It's Club Soccer - Don't Complain About it

[Multi Sport]

You guys are something else. Men have all the opportunities in sports. Hands down. A man who is good enough at baseball, will certainly forgo college to play since he can make zillions playing pro. A man who is good enough at soccer will be on a fully-funded Academy or off to Europe. Heck, US Soccer would prefer they not play in college anyway! Good enough at tennis? He can go join the pro-circuit where the male athletes make double+ what their female counterparts make. Etc etc etc. Unless she is a tennis phenom or maybe an exotic dancer, a woman is pretty much maxed out if she can make the Ice Capades or the Dallas Cowgirls, where she will rake in a whopping $150 per game with no pay for rehearsals.

There are millions of dollars out there for talented male athletes. Yet you also want to deny $10 grand to a female athlete to play a little field hockey in college? C'mon guys.

I have no idea why you are addressing this to me. All I did was post a comment from an AD at a D1 school. My dd is in college now playing soccer but that doesn't mean that I'm naive and if you have a complaint take it up with the AD...

 

[Multi Sport]

You guys are something else. Men have all the opportunities in sports. Hands down. A man who is good enough at baseball, will certainly forgo college to play since he can make zillions playing pro. A man who is good enough at soccer will be on a fully-funded Academy or off to Europe. Heck, US Soccer would prefer they not play in college anyway! Good enough at tennis? He can go join the pro-circuit where the male athletes make double+ what their female counterparts make. Etc etc etc. Unless she is a tennis phenom or maybe an exotic dancer, a woman is pretty much maxed out if she can make the Ice Capades or the Dallas Cowgirls, where she will rake in a whopping $150 per game with no pay for rehearsals.

There are millions of dollars out there for talented male athletes. Yet you also want to deny $10 grand to a female athlete to play a little field hockey in college? C'mon guys.

And BTW.. my dd received much more then 10k so I'm a very thankful parent.

 

[Glen]

If a school has predominately one gender, how do they make a balance?

I didn't say anything about balance. I did say the participation levels of women in sports must be "proportionate to the number of women enrolled in the school." So if 25% of those that are enrolled in a school are women, 25% of the participants in school sports should be women.

 

[Not_that_Serious]

Now I see the fallacy in your beliefs. The money is the school's, to do what they want, which they do. It doesn't belong to football. The school can do whatever they want within the confines of T9.

Without T9 they could do whatever they want with the money, even giving it all to women's scholarships, if they wanted to. But of course they wouldn't.

tell that to Nick Saben, or if Joe Paterno was alive. Everyone knew Joe told the school how much money they would spend on football. Hell, Joe ran the surrounding area down to Police. Whatever program/dept generates the revenue runs the school. How it is just about everywhere. Big programs have big boosters - boosters who sit on boards and hire/fire anyone not on board. The communities around are all on board due to the money. Besides seeing family members/friends get the benefit of such programs, you can watch enough 30 for 30s and understand how these schools work.

 

[JJP]

I have no issue, I said it’s weak. It doesn’t change anything.

You find facts hard to believe because of your underlying bias.

List one non fact.

Football makes money - fact.
Men’s bball makes money - fact.
Women’s sports, no money - fact.
T9 requires abou 97 women’s scholarships after football and men’s bball - fact.

Here r the facts T9 supporters are trying to deny
1. Less money for smaller men’s sports after T9 scoops out 97 scholarships - fact. Budgets exist. Scholarships cost money. When 97 women’s scholarships are given out, there’s less money for everything else. Instead, T9 articles support the fallacy you can cut football and bball budgets to fund smaller men’s sports, which is not even a real option. Sports that make the money control their own budget. This is not even a real argument, just an ostrich sticking it’s head in the sand.

2. Smaller men’s sports have been axed due to T9 when there’s a budget cut. Fact. Axing women’s sports leads to T9 violation, so a non-revenue men’s sport gets axed.

