MN Daily Op-Ed: Norwood Teague and Title IX

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
61,972
Reaction score
18,168
Points
113
From the Op-Ed:

As a University of Minnesota alumna, former Gophers women’s volleyball coach for 13 years and a general supporter of the University, I am very concerned with the comments coming from Norwood Teague about Title IX.

In a June 4 article in the Star Tribune, it was reported that the Big Ten is adding lacrosse as a sport in 2015. When asked if that means the University will be adding lacrosse soon, University athletic director Norwood Teague replied, “It would be very difficult for us to talk about adding sports, especially on the men’s side because of Title IX.”

This is the second time I have heard him make this comment. The first time it was when he was asked about adding men’s varsity soccer. This guy leads our flagship collegiate athletics program in Minnesota. It is an outrageous statement on so many levels.

First, let’s blame women — through a not so subtle insinuation — for a federal law requiring equity in athletic opportunities. This is an age-old way of pitting women against the men, especially in non-revenue sports. Rather than disingenuously blaming Title IX, administrators like him know they can decide to divvy up the money so everyone gets by with a little less — just the way families have to manage. He could also choose to manage the rosters of men’s sports rather than have excessive numbers in sports like football which skew the comparison of participation opportunities.

Secondly, let’s be clear about the facts. The National Collegiate Athletic Association figures show that men’s collegiate athletics participation has increased, not decreased, since Title IX was passed. Women continue to be under-represented in collegiate sports. The gap between men’s and women’s sports participation and support is not closing. Also, it is the wealthiest athletics programs in NCAA Division I-A that are dropping men’s minor sports, typically because they are shifting these funds to compete in the football and men’s basketball arms race. Have you checked the salaries for these coaches lately?

Next, Teague, in addition to failing to take accountability for the way his own department chooses to spend its budget, fails to acknowledge that Title IX does not require equal spending on men’s and women’s programs. And, one of the great myths of collegiate sports is that the revenue sports (usually football and men’s basketball) support all the other sports. The fact is that less than 12 percent of college athletics programs actually make a profit. Colleges and universities all over the country have to supplement collegiate athletics budgets, often at taxpayer expense.

Finally, Teague makes the totally out-of-touch assumption that the American public is not supportive of Title IX. In fact, more than 8 in 10 voters support Title IX with agreement across all political parties and among voters with and without children. The American public believes that sports participation is as important for our daughters as it is for our sons.

http://www.mndaily.com/opinion/letters-editor/2013/06/11/norwood-teague-and-title-ix

Go Gophers!!
 

*rolls eyes*

I'm all for gender equality, but this is just ridiculous on so many levels. Be happy that you made a really nice salary coaching a support that could never support itself without football money and be quiet.

She's correct that it's a myth that most programs are self-sustaining, but the answer isn't to spend less on football and basketball, it's to cut back pretty much everywhere else (or accept that student fees and taxes are going to be used to prop up sports that most people don't care about or watch).
 

rolling_eyes_neil_degrasse_tyson.gif
 

Is his statement really that outrageous? I thought the reason we didn't have men's soccer was because of Title IX, at least that was always my understanding. So I guess I don't see where he's so off the mark. I'm admittedly not that knowledgeable about Title IX though, so maybe I'm missing something.
 

And I don't think Teague is was referencing the money aspect. Are there even enough men's scholarships available for men's soccer? I dont think it is wise to start a program that will offer no scholarships and not compete at all. And if your department is struggling to break even, is it smart to add 2 programs that would lose money?
 


Not sure what was so outrageous. When adding or subtracting sports, money, time & Title IX all have to be considered. While spending does no have to be equal on Men's and Women's sports, there are equality issues that have to be considered and to be competitive in Lacrosse or Soccer, we have to offer scholarships, hire coaches and spend money we don't have on sports that will lose money and that will require equality offsets.

Do I think the U would look at Lacrosse and Men's Soccer if not for the expense of equality offsets? I do. Do I think that Title IX should be overturned? I don't. Which is why I am fine that we don't have Men's soccer or Lacrosse and would understand if we got rid of some other sports.

I want to be competitive in the sports we participate in. Don't care beyond revenue plus sports like FB, MBB & M Hockey what they are. I think W hockey is a natural fit for us. Beyond that, what can we be competitive in? Track? Baseball? Softball? Gynastics? I don't know, and its not my job to figure out. Just pick the ones we can commit to and win!
 

Men and women aren't equal and don't have an equal interest in sports. Title IX is silly and misguided federal meddling.
 

