OT: Women's Division 1 or Men's Division 2

[MB73]

What do you mean by 'equal results'?

MB73, please don't talk down to me. I have read plenty about the issue; I understand its complexity. It isn't perfect, but based on the attitudes I'm reading here, it is still as necessary now as ever.

Like I said before, this has been in place for nearly 40 years now. It's not like schools are suddenly dropping men's tennis for no good reason. If schools want scholarship football, they have to make some hard choices elsewhere.

It "isnt perfect"?

It as resulted in many mens teams being completely eliminated, but worse massive numbers of schools have had to eliminate scholarships for non revenue sports teams... it comes down to taking away about 70 or 80 scholarships from the mens teams.

The school has to pick, should I take it from traditional sports like soccer, baseball, track, cross country, wrestling, hockey, lacrosse, etc. sports that had full teams before.

There is a formula but it basically comes down to that... take your football scholarhips that the women of course do not play and subtract them from the mens team.

Please explain, since you have read plenty on the issue, how this is fair.

You say it "isnt perfect"?

I say it is a disaster.

Unintended consequences.

[Pistol]

You guys are nuts. Somehow having an even amount of scholarships is uneven by your math? Somehow brianstl knows the amount of women and men interested in playing college sports, as well as all other college entrance statistics? Somehow a 38-year-old law is unexpectedly forcing schools into hard decisions in 2010?

It's the price of having football; it's no surprise to anyone.

Sorry, I'll never understand your logic on this one. I'll stop interrupting the old boys club now. I'm obviously not welcome here, what with my crazy ideas about equality and such.

[kshoe]

I haven't even bothered to read this thread but I will say this....I was just flipping to ESPN and caught the Xavier/Stanford game in the elite 8 with 20 seconds left. Xavier literally missed two un contested lay-ups in the last 15 seconds and then lost on a buzzer beater lay-up. Would have been nice to see an A-10 team make the Final 4 but if missing uncontested lay-ups is "fundamentally sound" basketball then give me the slop of mens/boys basketball any day.

[brianstl]

You guys are nuts. Somehow having an even amount of scholarships is uneven by your math? Somehow brianstl knows the amount of women and men interested in playing college sports, as well as all other college entrance statistics? Somehow a 38-year-old law is unexpectedly forcing schools into hard decisions in 2010?

It's the price of having football; it's no surprise to anyone.

Sorry, I'll never understand your logic on this one. I'll stop interrupting the old boys club now. I'm obviously not welcome here, what with my crazy ideas about equality and such.

Particpation for for females at all level of athletics is available if you want to find it. As well as the gender breakdown for college admissions, scholarship numbers, financial aid, and graduation levels. I am sure you know it since you have read plenty on the subject.

Here is a pretty good article from the NYT on the growing gender gap in college. It is few years old, but the situaton hasn't improved with the men's numbers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/educatio...nted=1&_r=1

[waldo027]

I haven't even bothered to read this thread but I will say this....I was just flipping to ESPN and caught the Xavier/Stanford game in the elite 8 with 20 seconds left. Xavier literally missed two un contested lay-ups in the last 15 seconds and then lost on a buzzer beater lay-up. Would have been nice to see an A-10 team make the Final 4 but if missing uncontested lay-ups is "fundamentally sound" basketball then give me the slop of mens/boys basketball any day.

I watched this live too and laughed hard. The Xavier girl was left COMPLETELY WIDE OPEN, missed the layup, and the exact same thing happened again. Same girl, left wide open again, missed another layup.

[Crunch-time]

I haven't even bothered to read this thread but I will say this....I was just flipping to ESPN and caught the Xavier/Stanford game in the elite 8 with 20 seconds left. Xavier literally missed two un contested lay-ups in the last 15 seconds and then lost on a buzzer beater lay-up. Would have been nice to see an A-10 team make the Final 4 but if missing uncontested lay-ups is "fundamentally sound" basketball then give me the slop of mens/boys basketball any day.

