- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
I know a lot of you hate Title IX, but your blame is misplaced...
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:06 pm
LINK
Basically, the problem is not with Title IX. Rather, it's with the per sport scholarship limit imposed by the NCAA. Eliminate that while keeping the overall scholarship limit and perhaps impose a minimum for certain sports, and the problems that people think are caused by Title IX will go away.
and
Any thoughts?
Basically, the problem is not with Title IX. Rather, it's with the per sport scholarship limit imposed by the NCAA. Eliminate that while keeping the overall scholarship limit and perhaps impose a minimum for certain sports, and the problems that people think are caused by Title IX will go away.
quote:
Opponents of Title IX routinely mock the emergence of women's rowing and sand volleyball programs, as if they're required by federal mandates. But those voices never mention that NCAA rules, not Title IX, forbid colleges from giving more scholarships to cross country runners and softball players.
The truth is, it will never be possible for the NCAA to allot scholarships efficiently with top-down edicts. Over time, some sports will surge in popularity while others will fade, and any bureaucracy as centralized as the NCAA will struggle to keep up. Plus, one size doesn't fit all. Different schools have different cultures and traditions, so why should the NCAA impose the same model on everyone?
Instead, the NCAA could aid both women's and men's sports with one simple move: cast off these sport-specific scholarship limits and let schools decide for themselves how best to allocate their resources.
and
quote:
This change would instantly make athletic directors more accountable. As things stand now, it's easy for programs to blame absurdities in their priorities on factors beyond their control, including Title IX. But take away the sport-specific limits, and give each school the total number of scholarships (about 225 apiece for men and women) to hand out as they see fit, and athletic directors would have to justify the choices they make....
Of course, some schools might very well pour even more money into football. But they'd be doing themselves a disservice. Only 69 FBS teams turned a profit last year. The typical FBS athletic department, though, lost $9.4 million in 2010, and that figure was higher than for FCS colleges ($9.2 million), which in turn was higher than for Division I schools that don't offer football ($8.6 million). Yes, football leads to bigger revenues. It also leads to bigger expenses.
So here's another idea: The NCAA could let schools allocate scholarships within certain ranges for each sport. The minimum would guarantee high-quality competition, and the maximum would make sure schools don't turn into single-sport factories.
Any thoughts?
6
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:08 pm to Sophandros
I'm pretty much an expert on Title IX. There's not just one single thing wrong with how it is enforced.
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:09 pm to Sophandros
Total # of scholarships would just satisify one of the three prongs of Title IX.
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:10 pm to Sophandros
Title IX should be equal sports, not equal scholarships. Football pays for every other sport.
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:23 pm to Sophandros
quote:
Any thoughts?
I wish more people would understand this about a lot of things.
That said, Title IX is often a scapegoat.
quote:
it will never be possible for the NCAA to allot scholarships efficiently with top-down edicts
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:24 pm to Sophandros
I like the idea, even if I have to point out that our enforcement of Title IX is actually illegal. The Bayh Amendment clearly rejected proportionality as a test for compliance and here we are – with a three part test in which the first prong is proportionality (which no one meets). It’s absurd.
No one would seriously argue that the engineering school was being discriminatory if it gave more scholarships to men than women. Demanding strict 50-50 spending is ridiculous, and probably unconstitutional, given enforcement of admission quotas.
Why not, to take this idea further – abolish caps altogether (though kept the 85 football cap to prevent an arms race). Then, schools can offer as many scholarships as they wish. If you offer under 200 scholarships, you must maintain a 50-50 split, but if you offer more scholarships, you can have a sliding percentage… say 60/40, so long as you keep at least 100 women’s scholarships. This way, schools have the option of adding men’s scholarships BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF WOMEN’S PROGRAMS.
Admit you can have more men’s scholarships without being discriminatory. But if Iowa St wants to add wrestling back, it can do so long as its still offering plenty of chances for women. If you are under 200, then you have to maintain strict proportionate compliance.
No one would seriously argue that the engineering school was being discriminatory if it gave more scholarships to men than women. Demanding strict 50-50 spending is ridiculous, and probably unconstitutional, given enforcement of admission quotas.
Why not, to take this idea further – abolish caps altogether (though kept the 85 football cap to prevent an arms race). Then, schools can offer as many scholarships as they wish. If you offer under 200 scholarships, you must maintain a 50-50 split, but if you offer more scholarships, you can have a sliding percentage… say 60/40, so long as you keep at least 100 women’s scholarships. This way, schools have the option of adding men’s scholarships BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF WOMEN’S PROGRAMS.
Admit you can have more men’s scholarships without being discriminatory. But if Iowa St wants to add wrestling back, it can do so long as its still offering plenty of chances for women. If you are under 200, then you have to maintain strict proportionate compliance.
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:52 pm to Sophandros
Elimination of scholarship limits would mean well endowed universities would have a significant advantage over state universities. Some sports, like baseball, need more. Some sports, like football and basketball, are about right. Some sports have too many scholarships for their needs. Title IX is brought into the equation because that is when the last big adjustment was made. Enough time has passed to tweak it without throwing out the entire system.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News