The same way most male track and field athletes have generally accepted that we are not football players, we do not get first priority in the weight room, we do not get photo shoots, autograph signings, 85 full scholarships, or fly to every event we go to. If you do not bring in the cash you don't get it all.
Less bluntly: Throw football out of the equation. It is one sport, and there is no equivalent for females that will have nearly as many roster spots. It pays the bills, let it just be the business side. Then switch over to all the other sports that have male and female counterparts. If you have baseball, have softball, if you have men's basketball have women's basketball... ext. There is no reason that because someone create a sport that is allowed 120 roster spots that makes a lot of money that you should ahve to get rid of other male sports to be fair to women. Title IX was created so that there was equal opportunity in sports like basketball where places would not have women's teams, and where people did not give scholarships for female athletes.
And finally...
Why does no one talk about it: No one is willing to discuss the problems created by a law that was created to help women without being called a sexist.
I recently saw some quotes about how women still have a ways to go to catch up to men in sports, and why men still have the advantage:
At the most competitive level, Division I-FBS schools, women make up 51% of students, yet they have only 45% of the opportunities to play intercollegiate sports. Female athletes at these schools receive 42% of the total athletic scholarship dollars, 31% of the dollars spent to recruit new athletes, and just 28% of the total money spent on athletics.
HOWEVER: I believe these people making stats know nothing about sports and just look at numbers. This above is the most argued thing I see. But the way I look at it. For instance the school I go to has 60% women and 40% men. So according to the above comment (and most interpretations of Title IX I have heard), that means that at our university 60% of the athletes should be women and 40% should be men. But Title IX fans and number crunches do not pay attention to the details. The percent of male vs. women has nothing to do with the athletes, athletes make up a very small percent of the student population. And since the athletes are not picked from the student population, that has little to do with anything. It is great that my university has 18,000 women and 12,000 men.. huge fan of that ratio.. however, the coaches are not recruiting from within the university, they are using the given 18 scholarships the NCAA allows and getting as many girls as they can for that amount of money from all around the country, the same way schools that are 40% women, 60% men are. So this interpretation hurts institutions that have more males than females. We have a 40 man roster while some of the military academies have over 70 guys!
Female athletes receive 28% of the money: Track and field has no ground to stand on because there is probably not a male track and field team that comes close to covering their own cost. However men's teams do pay for college sports. No one can argue that football and basketball do not bring in 90% or more of the money for the entire athletic department! People argue that even football and basketball do not even make a profit at most universities and that is probably true. However the money from advertising, television contracts, and donations are what cover the cost for 90% of the entire athletic department. The vast majority of boosters donating millions of dollars at a time are doing it for the big three sports (football, basketball, and baseball). If the school did not have those three sports they would not have enough money to cover any other men or women sports at a highly competitive level.
How this affects male sports: People group all male sports into one category and all female athletes into another category. But this is not fair due to the fact that one sport (football) has 120 men on the roster and takes up the equivalent of about 5 female sports in money and roster spots. But for any male that did not grow up playing football they are pretty much out of luck when it comes to their equal opportunity. Not only do males that do not play football have less sports available, on those sports they have even less scholarships.
What needs to happen: People have to stop comparing any female sports to football. You are never going to get what they get and due to the fact that everything is about money, and unless you can fill a 80,000 person stadium to watch a volleyball game, you are not going to come close. The same way most male track and field athletes have generally accepted that we are not football players, we do not get first priority in the weight room, we do not get photo shoots, autograph signings, 85 full scholarships, or fly to every event we go to. If you do not bring in the cash you don't get it all.
Less bluntly: Throw football out of the equation. It is one sport, and there is no equivalent for females that will have nearly as many roster spots. It pays the bills, let it just be the business side. Then switch over to all the other sports that have male and female counterparts. If you have baseball, have softball, if you have men's basketball have women's basketball... ext. There is no reason that because someone create a sport that is allowed 120 roster spots that makes a lot of money that you should ahve to get rid of other male sports to be fair to women. Title IX was created so that there was equal opportunity in sports like basketball where places would not have women's teams, and where people did not give scholarships for female athletes.
And finally...
Why does no one talk about it: No one is willing to discuss the problems created by a law that was created to help women without being called a sexist.