Interesting column on the future of women's college sports


"here’s the biggest problem that I don’t see how it gets resolved: preferential admission of athletes"
That is why the scheme doesn't work. The minute you admit athletes, you associate the college and have Title IX problems.

The supreme court decision did not open the door to setting up the suggested scheme nor does the proposed rule by the NCAA. That option was always there with the original arguments against Title IX being the lack of profit to warrant women's sports.

In order for colleges to attempt to be somewhat in compliance with Title IX, they already had to add certain female sports to attempt to make women's sports opportunities equivalent to men's sports opportunities. Also, there is already D1 schools without football programs and they generally are out of compliance but in favor of the women.

The author made significant leaps to conclude women's sports being significantly diminished because of capitalism taking over but, that argument has always been there. I got to believe if there was some structure that could be set up to avoid Title IX, colleges would have already done it.
 
Keepermom2 said:
"here’s the biggest problem that I don’t see how it gets resolved: preferential admission of athletes"
That is why the scheme doesn't work. The minute you admit athletes, you associate the college and have Title IX problems.

The supreme court decision did not open the door to setting up the suggested scheme nor does the proposed rule by the NCAA. That option was always there with the original arguments against Title IX being the lack of profit to warrant women's sports.

In order for colleges to attempt to be somewhat in compliance with Title IX, they already had to add certain female sports to attempt to make women's sports opportunities equivalent to men's sports opportunities. Also, there is already D1 schools without football programs and they generally are out of compliance but in favor of the women.

The author made significant leaps to conclude women's sports being significantly diminished because of capitalism taking over but, that argument has always been there. I got to believe if there was some structure that could be set up to avoid Title IX, colleges would have already done it.
Click to expand...
Why would colleges want to avoid Title IX?
 
Does anyone know how Title IX affects female dominant activities, like dance or theater?

Do they have a similar problem with trying to keep parity when 70% of interested students are a single gender?
 
dad4 said:
Does anyone know how Title IX affects female dominant activities, like dance or theater?

Do they have a similar problem with trying to keep parity when 70% of interested students are a single gender?
Click to expand...
A couple of links that may answer your question.
19thnews.org

The complicated history of cheerleading, Title IX and what it means to be a sport

Title IX was supposed to move women off the sidelines. But while cheerleading has moved far beyond game day, it still doesn’t have that recognition.
19thnews.org 19thnews.org
 
Keepermom2 said:
A couple of links that may answer your question.
19thnews.org

The complicated history of cheerleading, Title IX and what it means to be a sport

Title IX was supposed to move women off the sidelines. But while cheerleading has moved far beyond game day, it still doesn’t have that recognition.
19thnews.org 19thnews.org
Click to expand...
I looked. But most of what I found was about the fact that dance became less popular when other options for girls opened up, or that cheer was excluded so that it wouldn’t be a loophole. If we hadn’t excluded cheer, 1970s football schools would have expanded their cheer programs and ignored every other women’s sport. Neither really tells me much about how title IX affects female dominant activities on college campuses today.

Specifically, is the “equal opportunites” argument applied in both directions? Requiring 50% of athletes be women is similar to requiring that 50% of dancers be men. We can do it, but doing so comes at the expense of female dancers and male athletes.

I don’t know what other option there was. I certainly can’t support EOTL/Golden Gate/paytoplay when he says get rid of TIX. The equal numbers claim was a very effective counter to the belief that girls don’t really want sports anyway. And “half of all athletes are female” is certainly better than “2% of all athletes are female”, which is what we did 50 years ago.

But it does seem the current system is a bit tilted towards my daughter and away from my son. Works out fine for me, since she’s the athlete. But it’s probaly not reflective of overall student interest in sports.
 
paytoplayisgood said:
ruins sports opportunities for men. Forces schools to either choose football and cut multiple sports or no football.
Click to expand...
LOL. You forgot the third option which most colleges have chosen to do....add more women's sports opportunities.

Without Title IX, you most likely would not be coaching even if you only coach boys teams, and you would most likely not be a DOC for a soccer club as you have claimed you are. Title IX created the growing market for female youth sports, the increased demand for youth soccer coaches and soccer clubs. With the expectation of the youth sports market to be $77.6 billion by 2026 and female participation calculated during the pandemic to be 45% of the youth sports participation, it is short sited by the author of this article to look at capitalism drivers only within the confines of the college setting, and it would be too limiting to only look at the professional sports market. The investment in female sports by the government through the passing of Title IX has certainly paid off and will continue to pay off. Given the following information, my guess is there would now be some significant money thrown in the pool by stake holders to ensure women's sports at the college and high school levels are appropriately represented. Just recently private investors ponied up $75 million into the WNBA.

www2.deloitte.com

Business insights, analysis & perspectives | Deloitte Insights

Deloitte Insights delivers research, analysis, and perspectives for business and government.
www2.deloitte.com

In addition, without Title IX, there wouldn't be a USWNT that recently started generating more revenue than the USMNT.

