did anyone see the article in this weekend's Times Dispatch on the effects of Title IX? There was a great chart in it comparing the % of opportunities for men vs. women, the average salary for male coaches vs. female coaches, the average recruiting budgets, etc. I'm not sure how to post it on here but someone should find it and do so. From an athletic department budget standpoint, we compare very favorably with the other schools in the state. In fact, I felt like it was very obvious from the numbers that we take athletics very seriously and spend plenty of money to compete. We were consistently behind UVA and Tech but almost always the 3rd or 4th highest spender in the category. I was impressed and happy to see our commitment.
Title IX
- Thread starter URPike
- Start date
Ok, I'll bite.
" FACT: Overall, men's athletic opportunities since Title IX's passage have increased. Title IX has been wrongly blamed by its critics for cuts to some men's sports teams at some educational institutions.
Schools choose to support, eliminate or reduce particular sports opportunities on both men's and women's specific teams for a variety of reasons, including varying interests in specific sports and choices about how to allocate budget resources among the sports teams the school decides to sponsor or emphasize. The number, competitive level and quality of sports programs are individual institutional decisions, just as the number and quality of academic programs are institutional prerogatives. The government cannot dictate that particular varsity sports be added, retained or discontinued for men or women. Opponents of Title IX have tried to mislead the public into believing that the loss of men's wrestling and a few other sports at some schools is a sign of massive loss of men's participation opportunities overall when exactly the opposite is true ? men's sports participation continues to grow. Athletic programs add and drop teams all the time. Men are not losing. This misinformation campaign takes the focus away from the facts that (1) women continue to be significantly underrepresented among high school and college athletes, (2) the gap between men's and women's sports participation and support is not closing and (3) it is the wealthiest athletic programs in NCAA Division I-A that are dropping men's minor sports, typically because they are shifting these monies to compete in the football and men's basketball arms race. "
Ummmm., and who/what do they think funds the women's programs ?
When will the women show us the money?
" FACT: Overall, men's athletic opportunities since Title IX's passage have increased. Title IX has been wrongly blamed by its critics for cuts to some men's sports teams at some educational institutions.
Schools choose to support, eliminate or reduce particular sports opportunities on both men's and women's specific teams for a variety of reasons, including varying interests in specific sports and choices about how to allocate budget resources among the sports teams the school decides to sponsor or emphasize. The number, competitive level and quality of sports programs are individual institutional decisions, just as the number and quality of academic programs are institutional prerogatives. The government cannot dictate that particular varsity sports be added, retained or discontinued for men or women. Opponents of Title IX have tried to mislead the public into believing that the loss of men's wrestling and a few other sports at some schools is a sign of massive loss of men's participation opportunities overall when exactly the opposite is true ? men's sports participation continues to grow. Athletic programs add and drop teams all the time. Men are not losing. This misinformation campaign takes the focus away from the facts that (1) women continue to be significantly underrepresented among high school and college athletes, (2) the gap between men's and women's sports participation and support is not closing and (3) it is the wealthiest athletic programs in NCAA Division I-A that are dropping men's minor sports, typically because they are shifting these monies to compete in the football and men's basketball arms race. "
Ummmm., and who/what do they think funds the women's programs ?
When will the women show us the money?
I am a huge sports fan. I have a 17 month old daughter who I want to grow up loving and playing sports. I am glad title IX was passed and is still helping female student athletes. But that website and it's misrepresentation of the facts is a total joke.
My wife enjoys sports. She never played sports outside of recreational tennis but had the opportunity to she just choose not to. I have 3 older sisters. They all played several sports growing up and used them as opportunity to get into better colleges. But you'd can add up their interest in sports and multiply it by 1 Million and it would not even come close to a faction of the interest that I have always had in sports. My wife literally just said are you watching this? It is the CWS Finals between SC and AZ of which I have no connection and when I said yes. She said I'm going to watch a show up stairs. Is some of this changing because of title IX sure but it isn't just opportunity. I would watch a curling match between Sri Lanka and Boliva if that was the only sports game on. My 4 year old son is the same way. If I have sports center on he asks me at every single highlight, "which team are we rooting for dad?". I will come on here in 2-3 years and eat crow if my daughter is the same way.
