slu baseball bad news

[billiken_roy]

mb, you dont have any daugthers do you?

[MB73]

Please don't resort to name-calling and politics, especially when your points are wrong. From what I gather, the gist of your post is basically that those who participate in sports that don't generate money (i.e. mostly women) don't deserve scholarships. Female athletes, just like men, receive scholarships at the discretion of college coaches. If they aren't qualified to receive scholarships, they certainly won't because of the amount that each team has to work with. If the male athletes are truly "top flight," they will receive scholarships.

I don't understand why you feel the need to compare the abilities of male and female athletes to one another because they generally don't compete for the same teams or scholarships. It's no secret that men and women have different physical abilities, but that is far from the point.

"Stupid uninformed voters" play virtually no role in Title IX. The law was enacted in 1972 and has been amended since then. It has also caused some lawsuits to ensure the compliance of certain programs. Never have voters directly had to address this law.

Title IX, like any other rules in the NCAA, has far-reaching effects and has achieved mixed results. Removing such a rule would likely be more damaging to the majority of student-athletes, though. The fact is that all non-revenue sports, men's or women's, struggle with scholarship allocation.

There are still more men in college athletics than women. It's unfortunate that non-revenue men's sports often have to be eliminated or poorly funded, but that's equally due to football and Title IX, which have never fit comfortably. That's why I don't want to see SLU try to implement a scholarship football program.

The NY Times did a great series on the NCAA scholarship issue back in March:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/sports/10scholarships.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/sports/1...&ref=sports

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/sports/12lifestyles.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/sports/12envy.html

Title IX is not perfect but it seems to be the best we've got at this point. If you can think of a law that would be an improvement and still uphold the rights granted to all US citizens regardless of gender, I would be interested to hear it.

I know it takes more work to have an educated opinion, but that would spare us all from the knee-jerk angry rants of a "stupid uninformed voter."

You are misdirecting... or you misunderstoof... you obviously do not know much about Title IX.

AND I did not say voters voted on Title IX.

I am saying that if a congressman brings up the injustices of Title IX, there will be shouts of "sexism", and the voters who hear just "one thing", "sexism" and do not investigage the full issue will vote the congressman out. Yes, many voters are like that. Maybe not you, but many. So do not say I rant and explain to me difference between women and men.

There are other points here, UCLA mens swimmng team (#1 contributor to Olympic medals) is GONE, so are other programs, because eaach school has to end or reduce the number of mens scholarships.

Best way to explain it to YOU is that most schools have 70-80 football scholarhips. Women do not play football. So Title IX takes 80 scholarships away from mens sports. So between soccer, baseball, track, wrestling, golf, lacrosse, whatever, etc, they take away 80 mens scholarships. So gal who is so-so gets full scholarhip to Big Ten school and guy who in same state is top notch, no scholarships available in that sport. Fact.

[MB73]

mb, you dont have any daugthers do you?

Correct.

[Pistol]

You are misdirecting... or you misunderstoof... you obviously do not know much about Title IX.

AND I did not say voters voted on Title IX.

I am saying that if a congressman brings up the injustices of Title IX, there will be shouts of "sexism", and the voters who hear just "one thing", "sexism" and do not investigage the full issue will vote the congressman out. Yes, many voters are like that. Maybe not you, but many. So do not say I rant and explain to me difference between women and men.

There are other points here, UCLA mens swimmng team (#1 contributor to Olympic medals) is GONE, so are other programs, because eaach school has to end or reduce the number of mens scholarships.

Best way to explain it to YOU is that most schools have 70-80 football scholarhips. Women do not play football. So Title IX takes 80 scholarships away from mens sports. So between soccer, baseball, track, wrestling, golf, lacrosse, whatever, etc, they take away 80 mens scholarships. So gal who is so-so gets full scholarhip to Big Ten school and guy who in same state is top notch, no scholarships available in that sport. Fact.

I understand how it works very well, and I never "misunderstoof" anything you said. I'll quote my last post: "It's unfortunate that non-revenue men's sports often have to be eliminated or poorly funded, but that's equally due to football and Title IX, which have never fit comfortably." I do understand the fundamental problem Title IX causes with athletic programs that have scholarship football.

Could you please provide an example of a congressman or congresswoman who has been voted out of office due to a stance against Title IX? I will also accept an example of one of these individuals being labeled "sexist" and not even voted out. There were certainly members of congress who voted against it in 1972, but keep in mind how shortly after the civil rights and feminist movements that it passed. A lot of those reps were around when blacks had separate drinking fountains and the women who worked outside the home were paid less for the same jobs.

This law has been in place for 36 years. Football program or no, athletic departments and universities have had well over 3 decades to figure out how to comply with this law. If that means cutting a few men's programs or spreading the scholarships more thin across them all, that sucks, but it's the cost of having football. If that means creating additional women's programs or scholarships with football revenue, then that's ideal. The point is, universities have had a long time to determine what their priorities are.

I don't understand how a "gal who is so-so," in your eloquent words, can receive a full athletic scholarship to a Big Ten school. It is absolutely undeniable that the level of competition for scholarships in every sport, men's and women's, regardless of revenue, is extremely high. If you think the girls getting full rides to Big Ten schools to play sports are just "so-so" then you have unrealistic standards. What does that make SLU's female student-athletes? I can promise you that these are talented women who work very hard.