Also, there were certain college men's sports that were added back after deletion during the pandemic because of Title IX noncompliance.

Having said that, I believe the calculations used to determine equality need to be revisited to add certain variables instead of one size fits all because I have seen a small amount of instances where the men are not equal to the women in the calculations.
 
Keepermom2 said:
LOL. You forgot the third option which most colleges have chosen to do....add more women's sports opportunities.

Without Title IX, you most likely would not be coaching even if you only coach boys teams, and you would most likely not be a DOC for a soccer club as you have claimed you are. Title IX created the growing market for female youth sports, the increased demand for youth soccer coaches and soccer clubs. With the expectation of the youth sports market to be $77.6 billion by 2026 and female participation calculated during the pandemic to be 45% of the youth sports participation, it is short sited by the author of this article to look at capitalism drivers only within the confines of the college setting, and it would be too limiting to only look at the professional sports market. The investment in female sports by the government through the passing of Title IX has certainly paid off and will continue to pay off. Given the following information, my guess is there would now be some significant money thrown in the pool by stake holders to ensure women's sports at the college and high school levels are appropriately represented. Just recently private investors ponied up $75 million into the WNBA.

www2.deloitte.com

Business insights, analysis & perspectives | Deloitte Insights

Deloitte Insights delivers research, analysis, and perspectives for business and government.
www2.deloitte.com

In addition, without Title IX, there wouldn't be a USWNT that recently started generating more revenue than the USMNT.

Also, there were certain college men's sports that were added back after deletion during the pandemic because of Title IX noncompliance.

Having said that, I believe the calculations used to determine equality need to be revisited to add certain variables instead of one size fits all because I have seen a small amount of instances where the men are not equal to the women in the calculations.
Click to expand...
There is a place for looking at who actually wants to play sports. Watch ULittle rec soccer. About 2/3 of the participants are boys. About 1/3 are girls. You get similar results if you add things up across all sports. Or if you look at the adult leagues. There are more male athletes than female athletes.

That’s not because we discriminate against girls. It’s because many girls think art class sounds like more fun than soccer or basketball.

So, if we had a system where 2/3 of slots on college sports teams were for young men, that wouldn’t be some huge injustice. It would just be a reflection of the fact that more men like sports than women.
 
dad4 said:
There is a place for looking at who actually wants to play sports. Watch ULittle rec soccer. About 2/3 of the participants are boys. About 1/3 are girls. You get similar results if you add things up across all sports. Or if you look at the adult leagues. There are more male athletes than female athletes.

That’s not because we discriminate against girls. It’s because many girls think art class sounds like more fun than soccer or basketball.

So, if we had a system where 2/3 of slots on college sports teams were for young men, that wouldn’t be some huge injustice. It would just be a reflection of the fact that more men like sports than women.
Click to expand...
So you just ignored the participation in youth sports results of 45% females? Having said that, that is one of the variables that I believe should be considered now in the equality calculation.
 
Keepermom2 said:
So you just ignored the participation in youth sports results of 45% females? Having said that, that is one of the variables that I believe should be considered now in the equality calculation.
Click to expand...
ignore? Kind of the opposite. I think we should follow that 45%, or whatever number it ends up being in the future.

If roughly 45% of young athletes are women, then roughly 45% of college sports slots should go to women.

I said 2:1 because that was my guess based on old AYSO numbers. If it is 44% now, then 44%.
 
dad4 said:
There is a place for looking at who actually wants to play sports. Watch ULittle rec soccer. About 2/3 of the participants are boys. About 1/3 are girls. You get similar results if you add things up across all sports. Or if you look at the adult leagues. There are more male athletes than female athletes.

That’s not because we discriminate against girls. It’s because many girls think art class sounds like more fun than soccer or basketball.

So, if we had a system where 2/3 of slots on college sports teams were for young men, that wouldn’t be some huge injustice. It would just be a reflection of the fact that more men like sports than women.
Click to expand...
I can't help but chuckle when you say your son is unfairly treated. The attached article is
dad4 said:
ignore? Kind of the opposite. I think we should follow that 45%, or whatever number it ends up being in the future.

If roughly 45% of young athletes are women, then roughly 45% of college sports slots should go to women.