These are all facts. Blithe generalizations, attacking the messenger of facts, for “bias” are an attempt to not discuss the underlying reality that T9 has been great for women at the expense of smaller men’s sports.

 

[espola]

List one non fact.

Football makes money - fact.
Men’s bball makes money - fact.
Women’s sports, no money - fact.
T9 requires abou 97 women’s scholarships after football and men’s bball - fact.

Here r the facts T9 supporters are trying to deny
1. Less money for smaller men’s sports after T9 scoops out 97 scholarships - fact. Budgets exist. Scholarships cost money. When 97 women’s scholarships are given out, there’s less money for everything else. Instead, T9 articles support the fallacy you can cut football and bball budgets to fund smaller men’s sports, which is not even a real option. Sports that make the money control their own budget. This is not even a real argument, just an ostrich sticking it’s head in the sand.

2. Smaller men’s sports have been axed due to T9 when there’s a budget cut. Fact. Axing women’s sports leads to T9 violation, so a non-revenue men’s sport gets axed.

These are all facts. Blithe generalizations, attacking the messenger of facts, for “bias” are an attempt to not discuss the underlying reality that T9 has been great for women at the expense of smaller men’s sports.

Basketball makes a profit in only a few schools, football even fewer.

 

[JJP]

I'm not against football coaches getting paid. Heck I think D1 collegiate football players deserve compensation and should probably be allowed endorsement opps. But JJP is arguing that it' because of women's sports that non-marquee men's sports are getting drained. If indeed it is the alums who are coming up with 12 MILLION to fire a coach, I'm guessing they could come up with a couple hundred thousand for men's wrestling, track, or gymnastics team, right?

JJP please keep in mind that football is an exclusively male sport! If schools and alumni felt "other" men's sports were a priority, they could perhaps negotiate a couple hundred thousands out of those multi-millions to give back to other men's sports. Instead you want to take it away from the women, who can't play football, and that's the same backward thinking that made Title IX necessary in the first place.

Alumni and booster clubs pay into a football and men’s bball program. But those books aren’t open and a lot of the payments are under the table so to speak, such as when a top recruit is given a great “job” by a booster but he never shows up to work. There’s no way to really know how much booster money is involved in big time college football, it’s obviously a huge amount, but nobody publishes the books

Again, T9 supporters keep trying to spend other people’s money. You can’t make boosters spend money on sports they don’t want to support. T9 doesn’t have that issue because it gets to spend football and basketball money. If a school wants 97 football and men’s bball athletes, they now have to budget from football and bball funds 97 girls scholarships and appropriate teams. Unless football and bball budget for those T9 teams they don’t get to play.

It’s a good thing that the girls get to play, but the way T9 works has had a huge distorting effect. When a girls team has 40 soccer players and they’re realistically going to play about 16, how is that a good thing? You’ve spent money on 20+ players who aren’t that great, who are never going to play. I see colleges starting women’s teams in obscure sports where there’s no interest and putting in women athletes who have never even done that sport (think it was some obscure rowing variation sport).

That money should have gone to a dedicated student athlete who has practiced and loves their sport.

 

[JJP]

Basketball makes a profit in only a few schools, football even fewer.

You keep saying this but never post anything to back it up.

http://www.businessinsider.com/scho...-sports-2016-10/#18-minnesota--1112-million-8

That’s a link to 25 richest sports programs. As I suspected women’s college basketball is making some money.

 

[LASTMAN14]

List one non fact.

Football makes money - fact.
Men’s bball makes money - fact.
Women’s sports, no money - fact.
T9 requires abou 97 women’s scholarships after football and men’s bball - fact.

Here r the facts T9 supporters are trying to deny
1. Less money for smaller men’s sports after T9 scoops out 97 scholarships - fact. Budgets exist. Scholarships cost money. When 97 women’s scholarships are given out, there’s less money for everything else. Instead, T9 articles support the fallacy you can cut football and bball budgets to fund smaller men’s sports, which is not even a real option. Sports that make the money control their own budget. This is not even a real argument, just an ostrich sticking it’s head in the sand.

2. Smaller men’s sports have been axed due to T9 when there’s a budget cut. Fact. Axing women’s sports leads to T9 violation, so a non-revenue men’s sport gets axed.

These are all facts. Blithe generalizations, attacking the messenger of facts, for “bias” are an attempt to not discuss the underlying reality that T9 has been great for women at the expense of smaller men’s sports.

And, football despite making a profit for some universities can be attributed to other men's programs being cut in order to continue to fund/bolster a football program. Universities make this choice not Title 9.

 

[JJP]

You guys are something else. Men have all the opportunities in sports. Hands down. A man who is good enough at baseball, will certainly forgo college to play since he can make zillions playing pro. A man who is good enough at soccer will be on a fully-funded Academy or off to Europe. Heck, US Soccer would prefer they not play in college anyway! Good enough at tennis? He can go join the pro-circuit where the male athletes make double+ what their female counterparts make. Etc etc etc. Unless she is a tennis phenom or maybe an exotic dancer, a woman is pretty much maxed out if she can make the Ice Capades or the Dallas Cowgirls, where she will rake in a whopping $150 per game with no pay for rehearsals.

There are millions of dollars out there for talented male athletes. Yet you also want to deny $10 grand to a female athlete to play a little field hockey in college? C'mon guys.

C’mon. T9 has been around for 25+ years. Several generations of women have been supported, exposed to sports and played it.

Aren’t there enough women out there who can turn on the TV and watch women’s teams play? Women can’t buy tickets to support women’s teams?

Do you know how hard it is to hit a major league pitch, how incredible the hand eye of a MLB player is? And it’s not like a lot of men are heading off to Europe in soccer and making it big. As far as I know it’s just Pulisic and Giuseppe Rossi.

The men are getting paid because people (both men and women) are buying tickets and watching games. If the athletes are drawing eyeballs they’ve earned their money.

 

[JJP]

And, football despite making a profit for some universities can be attributed to other men's programs being cut in order to continue to fund/bolster a football program. Universities make this choice not Title 9.

Yea . . . show me the math on how a sport, football, that makes money, causes the axing of non-revenue men’s sport. But non-revenue women’s sports, which must be funded and lose money, bear no responsibility.

 

[LASTMAN14]

Yea . . . show me the math on how a sport, football, that makes money, causes the axing of non-revenue men’s sport. But non-revenue women’s sports, which must be funded and lose money, bear no responsibility.

Because most of these are publicly funded programs and each university determines what happens. We can use the profit margins as much as we want, but in the end football consumes most scholarships and funding. Scholarship numbers need to be equitable, programs need to be equitable, so with profits aside there are rules.

 

[outside!]

Do you know how hard it is to hit a major league pitch, how incredible the hand eye of a MLB player is?

Due to the shorter distance to the plate, the time for a fastpitch softball to go from the pitcher to the catcher is shorter than in baseball. Somewhere on the internet is a video of MLB batters being embarrassed by a college softball pitcher.

Do you really think 25 years is enough time to erase centuries of discrimination?

 

[mirage]

Yea . . . show me the math on how a sport, football, that makes money, causes the axing of non-revenue men’s sport. But non-revenue women’s sports, which must be funded and lose money, bear no responsibility.

Stop wasting your efforts.

T9 is effectively an entitlement program and its irrelevant if it makes sense or not. It just is.

 

[mirage]

Due to the shorter distance to the plate, the time for a fastpitch softball to go from the pitcher to the catcher is shorter than in baseball. Somewhere on the internet is a video of MLB batters being embarrassed by a college softball pitcher....

You gotta do the math.

Baseball pitched at 95mph=139 ft/s over 90 ft distance = 1.54 ft/s
Softball pitched at 60mph=88 ft/s over 60 ft distance = 1.47 ft/s

Baseball is moving faster. On the top of that, the velocity difference between a fastball, breaking ball and change up can be over 0.25 ft/s over the 90 ft distance so the timing is changed significantly (~16%).