There are plenty of male athletes who did not have a chance to play D-I in their non-revenue sports because of the amount of scholarships allocated to football. That is a shame. However, if they were "top-notch" they would have received scholarships to play somewhere. There are still thousands of scholarship baseball, swimming, track, wrestling, fencing, cross country, soccer, tennis, etc. male athletes playing at the D-I level. How big is your "top notch" for men if so many boys at this level are being denied scholarships? You apparently have a miniscule "top notch" for women if the Big Ten is made up of "so-so" female athletes.

Moral of the story to parents and young students: don't bank on athletic scholarships as the golden ticket for college. College is still first and foremost an academic endeavor. If a kid can play sports while going to college, great, but he or she should be a student first.

[floridaguy]

Actually,

I am from Florida originally and then moved here and played here, so I have witnessed it first hand. I think some of the information I got was embellished and the school is trying to help, it is just the timing is bad. It has been delayed. The school is trying apparently to help the program and as for the funding, none of it is coming from the school so Title IX people calm down, this was just to let off some steam about all the years we were blasted in Conf USA and now we get a new coach new arena and same results?? That was my intent. Talk to some real bitter alums! The school is trying to help, it just takes SLU decades to do with others can get done easier, take it easy on the men vs. women attacks, that is so far out of the relativity of this subject's intent. Chris May seems to be one who is willing to help out, he has much on his plate too and maybe I should not have been so harsh as he is working for all programs I'm sure. I think our new coach gets frustrated with the slowness of everything especially since winter months are here and it is difficult then as they also have no true indoor space to practice, only hit. Anybody have a building call Coach, I know he is looking now.

Ft. Lauderdale area by the way BLIKN

[MB73]

I understand how it works very well, and I never "misunderstoof" anything you said. I'll quote my last post: "It's unfortunate that non-revenue men's sports often have to be eliminated or poorly funded, but that's equally due to football and Title IX, which have never fit comfortably." I do understand the fundamental problem Title IX causes with athletic programs that have scholarship football.

Could you please provide an example of a congressman or congresswoman who has been voted out of office due to a stance against Title IX? I will also accept an example of one of these individuals being labeled "sexist" and not even voted out. There were certainly members of congress who voted against it in 1972, but keep in mind how shortly after the civil rights and feminist movements that it passed. A lot of those reps were around when blacks had separate drinking fountains and the women who worked outside the home were paid less for the same jobs.

This law has been in place for 36 years. Football program or no, athletic departments and universities have had well over 3 decades to figure out how to comply with this law. If that means cutting a few men's programs or spreading the scholarships more thin across them all, that sucks, but it's the cost of having football. If that means creating additional women's programs or scholarships with football revenue, then that's ideal. The point is, universities have had a long time to determine what their priorities are.

I don't understand how a "gal who is so-so," in your eloquent words, can receive a full athletic scholarship to a Big Ten school. It is absolutely undeniable that the level of competition for scholarships in every sport, men's and women's, regardless of revenue, is extremely high. If you think the girls getting full rides to Big Ten schools to play sports are just "so-so" then you have unrealistic standards. What does that make SLU's female student-athletes? I can promise you that these are talented women who work very hard.

There are plenty of male athletes who did not have a chance to play D-I in their non-revenue sports because of the amount of scholarships allocated to football. That is a shame. However, if they were "top-notch" they would have received scholarships to play somewhere. There are still thousands of scholarship baseball, swimming, track, wrestling, fencing, cross country, soccer, tennis, etc. male athletes playing at the D-I level. How big is your "top notch" for men if so many boys at this level are being denied scholarships? You apparently have a miniscule "top notch" for women if the Big Ten is made up of "so-so" female athletes.

Moral of the story to parents and young students: don't bank on athletic scholarships as the golden ticket for college. College is still first and foremost an academic endeavor. If a kid can play sports while going to college, great, but he or she should be a student first.

Give me a break, I never said there was a congressman or women who got voted out because of Title IX. Men's programs are being decimated across the USA because of this, but no congressman would bring it up formally because they would be labeled "sexist".

And yes, young ladies who are MUCH lower "ranked" in their sports are getting full rides to BCS schools but not men who are much higher rated IN THE NON REVENUE SPORTS.

Over the USA, NCAA Div 1 non revenue teams (soccer, track, swimming, etc) have 20 full rides for women, but none or 1.5 for men (using examples of sports that both men and women play) for the teams that each school "selects" that they have to take away from men because of the problem. Even worse, UCLA men's swimming, GONE. Vanderbilt track, GONE, and so on.

More to refute, but not interested in further discussions for me. Not worth it.

I am fully versed, experienced in this, you obvioulsy are just looking into the subject, you read some old article from the New York Times. LOL.