Not sure what was so outrageous. When adding or subtracting sports, money, time & Title IX all have to be considered. While spending does no have to be equal on Men's and Women's sports, there are equality issues that have to be considered and to be competitive in Lacrosse or Soccer, we have to offer scholarships, hire coaches and spend money we don't have on sports that will lose money and that will require equality offsets.

Do I think the U would look at Lacrosse and Men's Soccer if not for the expense of equality offsets? I do. Do I think that Title IX should be overturned? I don't. Which is why I am fine that we don't have Men's soccer or Lacrosse and would understand if we got rid of some other sports.

I want to be competitive in the sports we participate in. Don't care beyond revenue plus sports like FB, MBB & M Hockey what they are. I think W hockey is a natural fit for us. Beyond that, what can we be competitive in? Track? Baseball? Softball? Gynastics? I don't know, and its not my job to figure out. Just pick the ones we can commit to and win!
Perfect response. I like title IX because most D1 universities are public entities and should reflect the interests of the entirety of the public. Part of that is ensuring equal opportunities (roughly speaking, anyway). Because football and men's basketball are so profitable, it would only make sense that the majority of non-profitable sports would go towards the women's end, and I'm 100% ok with that. It sucks for boys in America that would prefer to wrestle or play soccer than football and basketball, but that's a small price to pay to ensure for a better balance of opportunity.

What I can't stand are people from the non-profit sports harping on football and basketball spending, when that spending is entirely justifiable in terms of what those programs give back to the athletic departments (what they give back to the university is much harder to quantify in terms of enrollment and alumni donations). Like I said, be happy that you made a nice career coaching volleyball and understand that without the football program at your school(s) that NEVER would have been possible.

I also agree with the notion that Minnesota should put more focus on sports non-profit sports that we can succeed in by using local talent. That's why I've never understood why on earth we have a men's gymnastics program. Of the 20 athletes on the men's program, a whopping 2 (!) are from Minnesota. Add in the fact that we haven't won the Big Ten since 1995 (even though only 6 teams sponsor the sport). We spend any money on this why? The same thing applies to men's tennis (scholarship players appear to mostly be from Europe and haven't won the league since 1995).

There are 10.8 scholarships allocated to men's gymnastics and tennis, and if you add in the coaching and ancillary costs and I'd bet we spend 1-2 million dollars a year on both sports. That's not much when looking at the athletic department as a whole, but considering it adds almost nothing to the state of Minnesota I hardly see the loss either. I'd take those cut men's scholarships and use that as a chance to cut either women's tennis or women's golf at the same time (two other sports that are fielded mostly by non-Minnesotans and don't win).

I realize that a lot of people in academia like the idea of having as many sports and opportunities as they can have, but continuing to borrow from student fees and the general fund to take care of sports that really do nothing to help the state or the university has never made much sense to me.
 

Men and women aren't equal and don't have an equal interest in sports. Title IX is silly and misguided federal meddling.
Title IX actually has to do with a lot more than just sports, it's just that Americans by and large only care about sports, so that's all they hear about.
 




I also agree with the notion that Minnesota should put more focus on sports non-profit sports that we can succeed in by using local talent. That's why I've never understood why on earth we have a men's gymnastics program. Of the 20 athletes on the men's program, a whopping 2 (!) are from Minnesota. Add in the fact that we haven't won the Big Ten since 1995 (even though only 6 teams sponsor the sport). We spend any money on this why? The same thing applies to men's tennis (scholarship players appear to mostly be from Europe and haven't won the league since 1995).

There are 10.8 scholarships allocated to men's gymnastics and tennis, and if you add in the coaching and ancillary costs and I'd bet we spend 1-2 million dollars a year on both sports. That's not much when looking at the athletic department as a whole, but considering it adds almost nothing to the state of Minnesota I hardly see the loss either. I'd take those cut men's scholarships and use that as a chance to cut either women's tennis or women's golf at the same time (two other sports that are fielded mostly by non-Minnesotans and don't win).

Perfectly worded. Focus our money for non-revenue sports that have interest in MN and can bring more MN kids into the U on Scholarship. If a non-revenue sport is fielding 50% MN athletes then it has to be looked at as a possible cut candidate.

By MN, for MN, of MN since we are the University of MN!
 

Perfect response. I like title IX because most D1 universities are public entities and should reflect the interests of the entirety of the public. Part of that is ensuring equal opportunities (roughly speaking, anyway). Because football and men's basketball are so profitable, it would only make sense that the majority of non-profitable sports would go towards the women's end, and I'm 100% ok with that. It sucks for boys in America that would prefer to wrestle or play soccer than football and basketball, but that's a small price to pay to ensure for a better balance of opportunity.
a small price to pay? The small price you want to pay is the elimination of an equal opportunity for the boys who play lacrosse and soccer. They don't have an equal opportunity. Judging whether or not to add a team should be done without any consideration to gender at all. That is how the law is written. The regulations have taken the law in the opposite direction.