I seem to recall a similar play in the WV/UK game . The WV player was going in for an uncontested "dunk" and lost it out of bounds and followed that up with blowing it again on an uncontested "bunny"...both plays at critical times in the game.

As I've stated on this board before...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which posters on this board are single, lonely, and have way too much time on their hands...get used to it my friends.

[MB73]

You guys are nuts. Somehow having an even amount of scholarships is uneven by your math? Somehow brianstl knows the amount of women and men interested in playing college sports, as well as all other college entrance statistics? Somehow a 38-year-old law is unexpectedly forcing schools into hard decisions in 2010?

It's the price of having football; it's no surprise to anyone.

Sorry, I'll never understand your logic on this one. I'll stop interrupting the old boys club now. I'm obviously not welcome here, what with my crazy ideas about equality and such.

You say, then, that since a school elects to play football, it does not deserve to have scholarships for mens soccer, gymnastics team, track, cross country, baseball, wrestling that they had all along (pick a few), before Title IX?

Impeccable logic.

It has been documented that Title IX has hurt our Olympic efforts in many key sports, not to mention the schools who WANT to provide mens teams and have to pull scholarships because of the back asswards formula. And the 10,000's of boys who do not get scholarships because of this injustice.

I cannot understand where warped ideas on "equality" like this come from... or why.

[Pistol]

You say, then, that since a school elects to play football, it does not deserve to have scholarships for mens soccer, gymnastics team, track, cross country, baseball, wrestling that they had all along (pick a few), before Title IX?

Impeccable logic.

It has been documented that Title IX has hurt our Olympic efforts in many key sports, not to mention the schools who WANT to provide mens teams and have to pull scholarships because of the back asswards formula. And the 10,000's of boys who do not get scholarships because of this injustice.

I cannot understand where warped ideas on "equality" like this come from... or why.

When did I say schools didn't deserve those sports? They deserve to field as many sports as they can, but all schools have to play by the same rule in having an equal amount of scholarships for men and women. Pretty simple.

Once again, this isn't a new law. Schools had hard decisions to make in 1972, and anything since then have been completely up to the schools based on what sports they prioritize.

It's a shame the thousands of boys who want athletic scholarships can't get them. I would have loved an athletic scholarship, but it turns out that I'm not very good at sports. I got academic scholarships instead.

What's the commercial they keep playing during the tournament? Something like, 'There are over 400,000 student athletes in the NCAA, and almost all will go pro in something other than sports' I think is what it says. That's not a huge number, and it's even smaller when you take out non-scholarship student athletes. The odds are a lot better of getting academic scholarships, so my advice to all of the boys you're saying have an opportunity taken away by Title IX is simple: take academics seriously, since so few of you are going to get any sort of athletic money.

The flip side of the 'opportunity' coin is that before Title IX, thousands of women didn't have the opportunity they have now. There are the same number of scholarships for each to get; that seems fair to me. The arguments I hear basically come down to a very subjective argument about the 'quality' of women's sports and their 'interest' in sports. Those are some pretty antiquated arguments, and if this is how you look at things, I'd feel very sorry for your daughters and any other women in your lives.

And I forgot that I'm arguing with perhaps the most vocal proponent on this board of SLU going to the Valley. I shouldn't have expected anything intelligent from someone saying that.

[brianstl]

When did I say schools didn't deserve those sports? They deserve to field as many sports as they can, but all schools have to play by the same rule in having an equal amount of scholarships for men and women. Pretty simple.

Once again, this isn't a new law. Schools had hard decisions to make in 1972, and anything since then have been completely up to the schools based on what sports they prioritize.

It's a shame the thousands of boys who want athletic scholarships can't get them. I would have loved an athletic scholarship, but it turns out that I'm not very good at sports. I got academic scholarships instead.