[billiken_roy]

mb, you are so far out of reality. i guarantee you that women athletes at football schools are still getting those scholarships because they deserve them and are very talented. is their vertical jump or 40 yard dash time as good as a man that maybe isnt on scholarship at the school? maybe not. but i am telling you that only the very best women softball players, or tennis players or golfers are still going to the highest schools on the athletic dept dimes.

what you are advocating is a step back to the stone age where women are just cheerleaders or something i guess. to insinuate that no women deserve a chance to play collegiate sports on a scholarship is just shortsighted.

my daughter plays a very high level of softball. thus i know the area softball scene very well. one would think if your scenario you are buying into was true, that there would just be bunches of young women heading to bcs schools with full athletic scholarships. that isnt true.

actually there arent but about 4 st louis area girls with full ride division one scholarships. most have shared scholarships if any at all and most schools look to find the athlete with grades to conserve those few athletic scholarships they give out to women. most of the athletic money for women is actually given out at the naia and d2 level it seems to me. i think the d-1 scene is so over the top trying to promote their top men's sport, that they have little money left for the non revenue sports for either men or women's.

since beginning to follow the softball scene over the last 5 years, the difference in money given overall to naia and d-2 compared to d-1 i bet isnt even close. very little of the women's athletic money is going out in d-1 it seems to me. the likes of a mckendree might give out a total of 20 scholarships for softball each year (probably divided amongst about 30 girls). slu gives out about 5. and that is pretty common at most d-1 schools compared to naia. the ncaa d-1 max is 11.5 i believe. which is the same for baseball.

[billiken_roy]

And yes, young ladies who are MUCH lower "ranked" in their sports are getting full rides to BCS schools but not men who are much higher rated IN THE NON REVENUE SPORTS.

Over the USA, NCAA Div 1 non revenue teams (soccer, track, swimming, etc) have 20 full rides for women, but none or 1.5 for men (using examples of sports that both men and women play) for the teams that each school "selects" that they have to take away from men because of the problem. Even worse, UCLA men's swimming, GONE. Vanderbilt track, GONE, and so on.

what dont you get. the fact that those schools made the decision to give 80- 100 football and basketball scholarships was their own business decision. and yes that probably meant 20 less scholarships for LESSER athletes for swimming, or tennis, etc. but the truth is the best male athletes in the school got money. they just all play the higher profile sports.

the fact that their isnt a women's sport that requires 100 scholarships shouldnt be held against the women swimmers, golfers or tennis players at those same schools. trust me, if they are on full rides or even partial rides for athletics they are likely amongst the best at their sport in the area if not the nation at most bcs schools. show me a bcs school that has a 95 golfer on full ride and i guarantee you i am going to show you a golf team in dead last in the conference race. that isnt the norm. the norm in women's sports is that the biggest and best schools still get the best athletes.

[MB73]

mb, you are so far out of reality. i guarantee you that women athletes at football schools are still getting those scholarships because they deserve them and are very talented. is their vertical jump or 40 yard dash time as good as a man that maybe isnt on scholarship at the school? maybe not. but i am telling you that only the very best women softball players, or tennis players or golfers are still going to the highest schools on the athletic dept dimes.

what you are advocating is a step back to the stone age where women are just cheerleaders or something i guess. to insinuate that no women deserve a chance to play collegiate sports on a scholarship is just shortsighted.

my daughter plays a very high level of softball. thus i know the area softball scene very well. one would think if your scenario you are buying into was true, that there would just be bunches of young women heading to bcs schools with full athletic scholarships. that isnt true.

actually there arent but about 4 st louis area girls with full ride division one scholarships. most have shared scholarships if any at all and most schools look to find the athlete with grades to conserve those few athletic scholarships they give out to women. most of the athletic money for women is actually given out at the naia and d2 level it seems to me. i think the d-1 scene is so over the top trying to promote their top men's sport, that they have little money left for the non revenue sports for either men or women's.

since beginning to follow the softball scene over the last 5 years, the difference in money given overall to naia and d-2 compared to d-1 i bet isnt even close. very little of the women's athletic money is going out in d-1 it seems to me. the likes of a mckendree might give out a total of 20 scholarships for softball each year (probably divided amongst about 30 girls). slu gives out about 5. and that is pretty common at most d-1 schools compared to naia. the ncaa d-1 max is 11.5 i believe. which is the same for baseball.

Roy, you overreacted, (back "to just cheeleaders"?). Whoa, who said that? Where do you come up with that? READ what I said.

I am for the expanded women's scholarships but the way Title IX requirements are written were not well thought out. It takes away from men's programs, like UCLA men's swimming, etc.

What I am saying is not what you think, now think this thru, please: I have spoken to several BCS coaches and AD's about it, essentially, although more complex, the bottom line is in BCS schools, there are 80 football scholarships, and since women do not play football, what you have to do is TAKE 80 schollie's away from the smaller men's sports. It is everywhere.

So schools might have 20 softball full rides but NO baseball rides for the men. So sports like baseball, soccer, track, swimming, cross country, hockey, etc, the AD has to decide what MEN's teams to provide scholarshipts TO and which one to NOT. Hell, Title IX is major reason hockey has not expanded in the NCAA (I do not have a hockey player son).

And there ARE teams, BCS, where there are 20 women's and no mens scholarships. So lower ranked gal gets ride, nothing for men.

I have names, schools, simple thing is to change formula to ADD for the fact that women do not play football... but nobody will even challenge that for reasons explained.

