Disclaimer: My comments are only directed at big colleges who make a lot of money off of football and basketball. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/sports/1467437 "Operating budgets for the University of Texas and Texas A&M football teams last year topped $10 million apiece, which was slightly more than each school's total budget for women's athletics. " I don't understand this. The football teams are not using money. They are giving money to the other teams. The football teams operating budget is most of the the women's athletics and football budgets since they have to support both. I like the ideals of Title IX. I believe all sports programs that are making money and breaking even should be exempted from Title IX or Title IX be based on economics, not a quota. Money making sports are not dening money to other programs. The football scholarships aren't stealing women scholarships, they are creating them. The surplus from the money making programs should support the other programs evenly. Suggesting to cut down the number of people making the athletic departments money will cut down on women scholarships. I was watching a program the other day on the issue where the alumni of a wrestling program actually had enough money to support the team totally, but not enough to support the wrestling team and an equal number of women in another sport. If Universities were required to spend equal amounts of money on both women and men's programs, there would be no women's programs because the mens athletic departmnents are usually self sufficient on just the men's football team. I don't understand the budgetary arguements made by women's athletics when they are the ones that are costing money. Denying a wrestling program because its a men's team under Title IX is sexual discrimination if the men's program costs no money to the University.
Well, you can't deny it works. The WNBA and Women's soccer leagues just showed up. Why? No doubt title IX had something to do with it. The market does exist if you give the women a chance. I agree that the women produce a less entertaining product. It's hard to say otherwise, however, the product will get better. The NBA and NASL were lame for very long periods of time. Women needed a chance. They needed an opportunity. Now it's up to them what they do with it.
I agree - there will come a time when Title nine will go away HOWEVER, Women should not focus on the difference in money until they earn a bit more. Beyond football and Basketball . . what other college sports are all that self sufficient. I mean the wrestling program seems line it is unusual. If you give the women MORE scholarships. . . .will that lead to their sports being more money making? What is the time frame on that? Universities are businesses. .to think other wise is naive Rocket River
There are a lot of young men who've had their teams stolen away who can certainly deny that it works. Title IX is an anti-discrimination law, it's purpose is not to create a market for women's athletics.
I've got athletic female cousins. 1) I don't see how cutting self-sufficient mens programs to get equality helps women athletes since there is no budget to add a women's team. 2) Less Football players at small schools=Less women's sports at small schools. Big schools will still carry 100+ and be more dominate because they make money. This will create less attendance at smaller schools as upsets become more difficult. Cutting 15 football players is the same as cutting 15 female athletes. Title IX has done some great things. UT softball is one of them. The position illustrated in the article is much worse than Title IX itself. Profit or deficit caused by a sport is a better measure of a budget than costs. If you want to take the position that men's teams must be cut to support a womens' team, I got no problem with that argument or when that happens. But having this done and blaming the football teams for the cutting of men's teams is ludicruous as is my spelling. Cutting men's teams without adding a women's team accomplishes nothing except bitterness.
Bottom line: revenue sports (football and mens basketball) run athletic departments, and by cutting scholarships in revenue sports, you hurt all non revenue sports. Revenue sports should be exempt from Title IX. I'm sorry all revenue sports are male. Because of budget deficits created by trying to meet Title IX, athletic departments are cutting scholarships from mens non revenue sports. Are they creating new scholarships for women? Nope. They attack mens non revenue cause they can't touch women sports. Currently excluding football, women have more scholarship opportunities than men in college athletics.
Did you also know walk-ons (non scholarship) count as well? "I'm sorry Rudy, you can't be on the practice squad cause there's a quota"
Title 9 only refers to state subsidized schools. If it is a private university, they can have as many men's programs as they want. However, in a land of equal opportunity, you have to give both sexes the same chance. Since our tax dollars are paying for the school, one program's monetary performance is irrelevant, college is about opportunity for all, not just the most profitable, that is for the pro sports. DaDakota
A private university that receives no federal funds of any kind at all isn't required to comply with Title IX. Schools like Baylor, TCU, SMU, Rice, etc. are required to and do comply with Title IX. While there are some decent points made in that article, I do get the feeling that some folks won't be happy until women's sports has the same level of interest, etc. as men's sports. I've seen other articles that quote that Lopiano person as saying things like how newspaper sports editors are sexist (because they don't cover female sports as much as male sports) and that sports editors shouldn't show someone like Anna Kornikova without also showing an ugly female athlete as well for balance. She's also against calling female teams names such as "Lady Longhorns" and the like.