You don't want to know what else the general fund is used for if you're concerned about spending on the lesser sports. The U is quite capable of wasting that money in other areas.
 

a small price to pay? The small price you want to pay is the elimination of an equal opportunity for the boys who play lacrosse and soccer. They don't have an equal opportunity. Judging whether or not to add a team should be done without any consideration to gender at all. That is how the law is written. The regulations have taken the law in the opposite direction.

You don't want to know what else the general fund is used for if you're concerned about spending on the lesser sports. The U is quite capable of wasting that money in other areas.
Yeah I'm well aware of all of this.

I don't know what you mean by "they don't have an equal opportunity", however. Given participation rates, there is more competition for male athletic scholarships than there are for female scholarships, no doubt, but equality can be interpreted in many different ways. Just because certain male sports are given less scholarships because of title IX doesn't make that "unfair", given that the total number of scholarships for all men and women's sports is the same. Those male sports aren't self-sustaining either, so if this is done purely under the idea of "wasting money" then the U really should only sponsor football, men's basketball, and men's hockey, as those are the only three of the 25 sports that are fiscally solvent. Make the rest of them club sports and/or non-scholarship sports and have students pay their own way.

Honestly, given how ridiculously bloated the athletic departments have become at most universities, I'd be perfectly fine with this. What I can't fathom, however, are the people that get upset about cutting men's tennis or wrestling because it's not "fair". Those sports don't make a dime either, so I can only assume that those people are either personally invested in those sports, or they just don't like the idea of women competing athletically.
 



Yeah I'm well aware of all of this.

I don't know what you mean by "they don't have an equal opportunity", however. Given participation rates, there is more competition for male athletic scholarships than there are for female scholarships, no doubt, but equality can be interpreted in many different ways. Just because certain male sports are given less scholarships because of title IX doesn't make that "unfair", given that the total number of scholarships for all men and women's sports is the same. Those male sports aren't self-sustaining either, so if this is done purely under the idea of "wasting money" then the U really should only sponsor football, men's basketball, and men's hockey, as those are the only three of the 25 sports that are fiscally solvent. Make the rest of them club sports and/or non-scholarship sports and have students pay their own way.

Honestly, given how ridiculously bloated the athletic departments have become at most universities, I'd be perfectly fine with this. What I can't fathom, however, are the people that get upset about cutting men's tennis or wrestling because it's not "fair". Those sports don't make a dime either, so I can only assume that those people are either personally invested in those sports, or they just don't like the idea of women competing athletically.
Equal opportunity doesn't mean equal outcomes. For some universities that might mean that 95% of the scholarships go to Men. Obviously the Big Ten wouldn't want that school as the majority of the schools value women's sports and want a school to be relied upon to schedule with in most of their sports. In the decision about whether to offer a scholarship or a sport you should consider the value to the University, not the gender of the recipient.

A real violation of title IX might be that men's and women's golf had very similar donation levels/interest/fan support but women's golf was cut and men's was not. People misinterpret Title IX to mean that donation levels/interest/fan support should all be ignored and only the gender counts should be considered when determining compliance.
 

In the decision about whether to offer a scholarship or a sport you should consider the value to the University, not the gender of the recipient.
Except part of the equation of "value to the university" includes gender equality (or at least the perception of it), and if you don't understand that, I think you're still living in a world 30-40 years ago.

You also didn't address my question at all. If the evaluation is simply a matter of monetary value, why do you give a damn about men's tennis, gymnastics, soccer, lacrosse, or many of the other male sports that take or would take money from the university every year far more than they would ever bring in? Why not cut just as many sports as we need in order to justify having football, men's basketball, and men's hockey?
 

Title IX has lead to the expanded budget and cost of athletic depts...FACT. It has also, at least partially, led to the arms race in sports. Does that mean Title IX is bad or I am against it? NO.

Just because many athletic depts lose money does not mean revenues from men' BB and FB do not go to help non-revenue sports. Some of these people have to understand the revenue sports carry the load. They may not like it but those are the economic facts of life.

Since the reason to have all these non-revenue sports is to provide opportunity why are many of these rosters filled with non MN students. If we are providing 'opportunity' the majority of those 'opportunities' provided by the U of MN should go to MN students. There should be a designated percentage of the scholarships that are required to go instate students.