SO I AM FOR WOMEN's SCHOLARSHIPS... but not taking about 80 from the men's teams to the letter of the law. Your daughters are safe.

I am in my Billiken Gold tonite, hoping for the best, but not optimistic vs. Kent St.

[billiken_roy]

Roy, you overreacted, (back "to just cheeleaders"?). Whoa, who said that? Where do you come up with that? READ what I said.

I am for the expanded women's scholarships but the way Title IX requirements are written were not well thought out. It takes away from men's programs, like UCLA men's swimming, etc.

What I am saying is not what you think, now think this thru, please: I have spoken to several BCS coaches and AD's about it, essentially, although more complex, the bottom line is in BCS schools, there are 80 football scholarships, and since women do not play football, what you have to do is TAKE 80 schollie's away from the smaller men's sports. It is everywhere.

So schools might have 20 softball full rides but NO baseball rides for the men. So sports like baseball, soccer, track, swimming, cross country, hockey, etc, the AD has to decide what MEN's teams to provide scholarshipts TO and which one to NOT. Hell, Title IX is major reason hockey has not expanded in the NCAA (I do not have a hockey player son).

And there ARE teams, BCS, where there are 20 women's and no mens scholarships. So lower ranked gal gets ride, nothing for men.

I have names, schools, simple thing is to change formula to ADD for the fact that women do not play football... but nobody will even challenge that for reasons explained.

SO I AM FOR WOMEN's SCHOLARSHIPS... but not taking about 80 from the men's teams to the letter of the law. Your daughters are safe.

I am in my Billiken Gold tonite, hoping for the best, but not optimistic vs. Kent St.

in your swimming example, i am betting that is ucla's choice. i bet that the ncaa allows the same number of scholarships for men's swimming as women's swimmng. the reason ucla might not have it equal is because they chose to limit the total number of athletic scholarships to a certain number and they then used more on football and basketball or soccer etc.

same with your softball/baseball example. that is that particular school's choice. what would indeed make more sense is that they do not give that gross over the top number to the big sports. instead of 100 football scholarships, they could probably still do fine with 75 and then give more swimming or baseball scholarships.

lower ranked is very subjective. the truth is that the young lady that got that deal, was indeed very deserving. and the male that was left out wasnt high enough to get one. again, maybe he should have played a different sport or studied harder in high school. i challenge you to find a women athlete at a d-1 school on a full ride athletic scholarship that was not athletically deserving in their particular sport. the legend is definitely not close to the truth.

i have no problem at all with title ix.

[Pistol]

Roy, you overreacted, (back "to just cheeleaders"?). Whoa, who said that? Where do you come up with that? READ what I said.

I am for the expanded women's scholarships but the way Title IX requirements are written were not well thought out. It takes away from men's programs, like UCLA men's swimming, etc.

What I am saying is not what you think, now think this thru, please: I have spoken to several BCS coaches and AD's about it, essentially, although more complex, the bottom line is in BCS schools, there are 80 football scholarships, and since women do not play football, what you have to do is TAKE 80 schollie's away from the smaller men's sports. It is everywhere.

So schools might have 20 softball full rides but NO baseball rides for the men. So sports like baseball, soccer, track, swimming, cross country, hockey, etc, the AD has to decide what MEN's teams to provide scholarshipts TO and which one to NOT. Hell, Title IX is major reason hockey has not expanded in the NCAA (I do not have a hockey player son).

And there ARE teams, BCS, where there are 20 women's and no mens scholarships. So lower ranked gal gets ride, nothing for men.

I have names, schools, simple thing is to change formula to ADD for the fact that women do not play football... but nobody will even challenge that for reasons explained.

SO I AM FOR WOMEN's SCHOLARSHIPS... but not taking about 80 from the men's teams to the letter of the law. Your daughters are safe.

I am in my Billiken Gold tonite, hoping for the best, but not optimistic vs. Kent St.

You are for women's scholarships? Whoa, slow down there, Emma Goldman. We don't want to make them think they're equal or anything, since they don't play football.

Kidding aside, from what I can tell, your solution to the effects Title IX has on men's sports is to basically leave football out of the equation. That way, schools will have the same amount of men's scholarships for non-football sports as women's scholarships, right?

Right out of the gate, that sends the message that women are once again second-class citizens as student-athletes because they don't play football. There would be less overall scholarships for women, regardless of how they're split up among sports. This is directly opposed to the mission statements of every co-ed university in the United States, as well as the Constitution. Men and women are equal; they should have the same number of athletic scholarships available- very simple. how those are distributed on each side is up to the schools.

Secondly, your method does nothing to elevate the current state of women's athletics since schools would be able to add men's scholarships in non-football sports to line up with the number of overall women's scholarships.

Third, would every school rush to add these men's programs and scholarships they previously cut because of football? Just because they're allowed to add them doesn't mean they would; sometimes the funding isn't there. If every school could use all the scholarships they wanted, there would be more like Stanford, with 300+ scholarships for 34 varsity sports. Resources have a lot to do with it.

