Digetydog wrote:Title IX has been a huge success. Prior to it, schools took the money from revenue sports and used it to fund non-revenue sports for men's teams. The excuse was that there was no demand from women for women's sports.
With Title IX in place, the number of women playing sports has grown tremendously at all levels. In my town, the number of girls playing soccer, softball, and basketball is similar to the number of boys playing the same sports.
My daughter is just a toddler, but I appreciate knowing that there are opportunities available for her if she decides to work hard at a sport.
I don't appreciate Title IX because it gives women opportunities at the expense of men. I am all for women's volleyball, track, basketball, golf, tennis, swimming, soccer, etc. However, when schools have to cut men's track to field women's rifle, equestrian, etc. that is when it is a problem. As I said previously, exclude football from the equation and I am all for it. Otherwise it is the dumbest legislation in the world.
If they excluded football, I probably would be fine with it. One dirty little secret of college sports is that FB teams, despite the enormous revenues they can bring in, usually don't break even because the cost of remaining competitive is enormous. The "profit" in football actually comes from alumni donations (see TCU's endowment growth) and positive press.
Then, all a school would need to do is find matches for the remaining sports. Title IX has worked best where you have matching sports for men/women. Basketball, Baseball/Softball, Soccer, Swimming, Golf, Track, etc.
Simple rule: You want a baseball team, you need a softball team. You want Soccer...
Thats the most [deleted] arguement I have ever heard. You all hate TCU but lets try to compare them to us for a second. They had a soccer team and dropped them to add to the football and baseball budgets. Their baseball program sucked for a long time but of my long time friends that played soccer at TCU told me once the soccer program was dropped the baseball team improved dramatically. He said the mens soccer program cost the athletic department $300,000 a year and they only had 3.5 scholly's a year, how many do we have? 17/18? Thats a lot of money to spend on a program that produces zero revenue and that America doesn't give two [deleted] about soccer unless their 8 year old kid is playing. Seriously, I'll watch UEFA and Champions league everyone in a while but its not ever going to be big in America.
Also the whole softball comes with baseball thing is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. Rice doesn't have softballteam but they have a badass baseball team.
Drop the soccer team and you don't have to add any womens sports so baseball can step right in.
TCU's men's soccer team was a glorified club team. it sucked and cannot be compared in any way to the national stature of the SMU men's program. Since SMU soccer became a varsity sport back in the late 70's, it has become a part of our culture. When we had baseball it sucked for the most part and games were at Revachon Park. Baseball would never succeed at SMU without a major $$$ investment including finding the land for and building a stadium near or on the campus.
mustangbill67 wrote: Baseball would never succeed at SMU without a major $$$ investment including finding the land for and building a stadium near or on the campus.
They have the land. Just need someone to donate the $$$.
SMULaxer wrote:The simple rule is if you want a baseball team, you need softball and women's bowling. Have you seen those "athletes" ??
Have you seen most offensive lineman? They are the biggest lard a'sses in sports.
As for baseball, Big Papi isn't the ideal poster boy for fitness. Back in the day, Charlie Hough smoked cigarettes on the bench during Ranger games.
Lard as'ses that run 5 point something 40s at the nfl combine. Big Papi manages to hit a 90+mph ball 400+ feet 35-40 times a season.
Those guys are that size for a reason. Explain why women's bowling teams need six women that size? Because their sport requires them to be that size? Because their sport is athletic? Its ridiculous.
The world would be a better place if I made all the rules.
And it basically requires a ton of women's athletics that nobody cares about - not even women. Ever tried to sit through a women's basketball game? Painful.
mustangxc wrote:I don't appreciate Title IX because it gives women opportunities at the expense of men.
True equality is blind to gender. Title IX is institutionalized discrimination. Let those humans who want to play a sport that someone is willing to pay for play that sport. Don't force us all to subsidize a privileged subgroup with power out of proportion to their number.
mustangxc wrote:I don't appreciate Title IX because it gives women opportunities at the expense of men.
True equality is blind to gender. Title IX is institutionalized discrimination. Let those humans who want to play a sport that someone is willing to pay for play that sport. Don't force us all to subsidize a privileged subgroup with power out of proportion to their number.
Your position has nothing to do with Title Ix. It would wipe out almost all college sports for men and women.
With the possible exception of FB and BB, not a single college sport come close to attracting enough fans to pay for it. Men's golf, swimming, track, tennis, wrestling, baseball would all have to go. Essentially, we would be left with intramural sports and club teams.
gostangs wrote:And it basically requires a ton of women's athletics that nobody cares about - not even women. Ever tried to sit through a women's basketball game? Painful.
I live in Ct. The Uconn women's team draws pretty good crowds and has lots of fans.
mustangxc wrote:I don't appreciate Title IX because it gives women opportunities at the expense of men.
True equality is blind to gender. Title IX is institutionalized discrimination. Let those humans who want to play a sport that someone is willing to pay for play that sport. Don't force us all to subsidize a privileged subgroup with power out of proportion to their number.
True sport has nothing to do with who wants to watch it. Just because it won't make money does not lessen the nature of the sport.
