Title IX fraud

Looking through her archives, it does not appear the author is a college sports reporter in the conventional sense. I see no game stories at all.

 

DanOregon, BDWP: You can't compare what places like South Florida are doing to pad roster numbers with actual female interest in athletics. One is an administrative paper-shuffling move and the other is interest generated by students. In a college environment, how often are those the same things?

For example, let's say the university has a strong club rugby or soccer or rodeo program. The way to meet student interest and maintain compliance would be to elevate that club sport to varsity status. But that costs an athletic department money, so they don't do it. Much easier to pack the track roster than to prepare a rugby field, provide uniforms/trainers/paid coaches, give them a travel budget, etc.

But seeing a university pack the track roster and determining that all female student athletic interest has been met is a jump in logic. They don't add a bowling team because women are clamoring to bowl. They add it because they don't have to build a facility or buy much equipment because the team can use City Bowl down the road. And then they meet the "history of adding opportunities" prong and then the football program doesn't come under threat of investigation. Problem solved.

Also, Title IX does apply to art and music. It also applies to the science lab and the English department and the student government association. Title IX is about all educational opportunities, not just sports. Sports was just so out of whack for so long it was easy to put into focus. If a school decided the music department was only open to female students, that would be in violation. Or if they decided to only allow men into its medical school, that would be in violation.

But to imply that the enforcement of Title IX should apply more softly to athletics and include female participation numbers for art and music is to reinforce the stereotypes that girls and women don't like sports and fewer men than women like the arts. Simply not true.

 

What Dirtybird said.

 

Football doesn't need 85 scholarships at all. I'd say around 60 would be just fine.

 

Which totally disregards the truth that you're still limiting male scholarship opportunities while not helping women's athletics.

The issue isn't that there aren't enough scholarships for high-performing female athletes. The issue is that there aren't enough high-performing female athletes for the scholarships.

Why should the thousands of male athletes who are deserving of a college scholarship have their opportunities limited just to meet a quota that fails to take into account interest and ability? I'm certain that was not the intent of the legislation.

And regarding the three-prong comment from earlier, while there are three different prongs to prove compliance, history shows that courts take the easy way out and rely solely on proportionality.

 

Actually, the NFL has an unlimited roster. If a guy gets hurt they can sign a free agent. If all three of the Bears' QBs get hurt they can sign three more.

If a college team loses all three of its QBs they can't call a guy up from a junior college in the middle of the season.

 

Except that football team has 7-8 quarterbacks. And I agree that 85 scholarship is an excessive total

 

Cutting those 60 scholarships would save athletic budgets some money, which would allow you to expand the number of women's (and men's sports, including wrestling, lacrosse -- growing in popularity) sports. Stop worshipping football and there's a shitton of money coming free.

 

If donors and fans wanted to give money to women's teams instead of the football team, they'd already be doing it. Those donating to football want that money to stay in football.

 

Exactly. The law if good in terms of its goals, horrible in terms of how it is written and how it has subsequently been interpreted.

Most of this could be avoided if football was not counted 100 percent since no women's sports can come close to using as many scholarships and/or resources.

If Football counted as, say 25 scholarships, instead of 85, the law would have a reasonable chance of making more sense.

 

Athletic Directors have been saying this for decades. It just doesn't seem likely to ever happen.

 

And that would tell me you are clueless.

No team NEEDS scholarships.

But in order to do Division I football the right way, no less than 80 is reasonable. That enables a team to recruit 20 new players per year and still have enough reasonable depth to be competitive given injury and attrition.