Fourth, you bring up the men's and women's sports that have different amounts of scholarships for the same sports. This is true; every coach has decisions to make about how to distribute scholarships. Every athlete has decisions to make, too. If a kid decides to devote his free time to baseball, he should realize that there aren't as many baseball as football scholarships to go around. These aren't secrets and no one is forcing these kids to play sports with less scholarships available, except maybe parents with unrealistic expectations.

Fifth, your whole argument about representatives being labeled as sexists for opposing Title IX is based on a hypothetical? Wow, that's weak. I thought you actually had evidence to argue. My mistake.

Sixth, can you show me some examples of higher-rated male athletes being shut out of scholarship offers in non-revenue sports, in addition to examples of lower-rated female athletes getting athletic scholarships from major universities? You keep claiming this is a major occurrence, but given the higher number of male athletes than female athletes in youth, high school, and college, I feel this is more a function of culture and opportunities than anything else (the number of female athletes is growing at a higher rate, though). I am not going to take your word on this- please show me what you mean.

Seventh, I don't pull from the same source for my arguments. I've read quite a bit on the topic and worked for four years in a D-I athletic department.

Eighth, you keep using examples like UCLA swimming and Vanderbilt track to make an emotional appeal that these programs are pulled right out from under the student athletes. Once again, I remind you that Title IX was passed in 1972 and that these athletic departments have choices to make if they want football. If they realign programs later, this is completely the discretion of the individual school. This wasn't a recent surprise.

[MB73]

in your swimming example, i am betting that is ucla's choice. i bet that the ncaa allows the same number of scholarships for men's swimming as women's swimmng. the reason ucla might not have it equal is because they chose to limit the total number of athletic scholarships to a certain number and they then used more on football and basketball or soccer etc.

same with your softball/baseball example. that is that particular school's choice. what would indeed make more sense is that they do not give that gross over the top number to the big sports. instead of 100 football scholarships, they could probably still do fine with 75 and then give more swimming or baseball scholarships.

lower ranked is very subjective. the truth is that the young lady that got that deal, was indeed very deserving. and the male that was left out wasnt high enough to get one. again, maybe he should have played a different sport or studied harder in high school. i challenge you to find a women athlete at a d-1 school on a full ride athletic scholarship that was not athletically deserving in their particular sport. the legend is definitely not close to the truth.

i have no problem at all with title ix.

You say NCAA allows same womens and mens swimming scholarships? It does not work that way. It is total scholarhsips, AD decides whick mens teams to fund, and which mens team to fake with walk ons.

It is a complex formula for ALL sports to be divided equally, but what it essentially comes down to it men's lesser teams lose 80 scholarships because women do not play footall.

Yes, it is the schools choice, but what happens is for all the sports besides football and basketball, each AD is able to give full team scholarships to all teams for women, but PULL 3-4 teams (80 spots) for men.

Think this thru before you respond, that is the fact. I know fathers of good girl athletes in high school, laughing becasue they have huge advantage over father of boys. There are far more girls soccer schoarships out there, for example, than boys.

SO major BCS schools might have 20 gals on soccer scholarship, but NONE for mens soccer. Or track. Or swimming. It is all over, look into it.

Each football school has this, and it affects non football as well, though not nearly as much.

And rankings are not as subjective as you think, gal comes in 16th in state track gets several full schollie offers to BCS schools, guy comes in 3rd (and has superior grades) but the shools do NOT have schollies for mens track. You are just being defensive since you have a daughter who is a good ballplayere. and I DO know names, but am not gonna go there.

[billiken_roy]

You say NCAA allows same womens and mens swimming scholarships? It does not work that way. It is total scholarhsips, AD decides whick mens teams to fund, and which mens team to fake with walk ons.

It is a complex formula for ALL sports to be divided equally, but what it essentially comes down to it men's lesser teams lose 80 scholarships because women do not play footall.

Yes, it is the schools choice, but what happens is for all the sports besides football and basketball, each AD is able to give full team scholarships to all teams for women, but PULL 3-4 teams (80 spots) for men.

Think this thru before you respond, that is the fact. I know fathers of good girl athletes in high school, laughing becasue they have huge advantage over father of boys. There are far more girls soccer schoarships out there, for example, than boys.

SO major BCS schools might have 20 gals on soccer scholarship, but NONE for mens soccer. Or track. Or swimming. It is all over, look into it.

Each football school has this, and it affects non football as well, though not nearly as much.

And rankings are not as subjective as you think, gal comes in 16th in state track gets several full schollie offers to BCS schools, guy comes in 3rd (and has superior grades) but the shools do NOT have schollies for mens track. You are just being defensive since you have a daughter who is a good ballplayere. and I DO know names, but am not gonna go there.

http://www.mygamefilm.com/mnsad1.htm

the above link details the maximum number of d-1 scholarships allowed per sport.

the truth is more schools are like slu and choose to self limit to levels below those listed above.

again, those schools decided to give the max girls scholarships in soccer and not boys. and those schools sure are giving max tack scholarships in girls to offset the football numbers. i am just having a real hard time with your math. i am betting that school that took the girl that came in 16th and didnt offer the 3rd place boy has 50 football players that would kick that track kid's but overall in athletic prowesss. i.e. they have great athletic boys there that got that track kid's scholarship you wanted to hand out.

as pistol says, your anger is totally misplaced. you need to be hating on men's football and basketball. they are the ones that skew the rest of the men's sports in the overall picture. in your perfect world, you want to set aside football and basketball and then start giving scholarships.

