Frank Deford takes on Title IX . . . .

great minds. (we posted at the same time). Back to work I go.

 

I read the column yesterday and thought it was among the worst Deford piece's I've ever read. The part in the middle where he goes on about how guys don't try in high school because they want football and basketball scholarships and girls are more into academics -- does he have anything to actually support that argument?

There were 1,600 students at my high school and only 70 varsity football players and 12 on the basketball team. I'm not saying he's wrong, but I didn't like how he just threw that part out there like it was common knowledge.

 

Well, there is no equivalent sport for women in college football, so I don't think it should be included in the Title IX argument.

As far as how to equally divide men's and women's sports, there is no magic solution. But, to have a women's track team and not a men's is pretty idiotic. If that's the case, just either have two of both, or none at all. So if no men's track no women's track. It may limit the number of sports, but no one can complain about the equality of it.

Of course, then people would complain about the lack of sports.

Also, is there an equivalent sport to say women's field hockey? I guess you could do lacrosse. I don;t know. Greater minds than mine will have to figure it out. But I like Title IX, it has gone such a long way to promoting women's sports. If I ever have a daugher who likes sports, I'll be glad it's around to ensure she can particiapte.

 

Then perhaps it's almost time to let the supply and demand work for itself. The culture may have changed enough that the government can back out of mandating equality. With women making up more than half of students, it would be idiotic and self-defeating for a school to underserve them.

 

The culture has not changed enough, I assure you. The gender gap is still alive and well.

Wake me up when women aren't making 70 cents on a man's dollar.

 

Would you care to explain why that is? That was the point of the original question.
What is more intrinsically academic about dance than football?

 

Not a good enough reason. So long as we're talking collegiate sports, there's no debate that football is one.

 

This is a pretty weak column.

For too many years, proportionality was championed at the expense of the other two prongs of compliance. That, thankfully, is changing, because it was a blatent quota system.

So now that the interests of many college-age women athletes have been met by the addition of lacrosse, field and ice hockey, crew, etc., meeting a requirement of compliance, it would be interesting to see if schools that used Title IX as the reason for dropping men's programs brought them back. Why can't Wisconsin play baseball? Why can't the hundreds of schools that droped wrestling - one of the most popular male high school sports - bring back their programs?

Ha ha. Of course they won't, they'll plead financial reasons.

Of course, football could easily be cut to 70 scholarships at I-A and to 48 at I-AA, which would help foster even more parity. The game has never been better than it is with 85 scholarships; take away 15 more and the talent pool would become even more widely distributed.

Those 15 scholarships taken away from football could be re-directed on an FTE basis, instead of on a head-count basis, to easily re-establish dropped male programs. The 60-some athletes in those programs would actually boost male enrollment on campus, which is becoming a serious problem as the percentage of men attending college continues to decline.

Title IX is a great law. If I had a daughter, I'd demand she have the same opportunities as men. But I have a son. And I'd like him to have the same opportunities as well to play baseball, tennis, swim, wrestle, play volleyball or run track in college should be be so inclined. Sadly, those opportunities are disappearing for males.


PS: Don't start a Title IX war with Cadet. We may disagree on some of the details and how it is enacted/enforced, but she knows her shit about that law.



ed mprothextrthe gamedrw

 

Yeah but you can't say tat because there are 5 men on the football team you have to find 85 roster spots for women on various team. If they do women's football and have 85 spots fine.

But football is such a different animal than any other sport. If not, that would be my one main gripe with Title IX. That really screws the smaller men's sports and that is just wrong. Eliminate football from the equation and it works pretty well IMO.

You'll always have people complain about a sport being cut, but that's life. One thing I've wondered is how many women;s sports have had to be cut at schools that have been trying so hard to be Title IX compliant tog et more men's sports completing.

 

You're right, schools should follow Wichita State's lead and simply drop football as a sport.

 

They did? I know some schools that have dropped it are talking about picking it back up.

But being a KU fan, is this just a nice way to take a jab at the Shockers?

 

No, Bob, I was simply turning your words into a mock argument to drop football as a means to comply with Title IX.

Not taking a jab at the Shockers by any means. They dropped football some time after 1970, when one of two planes crashed into a mountainside in the Rockies. The program simply never came all the way back, and the program cost too much for the school to want to continue.

Wichita State simply was the first school that came to mind as having dropped football at one point, nothing more.