What's the commercial they keep playing during the tournament? Something like, 'There are over 400,000 student athletes in the NCAA, and almost all will go pro in something other than sports' I think is what it says. That's not a huge number, and it's even smaller when you take out non-scholarship student athletes. The odds are a lot better of getting academic scholarships, so my advice to all of the boys you're saying have an opportunity taken away by Title IX is simple: take academics seriously, since so few of you are going to get any sort of athletic money.

The flip side of the 'opportunity' coin is that before Title IX, thousands of women didn't have the opportunity they have now. There are the same number of scholarships for each to get; that seems fair to me. The arguments I hear basically come down to a very subjective argument about the 'quality' of women's sports and their 'interest' in sports. Those are some pretty antiquated arguments, and if this is how you look at things, I'd feel very sorry for your daughters and any other women in your lives.

And I forgot that I'm arguing with perhaps the most vocal proponent on this board of SLU going to the Valley. I shouldn't have expected anything intelligent from someone saying that.

Title IX isn't just about athletics. It is sbout education.

Should schools be forced to have an equal number of male students and female students? Should schools be forced to give out an equal amount of academic scholarships to men as they give to women? Should schools be forced to graduate as many men as women?

Now remember that Title IX is not just about sports and it is supposed about gender neutral educational opportunites............ when you look at the current gender gap in college education..............Which sex is being denied opportunites?

[Pistol]

Title IX isn't just about athletics. It is sbout education.

Should schools be forced to have an equal number of male students and female students? Should schools be forced to give out an equal amount of academic scholarships to men as they give to women? Should schools be forced to graduate as many men as women?

Now remember that Title IX is not just about sports and it is supposed about gender neutral educational opportunites............ when you look at the current gender gap in college education..............Which sex is being denied opportunites?

Women are applying to college in larger numbers, outperforming male students in high school and during college, and graduating in larger percentages than ever before. Both sexes compete directly academically, not athletically. There is a level playing field academically at this point; from what I've seen in recent years, priority is not being given to either men or women for scholarships or admission on a macro level. If you can prove otherwise, I'd be interested to hear it.

Because men and women don't compete directly athletically, the only way to level the playing field is to have the same number of scholarships given to each. There's no other way to do it when you don't have apples to apples.

[billiken_roy]

You say, then, that since a school elects to play football, it does not deserve to have scholarships for mens soccer, gymnastics team, track, cross country, baseball, wrestling that they had all along (pick a few), before Title IX?

Impeccable logic.

It has been documented that Title IX has hurt our Olympic efforts in many key sports, not to mention the schools who WANT to provide mens teams and have to pull scholarships because of the back asswards formula. And the 10,000's of boys who do not get scholarships because of this injustice.

I cannot understand where warped ideas on "equality" like this come from... or why.

assuming your logic and facts are correct, then didnt 10,000's of women get scholarships?

you have yet to lay out why a men's scholarship is more "right" than a women's scholarship.

[MB73]

assuming your logic and facts are correct, then didnt 10,000's of women get scholarships?

you have yet to lay out why a men's scholarship is more "right" than a women's scholarship.

Yes, the schollies are basically pretty much even between men and women.

BUT men are penalized because women do not play football (or to a much lesser degree of importance, wrestle and almost none play ice hockey.)

The football #s (abt 70-80 per school) are then subtracted from the mens schollies for the non revenue sports.

Gals that are, say # 20 in a state in their sport are getting full rides to BCS name schools for non revenue sports, while a guy who was, say, # 3 in the same state cannot get a scholarship to anywhere decent, because of the quotas for the non revenue sport.

It is more complicated than this, but true bottom line, per most articles on the subject, and a BCS D1 AD I spoke with is because GIRLS DO NOT

PLAY FOOTBALL!

More women get schollies now = good. Men penalzied = bad, that should be re-done, women would get the same amount of schollies as they do now but add 70-80 more for men for schools that want competitive teams and guys who work as hard as gals can get schollies for baseball, soccer, track, etc where they are not ALLOWED to be offered now. And your daughter can still play softball, fine with me.

Facts are facts.

[billiken_roy]

Yes, the schollies are basically pretty much even between men and women.