[MB73]

You are for women's scholarships? Whoa, slow down there, Emma Goldman. We don't want to make them think they're equal or anything, since they don't play football.

Kidding aside, from what I can tell, your solution to the effects Title IX has on men's sports is to basically leave football out of the equation. That way, schools will have the same amount of men's scholarships for non-football sports as women's scholarships, right?

Right out of the gate, that sends the message that women are once again second-class citizens as student-athletes because they don't play football. There would be less overall scholarships for women, regardless of how they're split up among sports. This is directly opposed to the mission statements of every co-ed university in the United States, as well as the Constitution. Men and women are equal; they should have the same number of athletic scholarships available- very simple. how those are distributed on each side is up to the schools.

Secondly, your method does nothing to elevate the current state of women's athletics since schools would be able to add men's scholarships in non-football sports to line up with the number of overall women's scholarships.

Third, would every school rush to add these men's programs and scholarships they previously cut because of football? Just because they're allowed to add them doesn't mean they would; sometimes the funding isn't there. If every school could use all the scholarships they wanted, there would be more like Stanford, with 300+ scholarships for 34 varsity sports. Resources have a lot to do with it.

Fourth, you bring up the men's and women's sports that have different amounts of scholarships for the same sports. This is true; every coach has decisions to make about how to distribute scholarships. Every athlete has decisions to make, too. If a kid decides to devote his free time to baseball, he should realize that there aren't as many baseball as football scholarships to go around. These aren't secrets and no one is forcing these kids to play sports with less scholarships available, except maybe parents with unrealistic expectations.

Fifth, your whole argument about representatives being labeled as sexists for opposing Title IX is based on a hypothetical? Wow, that's weak. I thought you actually had evidence to argue. My mistake.

Sixth, can you show me some examples of higher-rated male athletes being shut out of scholarship offers in non-revenue sports, in addition to examples of lower-rated female athletes getting athletic scholarships from major universities? You keep claiming this is a major occurrence, but given the higher number of male athletes than female athletes in youth, high school, and college, I feel this is more a function of culture and opportunities than anything else (the number of female athletes is growing at a higher rate, though). I am not going to take your word on this- please show me what you mean.

Seventh, I don't pull from the same source for my arguments. I've read quite a bit on the topic and worked for four years in a D-I athletic department.

Eighth, you keep using examples like UCLA swimming and Vanderbilt track to make an emotional appeal that these programs are pulled right out from under the student athletes. Once again, I remind you that Title IX was passed in 1972 and that these athletic departments have choices to make if they want football. If they realign programs later, this is completely the discretion of the individual school. This wasn't a recent surprise.

You simply do not get it.

[Pistol]

You simply do not get it.

You haven't said anything I'm incapable of comprehending. What I don't get is how you can continue to argue against Title IX after your arguments have been shot to death by Roy and me. Better luck next time.

[MB73]

Please don't resort to name-calling and politics, especially when your points are wrong. From what I gather, the gist of your post is basically that those who participate in sports that don't generate money (i.e. mostly women) don't deserve scholarships. Female athletes, just like men, receive scholarships at the discretion of college coaches. If they aren't qualified to receive scholarships, they certainly won't because of the amount that each team has to work with. If the male athletes are truly "top flight," they will receive scholarships.

I don't understand why you feel the need to compare the abilities of male and female athletes to one another because they generally don't compete for the same teams or scholarships. It's no secret that men and women have different physical abilities, but that is far from the point.

"Stupid uninformed voters" play virtually no role in Title IX. The law was enacted in 1972 and has been amended since then. It has also caused some lawsuits to ensure the compliance of certain programs. Never have voters directly had to address this law.

Title IX, like any other rules in the NCAA, has far-reaching effects and has achieved mixed results. Removing such a rule would likely be more damaging to the majority of student-athletes, though. The fact is that all non-revenue sports, men's or women's, struggle with scholarship allocation.

There are still more men in college athletics than women. It's unfortunate that non-revenue men's sports often have to be eliminated or poorly funded, but that's equally due to football and Title IX, which have never fit comfortably. That's why I don't want to see SLU try to implement a scholarship football program.

The NY Times did a great series on the NCAA scholarship issue back in March:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/sports/10scholarships.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/sports/1...&ref=sports

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/sports/12lifestyles.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/sports/12envy.html

Title IX is not perfect but it seems to be the best we've got at this point. If you can think of a law that would be an improvement and still uphold the rights granted to all US citizens regardless of gender, I would be interested to hear it.

I know it takes more work to have an educated opinion, but that would spare us all from the knee-jerk angry rants of a "stupid uninformed voter."

IMO 60-70% of voters do not know the facts, voters just hear "one thing" and run with it... so if a congressman went to rectify Title IX by allowing for the 80 football schollies, there would be knee jerk cries of sexism (look at Billiken Roy, has a girl who is good softball player, goes ape, says the hell with

the 80 schollies TAKEN from men).