The revenue sports need to recruit nationally to succeed. They are in a revenue producing business...the other sports are not.

Why does the University of MN have a rowing team? Is that even a sport in MN outside of the U? Women's lacrosse would seem to be more representative of MN. Seems to be much more popular and a growing sport in MN.
 

Except part of the equation of "value to the university" includes gender equality (or at least the perception of it), and if you don't understand that, I think you're still living in a world 30-40 years ago.

You also didn't address my question at all. If the evaluation is simply a matter of monetary value, why do you give a damn about men's tennis, gymnastics, soccer, lacrosse, or many of the other male sports that take or would take money from the university every year far more than they would ever bring in? Why not cut just as many sports as we need in order to justify having football, men's basketball, and men's hockey?

You're the one living 30-40 years ago if you're thinking that we need exactly a perfect 50/50 male/female ratio of students so they are encouraged that they'll have good odds of finding a spouse.

You can derive monetary value from other ways besides ticket sales and tv revenue. Women's hockey can bring great publicity to the U even though they lose millions on their own balance sheet. The U can attract tuition paying students with a wide variety of activities to participate in and attend.
 

You're the one living 30-40 years ago if you're thinking that we need exactly a perfect 50/50 male/female ratio of students so they are encouraged that they'll have good odds of finding a spouse.
I don't even....what? Gopherhole seems to bring in some of the weirdest posters/responses of anywhere I've ever seen.

You can derive monetary value from other ways besides ticket sales and tv revenue. Women's hockey can bring great publicity to the U even though they lose millions on their own balance sheet. The U can attract tuition paying students with a wide variety of activities to participate in and attend.
Exactly, so why does it matter if those events are male or female? Does men's gymnastics or tennis, or golf generate a lot of publicity or "activities to participate in and attend"? Hell no!

The truth of the matter is that a school like Minnesota has far more sports than it needs to achieve that end. I don't agree with much of what the author said, but he/she is correct in saying that Title IX has become a cheap scapegoat (honestly, again, mostly for people that simply don't like the idea of women playing sports) for program cutbacks. The reason why those programs are usually the first to go is that they don't generate a lick of revenue, AND they add little to the overall mission or message of a university. They're cut primarily because they are superfluous and generally without much worth or merit, not because of Title IX.
 

I don't even....what? Gopherhole seems to bring in some of the weirdest posters/responses of anywhere I've ever seen.

LOL

And what's this about women's hockey attracting tuition paying students to the U? Is the U not filled up? Why are so many turned away?
 

Men and women aren't equal and don't have an equal interest in sports. Title IX is silly and misguided federal meddling.

That's the attitude we like. If you have that opinion, then just make it so student athletes get paid and be done with it. We have to quit pretending that collegiate athletics is amateur athletics. If it is, then great, let's have equal participation (which not one school with football has). If it isn't, then let's start paying the athletes. Football skews everything, and the U of MN has NEVER been in compliance with Title IX. They made moves in the right direction which has saved them from lawsuits. Title IX has many problems, most of which has had to do with Universities either dropping minor men sports (Wrestling being the huge example) (and which was NEVER the intent of the law) or dropping athletics all together (see NYU). I don't think it is wrong to ask schools receiving federal funding to share equally. That said, I know it will never happen.
 


Perfect response. I like title IX because most D1 universities are public entities and should reflect the interests of the entirety of the public. Part of that is ensuring equal opportunities (roughly speaking, anyway). Because football and men's basketball are so profitable, it would only make sense that the majority of non-profitable sports would go towards the women's end, and I'm 100% ok with that. It sucks for boys in America that would prefer to wrestle or play soccer than football and basketball, but that's a small price to pay to ensure for a better balance of opportunity.

What I can't stand are people from the non-profit sports harping on football and basketball spending, when that spending is entirely justifiable in terms of what those programs give back to the athletic departments (what they give back to the university is much harder to quantify in terms of enrollment and alumni donations). Like I said, be happy that you made a nice career coaching volleyball and understand that without the football program at your school(s) that NEVER would have been possible.

I also agree with the notion that Minnesota should put more focus on sports non-profit sports that we can succeed in by using local talent. That's why I've never understood why on earth we have a men's gymnastics program. Of the 20 athletes on the men's program, a whopping 2 (!) are from Minnesota. Add in the fact that we haven't won the Big Ten since 1995 (even though only 6 teams sponsor the sport). We spend any money on this why? The same thing applies to men's tennis (scholarship players appear to mostly be from Europe and haven't won the league since 1995).