I said 2:1 because that was my guess based on old AYSO numbers. If it is 44% now, then 44%.
Click to expand...
Well...there is a pretty big difference between your 2/3 eyeballing participation of boys and the statistical facts of 45% are girls. ;) I agree that the participation should be a factor in the calculation, but not on a 1 for 1 basis as you suggest. The whole point of Title IX was to create opportunities for females to play sports. If they used your calculation back in 1974, your daughter would not have the opportunity she has now. The oportunities have definitely increased at the college level due to stronger enforcement than high school. High school opportunities for women are still lagging behind to men so it would stand to reason that would impact desire. Of course congress put in laws without providing the necessary funding.

Your son certainly isn't discriminated against given the facts pointed out in the article below.

There are a few instances at schools with no football programs that he may be slightly discriminated against.

On Her Turf

Stay updated with the latest news, live coverage, and highlights in women's sports all in one place on NBC Sports.
onherturf.nbcsports.com onherturf.nbcsports.com
 
Keepermom2 said:
I can't help but chuckle when you say your son is unfairly treated. The attached article is

Well...there is a pretty big difference between your 2/3 eyeballing participation of boys and the statistical facts of 45% are girls. ;) I agree that the participation should be a factor in the calculation, but not on a 1 for 1 basis as you suggest. The whole point of Title IX was to create opportunities for females to play sports. If they used your calculation back in 1974, your daughter would not have the opportunity she has now. The oportunities have definitely increased at the college level due to stronger enforcement than high school. High school opportunities for women are still lagging behind to men so it would stand to reason that would impact desire. Of course congress put in laws without providing the necessary funding.

Your son certainly isn't discriminated against given the facts pointed out in the article below.

There are a few instances at schools with no football programs that he may be slightly discriminated against.

On Her Turf

Stay updated with the latest news, live coverage, and highlights in women's sports all in one place on NBC Sports.
onherturf.nbcsports.com onherturf.nbcsports.com
Click to expand...
The mistreatment isn’t against anyone in my family or extended family. Our best athletes are all girls. ;)

Title IX in 1974 is a world different from Title IX now. Back then, there were almost no sports available to girls. Today, you have dads wearing pink ribbons in their hair while volunteering to coach their daughter’s team.

The law should be updated.
 
dad4 said:
The mistreatment isn’t against anyone in my family or extended family. Our best athletes are all girls. ;)

Title IX in 1974 is a world different from Title IX now. Back then, there were almost no sports available to girls. Today, you have dads wearing pink ribbons in their hair while volunteering to coach their daughter’s team.

The law should be updated.
Click to expand...
Maybe the law should be updated when high schools get in compliance and when colleges get closer to actually complying with the law. Of course at that time they would need to factor in that 60% of college students are female. The calculation change as you propose would probably benefit the women over the men.

Hadn't even thought about it but, it would stand to reason that females fund 60% of tuition revenue along with federal and state funding. Shouldn't that be considered too as it relates to opportunities? Just saying.
 
Keepermom2 said:
Maybe the law should be updated when high schools get in compliance and when colleges get closer to actually complying with the law. Of course at that time they would need to factor in that 60% of college students are female. The calculation change as you propose would probably benefit the women over the men.

Hadn't even thought about it but, it would stand to reason that females fund 60% of tuition revenue along with federal and state funding. Shouldn't that be considered too as it relates to opportunities? Just saying.
Click to expand...
Really good point that 60% of college students are female. That probably does flip the result.

I stand by my method either way. If colleges have more prospective women athletes than men, then their programs should have more slots on women’s sports teams.
 
socalkdg said:
I say go with school population ratio guys to girls to decide pct in college sports.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works. The Title IX requirement, as amended over the years by literal trial and error, is for equivalent opportunity, not equal results.
 
www.cbssports.com

College football realignment news: Notre Dame on deck; Pac-12, Big 12 could merge; SEC vs. Big Ten playoff?

Realignment may cool off for the holiday, but it's about to pick up again any day now
www.cbssports.com www.cbssports.com

“If football and basketball players are paid directly, that will run straight into Title IX concerns. Title IX is the 1973 federal law that mandates equal opportunities for an underrepresented gender at institutions that receive federal money. That discriminated gender has mostly referred to women. Simply put, the market value of Young and a women's cross-country athlete are different.

By the letter of the law, each should get an equal salary.

The Knight Commission suggested solution in December 2020: The FBS would break away as a separate entity and be funded by the CFP.”

Paying these athletes is going to happen. Also these colleges can’t afford to pay non revenue generating athletes let alone pay them equally. Not sure how this will exactly develop but big changes are coming and I can guess who will be on the losing side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top