This is not a valid statistical study, but... http://www.howobamagotelected.com/

[Box and Won]

This is not a valid statistical study, but... http://www.howobamagotelected.com/

Wow, great link.

[billiken_roy]

IMO 60-70% of voters do not know the facts, voters just hear "one thing" and run with it... so if a congressman went to rectify Title IX by allowing for the 80 football schollies, there would be knee jerk cries of sexism (look at Billiken Roy, has a girl who is good softball player, goes ape, says the hell with

the 80 schollies TAKEN from men).

so you are indeed saying that the women shouldnt get scholarships if it takes a scholarship from a man. like i said, you dont have daughters.

[Pistol]

IMO 60-70% of voters do not know the facts, voters just hear "one thing" and run with it... so if a congressman went to rectify Title IX by allowing for the 80 football schollies, there would be knee jerk cries of sexism (look at Billiken Roy, has a girl who is good softball player, goes ape, says the hell with

the 80 schollies TAKEN from men).

This is not a valid statistical study, but... http://www.howobamagotelected.com/

Roy beat me to the punch- it doesn't matter what the sport is, those are 80 scholarships you're saying men deserve and which women deserve no equivalent. Look at it like a balance sheet- both sides have to equal, and how the schools allocate that among different men's and women's sports is up to the schools.

Why in the world are you making this about Obama's election? This act was passed when Obama was going on 11 years old. Lots of voters (on both sides) vote for stupid reasons, but don't use that reasoning to attempt to make an argument against Title IX.

The link you sent is bogus. The sample size for the video is 12- a tiny fraction of what would be needed to construct even a rudimentary political poll. The poll of 512 voters is pretty small, too, and I see that the guys in charge are published Conservatives - not hard to come up with "shocking" results when you pick and choose the respondents and have an existing bias. I can walk across the bridge to Kentucky right now and give you a shocking video of who voted the other way and why. I'll go ahead and shoot the argument down with facts instead:

Election results (we should all know these): http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

Bachelor degrees by state: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/Thema...y&-_dBy=040

Advanced degrees by state: http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/ttw/tr...assessmentID=49

Pretty striking, huh? There are just a couple outliers on each end: Kansas has large populations of 'religious right' voters and Nevada has an economy based on gaming, so advanced degrees are gravy.

So where you said "this is not a valid statistical study, but..." I just gave you a valid statistical study. My source is the US Census Bureau, a little more reliable than a Conservative anti-Obama site. So much for your theory of less-educated voters being the reason for his victory. Can we keep it away from politics now? This thread will already probably be locked.

[Timmy]

The flaw in this argument - and Title IX in general - is that the number of scholarships is distributed based on the ratio of male/female students at an institution. I would agree to that idea if men and women were interested in participating in athletics equally. Then are not. Look no further than your intramural program to prove that point. College athletics has little or no relationship with the student body in general with regards to where the athletes come from. Universities don't hold try-outs from the student body to fill rosters, they recruit kids and convince those who would normally not attend an institution to attend and play sports by providing athletic scholarships. It is therefore logical to assume that the number of scholarships handed out should be based upon the number of teams to be fielded rather than the ratio of male/female students at an institution. There is no sport for women that demands 80 scholarships as football does for men. Given the difference in desire between the sexes to participate in sports as proven by intramural participation rates, it is my opinion that excluding football scholarships from the mix actually makes Title IX more equitable.

Note: My girlfriend received a full ride and started at SLU for four years in softball.

[MB73]

so you are indeed saying that the women shouldnt get scholarships if it takes a scholarship from a man. like i said, you dont have daughters.

Not what I am saying, Roy, please think this thru and do not just defend your daughter and say that I am sending gals back to the days of just cheerleading like your initial thrust.

The problem is there is a complex formula that basically mandates equal male and female scholarships. Since men play football, but women do not, what it comes down to, really, is that you have to take 80 scholarships from men's sports. Fact.

Just bad legislation, an unfortunate way that they did it, penalizes mens lesser sports.

Affects football schools, AD can pick a few to support, a few to dump in men's soccer, baseball, swimming, hockey, track, cross country, wrestling, lacrosse, golf, whatever.

So you will have schools that have 20 softball schoarhsips, but mens baseball is all walk ons. Gals laugh at the guys team. Really.

UCLA mens swimming, Vanderbilt mens track, etc, etc, completely closed because walk-ons will not support the sport.

SUre, they should have expanded womens sports but not penalize (take from) the mens sports the way the bill is structured. Feds messed up? Is that possible?

But no one will take it on.

[MB73]

Roy beat me to the punch- it doesn't matter what the sport is, those are 80 scholarships you're saying men deserve and which women deserve no equivalent. Look at it like a balance sheet- both sides have to equal, and how the schools allocate that among different men's and women's sports is up to the schools.

Why in the world are you making this about Obama's election? This act was passed when Obama was going on 11 years old. Lots of voters (on both sides) vote for stupid reasons, but don't use that reasoning to attempt to make an argument against Title IX.