BUT men are penalized because women do not play football (or to a much lesser degree of importance, wrestle and almost none play ice hockey.)

The football #s (abt 70-80 per school) are then subtracted from the mens schollies for the non revenue sports.

Gals that are, say # 20 in a state in their sport are getting full rides to BCS name schools for non revenue sports, while a guy who was, say, # 3 in the same state cannot get a scholarship to anywhere decent, because of the quotas for the non revenue sport.

It is more complicated than this, but true bottom line, per most articles on the subject, and a BCS D1 AD I spoke with is because GIRLS DO NOT

PLAY FOOTBALL!

More women get schollies now = good. Men penalzied = bad, that should be re-done, women would get the same amount of schollies as they do now but add 70-80 more for men for schools that want competitive teams and guys who work as hard as gals can get schollies for baseball, soccer, track, etc where they are not ALLOWED to be offered now. And your daughter can still play softball, fine with me.

Facts are facts.

i just dont get why the football scholarships shouldnt count.

btw, my daughter plays d3 so technically she doesnt have athletic money.

[Pistol]

i just dont get why the football scholarships shouldnt count.

btw, my daughter plays d3 so technically she doesnt have athletic money.

I don't see how it keeps getting framed as an argument that men are being 'penalized'. The reality is that women were brought up to equal footing with men in the number of scholarships, and rather than accept that for what it is (equal) a lot of people like to cry that they're being penalized because they don't have the same unfair advantage and/or lack of regulation as in the past.

Of course, the past in this case is pre-1972, which makes the anti-Title IX crowd look all the more foolish.

Couldn't you also argue that women are 'penalized' because they don't get to play football or have an equivalent to it? Eh, eh? No, I wouldn't either, but that points out how lame it is to argue that anyone is being penalized. Football is an absolute monster, with all of those scholarships and resources drained from an athletic program. With so few programs actually making any money from it, I'm not sure why so many schools want to have it in the first place. Even if Title IX didn't exist, athletic department budgets would be drained to sustain a football program, and probably at the expense of a lot of other non-revenue sports.

And this is completely, totally unrelated to my argument, just my opinion: college football is the single most overrated sport that gets big-time media coverage (I don't count NASCAR as a sport). 3+ hours, so little parity, no alcohol served at most stadiums- its most useful purpose in my opinion is to help me nap on Saturday afternoons in the fall. It's almost always very, very boring.

[Majerus Magic]

I don't see how it keeps getting framed as an argument that men are being 'penalized'. The reality is that women were brought up to equal footing with men in the number of scholarships, and rather than accept that for what it is (equal) a lot of people like to cry that they're being penalized because they don't have the same unfair advantage and/or lack of regulation as in the past.

Of course, the past in this case is pre-1972, which makes the anti-Title IX crowd look all the more foolish.

Couldn't you also argue that women are 'penalized' because they don't get to play football or have an equivalent to it? Eh, eh? No, I wouldn't either, but that points out how lame it is to argue that anyone is being penalized. Football is an absolute monster, with all of those scholarships and resources drained from an athletic program. With so few programs actually making any money from it, I'm not sure why so many schools want to have it in the first place. Even if Title IX didn't exist, athletic department budgets would be drained to sustain a football program, and probably at the expense of a lot of other non-revenue sports.

And this is completely, totally unrelated to my argument, just my opinion: college football is the single most overrated sport that gets big-time media coverage (I don't count NASCAR as a sport). 3+ hours, so little parity, no alcohol served at most stadiums- its most useful purpose in my opinion is to help me nap on Saturday afternoons in the fall. It's almost always very, very boring.

I can't believe I just read that coming from a "sports" fan....

[Pistol]

I can't believe I just read that coming from a "sports" fan....

I stand by it. There's a reason everyone gets so hammered before college football games.