There are 10.8 scholarships allocated to men's gymnastics and tennis, and if you add in the coaching and ancillary costs and I'd bet we spend 1-2 million dollars a year on both sports. That's not much when looking at the athletic department as a whole, but considering it adds almost nothing to the state of Minnesota I hardly see the loss either. I'd take those cut men's scholarships and use that as a chance to cut either women's tennis or women's golf at the same time (two other sports that are fielded mostly by non-Minnesotans and don't win).

I realize that a lot of people in academia like the idea of having as many sports and opportunities as they can have, but continuing to borrow from student fees and the general fund to take care of sports that really do nothing to help the state or the university has never made much sense to me.

This^

+1
 

I don't even....what? Gopherhole seems to bring in some of the weirdest posters/responses of anywhere I've ever seen.


Exactly, so why does it matter if those events are male or female? Does men's gymnastics or tennis, or golf generate a lot of publicity or "activities to participate in and attend"? Hell no!

The truth of the matter is that a school like Minnesota has far more sports than it needs to achieve that end. I don't agree with much of what the author said, but he/she is correct in saying that Title IX has become a cheap scapegoat (honestly, again, mostly for people that simply don't like the idea of women playing sports) for program cutbacks. The reason why those programs are usually the first to go is that they don't generate a lick of revenue, AND they add little to the overall mission or message of a university. They're cut primarily because they are superfluous and generally without much worth or merit, not because of Title IX.
Who are these people that don't like women playing sports? Are you talking about Norwood as he is the one blaming title IX for their inability to add men's sports? Title IX has a strict quota system in college sports and you don't have to be completely meeting that quota, but you can't make moves in the opposite direction regardless of the interest level or value to the U that men's lacrosse or soccer might add. You have to consider gender. The goal should be to not consider gender at all and prosecute violators who exhibit clear sexism. The way the regulations are currently, they assume sexism and demand equality of outcome regardless of interest level and support.

Of course the U has a lot of wasteful spending on non-revenue sports. No one is arguing that a worthless men's whatever program should be spared while a women's program of the same value be cut. Clearly the administrators at the U including Norwood see value in these programs or else he would cut them so he could spend more on football/basketball and give himself a better chance of retaining his job. He might also see value in adding men's soccer but can't due to Title IX.
 

Isnt title IX measured by gender participation regardless of actual scholarships?

SIAP - did not have time to wade through entire thread.
 

since some (maybe even many) at the U would love to see the U's sports programs go the way of Univ of Chicago, they would love seeing this stuff.
 

From the Op-Ed:

Secondly, let’s be clear about the facts. The National Collegiate Athletic Association figures show that men’s collegiate athletics participation has increased, not decreased, since Title IX was passed. TRUE
Women continue to be under-represented in collegiate sports. TRUE
The gap between men’s and women’s sports participation and support is not closing. COMPLETELY FALSE
Also, it is the wealthiest athletics programs in NCAA Division I-A that are dropping men’s minor sports FALSE


to take accountability for the way his own department chooses to spend its budget Matching funds is just one of the three ways you can comply with Title IX. Almost no D-I schools spend equally between men and women.
 

He might also see value in adding men's soccer but can't due to Title IX.
Of course he can. He doesn't because the value of adding men's soccer in no way justifies the cost. This isn't the fault of title IX nearly as much as it is the "fault" of men's soccer simply not being profitable. Blaming Title IX because not enough people care about your sport is a total cop-out.

If there was money to be made on men's soccer or lacrosse they would add it tomorrow (or even if there was a donor willing to make it solvent). Considering they already sponsor 22 sports that don't make money, they aren't inclined to add any more, men's or women's.
 

Of course he can. He doesn't because the value of adding men's soccer in no way justifies the cost. This isn't the fault of title IX nearly as much as it is the "fault" of men's soccer simply not being profitable.

If there was money to be made on men's soccer or lacrosse they would add it tomorrow (or even if there was a donor willing to make it solvent). Considering they already sponsor 22 sports that don't make money, they aren't inclined to add any more, men's or women's.
He can if he cuts a similar number of male scholarships or adds a female sport of a similar number of scholarships. He can't just add men's soccer.
 

He can if he cuts a similar number of male scholarships or adds a female sport of a similar number of scholarships. He can't just add men's soccer.
What's your point? How is that the fault of title IX? He's not adding soccer because it doesn't make any money. If we added men's soccer and women's lacrosse, men's soccer still wouldn't make any money, which is why he's not doing it. If it did make money he'd do it tomorrow. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that.

Title IX is a copout. The author isn't correct about much, but he/she is correct about that.
 





Top Bottom