|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 6, 2009 12:06:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 6, 2009 16:01:07 GMT -8
Well, the obvious 800 lb. gorilla is football. The rosters are so massive that it takes several women's sports to equal that one mens' sport. And the Title IX proponents don't care. Any argument you give them about football will just be met with, "cut the number of scholarships for football".
=Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 6, 2009 22:56:31 GMT -8
Well, the obvious 800 lb. gorilla is football. The rosters are so massive that it takes several women's sports to equal that one mens' sport. And the Title IX proponents don't care. Any argument you give them about football will just be met with, "cut the number of scholarships for football". =Bob How about this. . . Cut football and then cut most women's and men's sports across the board since the cash cow will no longer be there to prop up everything else. What if football had never been invented? Intercollegiate sports as we know it now would not exist. There would be some teams, sure, but they would be like Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland gathering together a few friends in a barn to put on a "show" seen by maybe two dozen of their friends and relatives on a Saturday afternoon. (I.e., the kind of show Mickey and Judy would have been able to put on had they been living in Peoria instead of working for MGM.) There would be no scholarships or TV or newspaper reporters attending press conferences or any of the trappings of modern intercollegiate athletics. And, since guys are, let's face it, more likely to want to go out there and knock heads even if no one is watching, the girls wouldn't have many chances to compete even in the totally amateur and self-organized athletic events what would exist had football never existed. Somewhere I read that schools such as Fullerton and Long Beach have money losing programs even without the expense of football. Didn't do them a whole hell of a lot of good to drop football, really. The angry (and, I'm afraid, vengeful) women who spearheaded the drive to pass Title IX should have realized that healthy football programs actually help everyone. Had they understood that, they would have agreed to a formula that would have allowed for the much greater number of players needed in football. Forcing schools to drop football makes no sense. One of these days a cash-strapped college president is going to realize that he can cut the athletic budget by 80%. The 20% left can still be divided up according to whatever draconian formula is in place. So maybe there would be 2 mens sports and 4 womens sports. Not much of a program, but . . . hey, all fairly apportioned, right? Or maybe some smart president is going to figure out that canceling the intercollegiate program entirely makes even more sense. I don't doubt that huge numbers of college presidents would probably love to do that but believe that they couldn't get away with it. And if the intercollegiate program were canned and the ladies (or the guys, for that matter) bitched and moaned? Well the college prez could just say: "If you are so hot to play, go out and organize your own club and pay for your own uniforms, refs, travel expenses, liniment, bandages, and so forth. You are here mostly to get an education, aren't you?" AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 7, 2009 16:47:50 GMT -8
It is what it is, Will. Title IX was passed in '72 and at that time, it was worthwhile because there were no womens' college sports worth talking about. Young ladies played softball and B-Ball and V-Ball but had no way to continue it after HS because there were no scholarships for them at the college level even though their parents paid the same taxes as everyone else.
If more had been done, if more scholarships had been offered to women, Title IX and Cal-NOW would never have taken place. Once the courts get involved, things often get ugly, especially in this case because the young ladies had a legitimate gripe.
The problem is that women were told to STFU when an accommodation could have been made that would have avoided Cal-NOW. It's about compromise and CSU fought against compromise for too long and then screwed the pooch by agreeing to a settlement that's cost us a ton.
=Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 24, 2009 9:39:44 GMT -8
Football IS the 800 pound ape in the room. A quick survey shows that schools without football offer roughly the same number of sports to men as to women. I looked at the closest three real fast. Fullerton and Long Beach offer two more women's sports than mens whereas UCSD acually offers one additional men's sport.
And William, most college football programs DO NOT make money.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 25, 2009 9:55:12 GMT -8
Isn't Cal NOW the bigger problem since it is based on percentage of enrollment?
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 25, 2009 13:05:40 GMT -8
Isn't Cal NOW the bigger problem since it is based on percentage of enrollment? As I understand it, yes. Something has to be done to modify the Cal-NOW agreement or men's sports in this state are doing to be killed. We could end up with only a half dozen schools with scholarship football programs; Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Fresno State, and maybe Cal Poly. Other than that only the Div III schools may still play football. That is, Whittier, Redlands, Oxy, etc. What a terrible situation. California, absolutely bursting with H.S. football talent and most of the good players will have to go out of state to play at a 4-year school. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 26, 2009 5:52:58 GMT -8
Cal-NOW is the greater problem but they'd have to go back to court and prove that the settlement they agreed to is now somehow detrimental. I don't know if that can be done.
There are more than one D1-AA schools in the state. Davis comes immediately to mind.
=Bob
|
|