[MB73]

I don't see how it keeps getting framed as an argument that men are being 'penalized'. The reality is that women were brought up to equal footing with men in the number of scholarships, and rather than accept that for what it is (equal) a lot of people like to cry that they're being penalized because they don't have the same unfair advantage and/or lack of regulation as in the past.

Of course, the past in this case is pre-1972, which makes the anti-Title IX crowd look all the more foolish.

Couldn't you also argue that women are 'penalized' because they don't get to play football or have an equivalent to it? Eh, eh? No, I wouldn't either, but that points out how lame it is to argue that anyone is being penalized. Football is an absolute monster, with all of those scholarships and resources drained from an athletic program. With so few programs actually making any money from it, I'm not sure why so many schools want to have it in the first place. Even if Title IX didn't exist, athletic department budgets would be drained to sustain a football program, and probably at the expense of a lot of other non-revenue sports.

And this is completely, totally unrelated to my argument, just my opinion: college football is the single most overrated sport that gets big-time media coverage (I don't count NASCAR as a sport). 3+ hours, so little parity, no alcohol served at most stadiums- its most useful purpose in my opinion is to help me nap on Saturday afternoons in the fall. It's almost always very, very boring.

1. You sure do not

2. How many girls high school football teams are there for the "pool" that you say they are getting penalized with no college programs?

Awh, this is the last post for me on this, I cannot go on with this, you do not get it or you are putting me on.

I prefer to deal with knowledgeable people.

Title IX is a classic Jimmy Carter clusterschtook.

Yes, it sounds good, and it got good results with more female sports participation, but people did not know what they were doing, and now tens of thousands of non revenue men's athletes over the years were/are sh*t out of luck and mens Olympic teams in these categories are suffering (swimming, wrestling, track, some others) because of an arbitrary formula set by Washington bureaucrats.

Sound familiar?

[billiken_roy]

I don't see how it keeps getting framed as an argument that men are being 'penalized'. The reality is that women were brought up to equal footing with men in the number of scholarships, and rather than accept that for what it is (equal) a lot of people like to cry that they're being penalized because they don't have the same unfair advantage and/or lack of regulation as in the past.

Of course, the past in this case is pre-1972, which makes the anti-Title IX crowd look all the more foolish.

Couldn't you also argue that women are 'penalized' because they don't get to play football or have an equivalent to it? Eh, eh? No, I wouldn't either, but that points out how lame it is to argue that anyone is being penalized. Football is an absolute monster, with all of those scholarships and resources drained from an athletic program. With so few programs actually making any money from it, I'm not sure why so many schools want to have it in the first place. Even if Title IX didn't exist, athletic department budgets would be drained to sustain a football program, and probably at the expense of a lot of other non-revenue sports.

And this is completely, totally unrelated to my argument, just my opinion: college football is the single most overrated sport that gets big-time media coverage (I don't count NASCAR as a sport). 3+ hours, so little parity, no alcohol served at most stadiums- its most useful purpose in my opinion is to help me nap on Saturday afternoons in the fall. It's almost always very, very boring.

i'm with you pistol. completely agree

[billiken_roy]

1. You sure do not

2. How many girls high school football teams are there for the "pool" that you say they are getting penalized with no college programs?

Awh, this is the last post for me on this, I cannot go on with this, you do not get it or you are putting me on.

I prefer to deal with knowledgeable people.

Title IX is a classic Jimmy Carter clusterschtook.

Yes, it sounds good, and it got good results with more female sports participation, but people did not know what they were doing, and now tens of thousands of non revenue men's athletes over the years were/are sh*t out of luck and mens Olympic teams in these categories are suffering (swimming, wrestling, track, some others) because of an arbitrary formula set by Washington bureaucrats. Sound familiar?

but even if it was true that men's olympic teams are "suffering" wouldnt that also translate to women's team has profited? why is that bad?

call a spade a spade. what you really are dancing around is that the girls should be cheerleaders and take home economics in high school and college and leave the sweating stuff to the men.

[Pistol]

1. You sure do not

2. How many girls high school football teams are there for the "pool" that you say they are getting penalized with no college programs?

