billiken_roy Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 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. look, your friend that was banished to mineral area's track team should have taken up football. if anything the scales still arent balanced imo. the schools go out of their way to try to go around the numbers as it is. btw, there are absolutely NO schools that have 20 softball scholarships. the ncaa maximum is 11 and a half. do your research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 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. i hope i can convince the moderators to delete the above sentence. i dont know if my name has ever been equated with such company before and i do have a reputation to uphold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 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. maybe at a football school that is correct, however not at the likes of slu or say depaul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 i hope i can convince the moderators to delete the above sentence. i dont know if my name has ever been equated with such company before and i do have a reputation to uphold. I was hoping you'd find that entertaining, Roy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 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. Ideally, you're right, we wouldn't need things like those programs. The problem is that without them, not everyone can be trusted to do the right thing. It does suck when you have a situation like that- two deserving athletes but only one can be rewarded. I guess the trade-off is girls will never get a shot at something like football. I'm not sure if that's apples to apples but any rule is going to have good and bad. I wouldn't have a huge problem if schools like the service acadamies or Rolla (whatever it's called now), which is over 70% male, had more proportional distribution of athletic scholarships. But then it becomes a case-by-case basis, which would have to be overseen by the inefficient NCAA, and would also change each year at each school depending on incoming classes. That would be a nightmare to regulate. And there's no doubt in my mind that places like SEC schools, where football is more important than anything, would actually mold their incoming classes in a way that would benefit football the most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmy Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 Good conversation guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.