The link you sent is bogus. The sample size for the video is 12- a tiny fraction of what would be needed to construct even a rudimentary political poll. The poll of 512 voters is pretty small, too, and I see that the guys in charge are published Conservatives - not hard to come up with "shocking" results when you pick and choose the respondents and have an existing bias. I can walk across the bridge to Kentucky right now and give you a shocking video of who voted the other way and why. I'll go ahead and shoot the argument down with facts instead:

Election results (we should all know these): http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

Bachelor degrees by state: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/Thema...y&-_dBy=040

Advanced degrees by state: http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/ttw/tr...assessmentID=49

Pretty striking, huh? There are just a couple outliers on each end: Kansas has large populations of 'religious right' voters and Nevada has an economy based on gaming, so advanced degrees are gravy.

So where you said "this is not a valid statistical study, but..." I just gave you a valid statistical study. My source is the US Census Bureau, a little more reliable than a Conservative anti-Obama site. So much for your theory of less-educated voters being the reason for his victory. Can we keep it away from politics now? This thread will already probably be locked.

Kid, you need to understand the math with the 80 scholarships, you do not seem to get it, miss the point completely.

RE: the link, I think 90% of the people that saw the link I sent agree that is what happened, but do not respond, you disagree, fine. And of course it is not a valid statistical study, like I said, but it is what happened, uninformed people got smoked by BO. The voter thing started when I suggested that if a congressman moved to change it, he would be labeled a "sexist".

Most voters do not know much about the issues. Plus the media did "a job" on McCain and Palin. BO promised everything, brilliand man but has never done anything, will be interesting to see how he does now that he has a job. Dow Jones is down 20% since he was elected.

Yer right, end this thread, it is in a death sprial.

[Pistol]

Kid, you need to understand the math with the 80 scholarships, you do not seem to get it, miss the point completely.

RE: the link, I think 90% of the people that saw the link I sent agree that is what happened, but do not respond, you disagree, fine. And of course it is not a valid statistical study, like I said, but it is what happened, uninformed people got smoked by BO. The voter thing started when I suggested that if a congressman moved to change it, he would be labeled a "sexist".

Most voters do not know much about the issues. Plus the media did "a job" on McCain and Palin. BO promised everything, brilliand man but has never done anything, will be interesting to see how he does now that he has a job. Dow Jones is down 20% since he was elected.

Yer right, end this thread, it is in a death sprial.

I'm pretty good at math, especially when it is as easy as a = b, where a is men's scholarships and b is women's scholarships. That's a SLU education at work right there. What you want is b = a + 80. Your whole point has been that it is equal now, but shouldn't be because men play football. What else can I possibly be missing? You have a pretty thin argument, most of which has been repetition. I'm saying that you're wrong and what you want has been illegal since 1972. You lost your battle a long time ago. I'm sorry that you're still bitter.

I'm also sorry that you're bitter about the election results. It is possible that 90% of people who saw the link agree with it because it was made by Conservatives for Conservatives. The simple fact is that the majority of Americans voted for the other guy. Also, today's DJIA might have a lot to do with the past 8 years and not just the results of two weeks ago. Also, nice job ignoring my links. I understand that it is more difficult to argue against the US Census Bureau than a biased political blog.

You've been fun to argue with, calling out liberals, the media, Billiken Roy, those who will call regressive changes to Title IX 'sexist', Barack Obama, Feds, and stupid ignorant voters. That's quite a trail you've left just to say you don't think men and women should have the same amount of athletic scholarships. Please try not to be so angry at everything and everyone; SLU needs more positive fans.

[Pistol]

The flaw in this argument - and Title IX in general - is that the number of scholarships is distributed based on the ratio of male/female students at an institution. I would agree to that idea if men and women were interested in participating in athletics equally. Then are not. Look no further than your intramural program to prove that point. College athletics has little or no relationship with the student body in general with regards to where the athletes come from. Universities don't hold try-outs from the student body to fill rosters, they recruit kids and convince those who would normally not attend an institution to attend and play sports by providing athletic scholarships. It is therefore logical to assume that the number of scholarships handed out should be based upon the number of teams to be fielded rather than the ratio of male/female students at an institution. There is no sport for women that demands 80 scholarships as football does for men. Given the difference in desire between the sexes to participate in sports as proven by intramural participation rates, it is my opinion that excluding football scholarships from the mix actually makes Title IX more equitable.

Note: My girlfriend received a full ride and started at SLU for four years in softball.

There's no way of measuring the relative interest in athletic participation between men and women. Participation is increasing at a higher rate among women than men, but still more men play sports. Probably a huge reason is culture, where women are not as encouraged to play sports at all ages (for a variety of reasons) and young women do not see the long-term glory/money that young men see with pro sports.

Plus, it's going to be very hard to convince everyone that men deserve more scholarships than women when more women are going to college these days.

[Timmy]

I agree that there is no way to measure relative interest with any certainty. But I'm sure that you would agree that the disparity is more than 60/40. I think it would be more like 75/25, but that is just my opinion.

At some point affirmative action programs such as Title IX must be ended and a rational method of distributing scholarships that does not discriminate against men or women must be developed. My son should have the same ability to receive an athletic scholarship in soccer as my daughter. Currently he has no chance while she is a lock and he is far more skilled at the game. That strikes me as unfair no matter how you spin it.