The thing with softball pitch that makes it difficult for baseball batters to hit is fact that the players are not used to the ball rising over the trajectory rather down coming down. Not the relative speed over the distance.

 

[espola]

You gotta do the math.

Baseball pitched at 95mph=139 ft/s over 90 ft distance = 1.54 ft/s
Softball pitched at 60mph=88 ft/s over 60 ft distance = 1.47 ft/s

Baseball is moving faster. On the top of that, the velocity difference between a fastball, breaking ball and change up can be over 0.25 ft/s over the 90 ft distance so the timing is changed significantly (~16%).

The thing with softball pitch that makes it difficult for baseball batters to hit is fact that the players are not used to the ball rising over the trajectory rather down coming down. Not the relative speed over the distance.

That should be 1.54 seconds and 1.47 seconds.

You're welcome.

 

[Mystery Train]

Regarding fast pitch softball vs. baseball: It's been scientifically demonstrated that it is impossible for hitters (either softball or baseball) to see and react to the ball after it comes out of the hand. Human reaction time and neuro-communication isn't fast enough. Their ability to hit the ball comes from anticipation. That anticipation is grooved in from years of experience and visual observation. The reason MLB players struggle at hitting fast-pitch softball pitches is because they can't anticipate the ball location because the visual cues are completely different than what they are trained on. If you gave an MLB player a week of practice, they would adjust and be going yard soon enough. It works the other way, too. If you put a good fast-pitch softball hitter at the plate against a 90mph MLB flame-thrower, they'd strike out, too. It has nothing to do with one being "harder" or "faster" than the other.

 

[mirage]

That should be 1.54 seconds and 1.47 seconds.

You're welcome.

Thanks for catching my error but actually its inverse as I did it while in a meeting in a conference room and did it upside down.

90 ft covered at 139 ft/sec = 0.65 sec to go from the mound to home plates.

60 ft covered at 88 ft/sec = 0.68 sec to go from the pitching plate to home plate for softball.

Technically, smaller baseball results in shorter reaction time than bigger softball by 0.03 seconds.

The basic point is still the same and valid

 

[Real Deal]

It’s a good thing that the girls get to play, but the way T9 works has had a huge distorting effect. When a girls team has 40 soccer players and they’re realistically going to play about 16, how is that a good thing? You’ve spent money on 20+ players who aren’t that great, who are never going to play. I see colleges starting women’s teams in obscure sports where there’s no interest and putting in women athletes who have never even done that sport (think it was some obscure rowing variation sport).

That money should have gone to a dedicated student athlete who has practiced and loves their sport.

Wow. In that last statement you are basically stating that female collegiate athletes who have been awarded scholarships are not dedicated, do not practice, and do not love their sports.

... And the money should go to boys instead... because they are more worthy... because????... the boys have practiced and loved their sports more... of course.

That is a bold statement.

Your thinking is really the textbook definition of why Title 9 is necessary.

 

[Real Deal]

C’mon. T9 has been around for 25+ years. Several generations of women have been supported, exposed to sports and played it.

Do you know how hard it is to hit a major league pitch, how incredible the hand eye of a MLB player is? And it’s not like a lot of men are heading off to Europe in soccer and making it big. As far as I know it’s just Pulisic and Giuseppe Rossi.

Try landing a a backward-handspring-double-back-flip combination on a balance beam (Simone Biles).

 

[espola]

Thanks for catching my error but actually its inverse as I did it while in a meeting in a conference room and did it upside down.

90 ft covered at 139 ft/sec = 0.65 sec to go from the mound to home plates.

60 ft covered at 88 ft/sec = 0.68 sec to go from the pitching plate to home plate for softball.

Technically, smaller baseball results in shorter reaction time than bigger softball by 0.03 seconds.

The basic point is still the same and valid

You should also correct for the actual release point which brings both closer to the batter.