I work with a guy who son is a soccer player at one of the top 10 programs in the country. He was the rookie of the year in his conference (considered the top conference in the country) and has made first team all conference. He is considered one of the best players in the country and isn't even on a full scholarship. His younger sister who is, according to her father, a decent player compared to her brother is on a full soccer scholarship to the same premier university. She also got a partial scholarship offer to play tennis in college and she only plays in the summer.
My wife enjoys sports. She never played sports outside of recreational tennis but had the opportunity to she just choose not to. I have 3 older sisters. They all played several sports growing up and used them as opportunity to get into better colleges. But you'd can add up their interest in sports and multiply it by 1 Million and it would not even come close to a faction of the interest that I have always had in sports. My wife literally just said are you watching this? It is the CWS Finals between SC and AZ of which I have no connection and when I said yes. She said I'm going to watch a show up stairs. Is some of this changing because of title IX sure but it isn't just opportunity. I would watch a curling match between Sri Lanka and Boliva if that was the only sports game on. My 4 year old son is the same way. If I have sports center on he asks me at every single highlight, "which team are we rooting for dad?". I will come on here in 2-3 years and eat crow if my daughter is the same way.
I work with a guy who son is a soccer player at one of the top 10 programs in the country. He was the rookie of the year in his conference (considered the top conference in the country) and has made first team all conference. He is considered one of the best players in the country and isn't even on a full scholarship. His younger sister who is, according to her father, a decent player compared to her brother is on a full soccer scholarship to the same premier university. She also got a partial scholarship offer to play tennis in college and she only plays in the summer.
Whoa, whoa, whoa......I think we may have a misunderstanding. My post was not, at all, meant to be in support of Title IX. I was just trying to show that our overall athletic department spend compares very favorably with the rest of the schools in VA. In particular, our men's programs are very well funded. This is where the actual chart would help.......I have a high school daughter and while understand the theory behind Title IX the reality is that it ignores the fact that 99.9% of the time men's football and basketball are the only sports that generate revenue for an athletic department. 15 fully funded scholarships for women's crew is a joke.
In my humble opinion, I applaud the concept of Title IX, but not the execution. I believe that football should not be counted, or only partially counted, when comparing opportunities for female athletes. Football costs the most, but is also one of only three college sports that generate any income at all (FB, men's BB and women's BB). To penalize male athletes because of football seems totally unfair. While Title IX has done great things for female athletes (of which I am in favor) it has decimated many men's sports (wrestling, track, crew, lacrosse, etc.) If football only counted 1/2, then some of these men's sports might still be around. Just my 2 cents worth.
Great pub for UR in U.S. News...
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/06/27/40-years-after-title-ix-men-still-get-better-sports-opportunities
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/06/27/40-years-after-title-ix-men-still-get-better-sports-opportunities
Did we have a separate womens AD?
This has been haunting to me. I had graduated but was still close to my undergrad team mates. I dont know what the girls budget was but the mens swim team either in '78 or '79 created, purchased and wore their own politically incorrect navy blue t-shirts with white lettering "The Heilberg, Boonestein, Eastowitz School of Swimming -we travel dirt cheap" to protest their perceived lack of proper funding.
I hope someone from the AD contacts the writer for more information and correction if necessary. "Bathroom stalls..." you gotta be kidding.
This post was edited on 6/28 8:20 AM by Anachnoid
This has been haunting to me. I had graduated but was still close to my undergrad team mates. I dont know what the girls budget was but the mens swim team either in '78 or '79 created, purchased and wore their own politically incorrect navy blue t-shirts with white lettering "The Heilberg, Boonestein, Eastowitz School of Swimming -we travel dirt cheap" to protest their perceived lack of proper funding.
I hope someone from the AD contacts the writer for more information and correction if necessary. "Bathroom stalls..." you gotta be kidding.
This post was edited on 6/28 8:20 AM by Anachnoid
did we, did any or many schools have a woman athletic director at that time? this sounds terrible today but at that time was probably the norm. not taking up for UR, but just the way things were. remember walking into an office for an interview, was filled, probably 50, young women, all college grads, doing mundane work, while i was walking in to fill a career management position, which they were qualified for as well, but not in the running. it was the way of the world at that time. things changed very quickly and men became the ones who could not get promotions or jobs, everyone wanted to hire, or promote women and persons of color.