Awh, this is the last post for me on this, I cannot go on with this, you do not get it or you are putting me on.

I prefer to deal with knowledgeable people.

Title IX is a classic Jimmy Carter clusterschtook.

Yes, it sounds good, and it got good results with more female sports participation, but people did not know what they were doing, and now tens of thousands of non revenue men's athletes over the years were/are sh*t out of luck and mens Olympic teams in these categories are suffering (swimming, wrestling, track, some others) because of an arbitrary formula set by Washington bureaucrats.

Sound familiar?

Said the guy who wants SLU to go to the Valley. Interesting you blame Carter for Title IX, even though it was enacted two administrations and almost 5 before he even took office. My comment about women playing football was obviously a joke and you failed to see the point.

I don't see how an equal number of male and female scholarships is arbitrary. That is definitionally the opposite of arbitrary.

Wow, our Olympic teams sure are suffering because of this. 38 years later and still in shambles. Winning the overall medal title every fourth summer and many fourth winters is just not enough; without Title IX, we would win every gold medal in every event every time!

And yes, it all sounds very familiar:

I AM A REACTIONARY OLD WHITE MALE WHO FEARS THE 'OTHER' IN ALL WAYS, SHAPES, AND FORMS. I AM VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO A CLAUSE OF EQUAL RIGHTS LEGISLATION THAT TOOK EFFECT IN 1972 EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOW ALMOST 40 YEARS LATER AND SOMEHOW COLLEGE ATHLETICS ARE STILL STANDING. I USE EVERY OPPORTUNITY, REGARDLESS OF FORMAT, TO SHOEHORN IN MY POLITICAL BELIEFS. MY STANDARD OF LIVING HAS NOT CHANGED AND IS NOT THREATENED IN ANY REAL WAY, YET I PRETEND AMERICA AS I KNOW IT IS CRUMBLING DOWN ON ME. ALL OF MY BELIEFS AND OPINIONS ARE BASED NOT ON LOGIC, REASON, OR EVIDENCE, BUT ON MY OWN IRRATIONAL FEARS AND INSECURITIES. I BELIEVE IT IS NECESSARY TO FORCE THESE ILL-FORMED BELIEFS ON EVERYONE AS FREQUENTLY AS POSSIBLE.

[MB73]

Said the guy who wants SLU to go to the Valley. Interesting you blame Carter for Title IX, even though it was enacted two administrations and almost 5 before he even took office. My comment about women playing football was obviously a joke and you failed to see the point.

I don't see how an equal number of male and female scholarships is arbitrary. That is definitionally the opposite of arbitrary.

Wow, our Olympic teams sure are suffering because of this. 38 years later and still in shambles. Winning the overall medal title every fourth summer and many fourth winters is just not enough; without Title IX, we would win every gold medal in every event every time!

And yes, it all sounds very familiar:

I AM A REACTIONARY OLD WHITE MALE WHO FEARS THE 'OTHER' IN ALL WAYS, SHAPES, AND FORMS. I AM VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO A CLAUSE OF EQUAL RIGHTS LEGISLATION THAT TOOK EFFECT IN 1972 EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOW ALMOST 40 YEARS LATER AND SOMEHOW COLLEGE ATHLETICS ARE STILL STANDING. I USE EVERY OPPORTUNITY, REGARDLESS OF FORMAT, TO SHOEHORN IN MY POLITICAL BELIEFS. MY STANDARD OF LIVING HAS NOT CHANGED AND IS NOT THREATENED IN ANY REAL WAY, YET I PRETEND AMERICA AS I KNOW IT IS CRUMBLING DOWN ON ME. ALL OF MY BELIEFS AND OPINIONS ARE BASED NOT ON LOGIC, REASON, OR EVIDENCE, BUT ON MY OWN IRRATIONAL FEARS AND INSECURITIES. I BELIEVE IT IS NECESSARY TO FORCE THESE ILL-FORMED BELIEFS ON EVERYONE AS FREQUENTLY AS POSSIBLE.

Your facts are wrong, but you do not care:

• I say we should have gone to the MVC 7 yrs ago... now we should wait for some new conference.
• Yes Title IX was enacted before Carter administration, but he famously reshaped it with some 3 pronged imperatives.
• You do not understand math, since girls dont play football, if you think exact equal schollies for men and women make sense (how about exact same men and women on the front line fighting in Iraq and Afgan?)
• Do some homework, there are articles galore, with numberes, stats, names, dates, etc about the US mens teams Olympic teams going downward because of the college programs that are closed, etc.

AND, AS FOR YOUR LAST STATEMENT: YOU HAVE SOME NERVE! YOU DO NOT KNOW ME! YOU THINK YOU CAN JUST SAY RACIST THINGS LIKE THAT AND BE PROTECTED? YOU ARE A RACIST OF THE WORST KIND. YOU USE YOUR RACE TO HIDE BEHIND, BECAUSE YOU ARE PROTECTED. FORTUNE 500 COMPANY: I PROMOTED A BLACK MAN, GREAT GUY, FROM DIRECTOR TO VP, HAD TO FIGHT FOR HIM, OUR GLOBAL PRESIDENT DID NOT LIKE HIM. TOOK ME A YEAR. ETC. I PLAYED BALL IN THE PHL. ETC. MUCH MORE, SO DONT TELL ME WHO I AM BASED UPON YOUR BORING, PATHETIC ASSUMPTIONS THAT YOU SING OUT OF YOUR SAME HYMN BOOK 24/7. DONT PLAY THAT CARD WITH ME AGAIN.

(End of thread, here comes Thicks)

[Pistol]

Your facts are wrong, but you do not care:

• I say we should have gone to the MVC 7 yrs ago... now we should wait for some new conference.
• Yes Title IX was enacted before Carter administration, but he famously reshaped it with some 3 pronged imperatives.
• You do not understand math, since girls dont play football, if you think exact equal schollies for men and women make sense (how about exact same men and women on the front line fighting in Iraq and Afgan?)
• Do some homework, there are articles galore, with numberes, stats, names, dates, etc about the US mens teams Olympic teams going downward because of the college programs that are closed, etc.

AND, AS FOR YOUR LAST STATEMENT: YOU HAVE SOME NERVE! YOU DO NOT KNOW ME! YOU THINK YOU CAN JUST SAY RACIST THINGS LIKE THAT AND BE PROTECTED? YOU ARE A RACIST OF THE WORST KIND. YOU USE YOUR RACE TO HIDE BEHIND, BECAUSE YOU ARE PROTECTED. FORTUNE 500 COMPANY: I PROMOTED A BLACK MAN, GREAT GUY, FROM DIRECTOR TO VP, HAD TO FIGHT FOR HIM, OUR GLOBAL PRESIDENT DID NOT LIKE HIM. TOOK ME A YEAR. ETC. I PLAYED BALL IN THE PHL. ETC. MUCH MORE, SO DONT TELL ME WHO I AM BASED UPON YOUR BORING, PATHETIC ASSUMPTIONS THAT YOU SING OUT OF YOUR SAME HYMN BOOK 24/7. DONT PLAY THAT CARD WITH ME AGAIN.

(End of thread, here comes Thicks)

Wow. Just wow.

[Quality Is Job 1]

(End of thread, here comes Thicks)

This thread became rather uncomfortable a long time ago (before today), but I've decided I won't bail anyone out by closing it. If one of the other moderators wants to do so, I won't object. Otherwise, I'll let it end on its own (unless it really gets bad with name-calling, profanity, politics, or something else).

[Majerus Magic]

The political undertones, from both sides, destroyed this thread long ago.

I don't necessarily agree with Title IX, but it was not worth discussing in this thread.

Get this crap off the top of the board.

[doowop]

i'm with you pistol. completely agree

Pistol, broy, I like the way you think on this subject.