Football Vs. Title ?

Donate To GopherHole

title IX is a joke. this article is a joke. that is all. it reads like nothing more than women's sports proponents biting the hands that feed them (football, men's basketball --and in the case of some states, hockey). women's sports proponents want to have their cake and eat it too. all while providing almost nothing to most athletic department's bottom lines since the inception of title IX. yawn.
 

supadupafly said:
title IX is a joke. this article is a joke. that is all. it reads like nothing more than women's sports proponents biting the hands that feed them (football, men's basketball --and in the case of some states, hockey). women's sports proponents want to have their cake and eat it to. all while providing almost nothing to most athletic department's bottom lines since the inception of title IX. yawn.
Click to expand...

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."

Title IX is all about access to the University, not sports participation. Once you get that, you will understand the intent of the title. It has nothing to do with the number of sports or its athletes.
 

Dean S said:
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."

Title IX is all about access to the University, not sports participation. Once you get that, you will understand the intent of the title. It has nothing to do with the number of sports or its athletes.
Click to expand...

blah, blah, blah. quit with the silly semantics. i think you are quite aware of how title IX is most relevant today. women have no problem gaining access to a university for study. title IX is almost exclusively now in the purview of the sporting world. stop trying to be coy about where title IX really comes into play. imo, it has done a bit more harm than good, in regards to the current state financial state of college athletics.
 

Coy? Supa, now you are playing with semantics. The purpose of the title remains with access to the university and nothing but access to the university. The point that women make up a majority of accepted applicants to the U reflects their success in the classroom and their composition in the state and general pool of candidates.

As for scholarships to the athletics department, sure it affects the composition of scholarships. No disputing that fact. You have a beef with the affect on revenue sports. Well, that is too bad that it has an affect on revenue sports and that has a direct impact on men. We all get the connection. But, to alter the law is to change access to the University and that is where we part company. The point of the law remains access. I am sure you can see that to take Title IX away, you will see more than athletic scholarships changing.
 


Way to show both sides of the spectrum in this story ESPN.
You think there might be a few people who would address these "myths" from a different perspective?

I have mixed opinions on title 9, but if you are going to present a story like this, it's usually in good taste to find two dissenting opinions on the controversy.
 

Ole said:
I have mixed opinions on title 9, but if you are going to present a story like this, it's usually in good taste to find two dissenting opinions on the controversy.
Click to expand...

But the article specifically states in "Myth #1" that Title IX is not controversial. So, there is really no need to present both sides of the story, because I guess there is only 1 side.
 

Instead of the D-I vs D-III expense chart, I wish they would have done a D-I in 1989 or 90 vs D-I in 2009 or 10.

The problem isn't women's sports per se, the problem is the "arms race" in FB and MBB.
 

Ski U Mah Gopher said:
Instead of the D-I vs D-III expense chart, I wish they would have done a D-I in 1989 or 90 vs D-I in 2009 or 10.

The problem isn't women's sports per se, the problem is the "arms race" in FB and MBB.
Click to expand...

No "bleep". What good would it be for the U if they dropped all Women's and Non-Revenue sports if all the other schools in the Big Ten did the same thing? They'd still be in the second half of the conference. We'd move to paying our coaches $10 million per year and MI, tOSU, Penn State etc. would be paying their Football Basketball Coaches $20 million per year.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom