- 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
re: Mo Isom 3 day Kicker Tryout,if she makes the team....(updated with video)
Posted on 3/6/12 at 1:08 pm to Zach
Posted on 3/6/12 at 1:08 pm to Zach
quote:
She came into an early season game ...on network TV... I saw it. She attempted an extra point that bounced off the center's butt. She was cut the next day. She sued for sex discrimination. Colo had to go to court or settle. Don't know how much money she was paid to just go away.
That's all irrelevant. We're all modern, forward-thinking men. And Mo is a renaissance woman. This is a match made in heaven.
:heavy sarcasm:
0
Posted on 3/6/12 at 1:08 pm to Zach
i think there was other stuff to that story. didnt barnett make some public comments about her that got in hot water?
Posted on 3/6/12 at 1:11 pm to Navytiger74
no glitch. people are just stupid and dont know how to post to the correct person.
Posted on 3/6/12 at 1:11 pm to Mitchell613
quote:
It's the kicker's fault that she was (allegedly) raped?
yikes.
Posted on 3/6/12 at 1:12 pm to bbap
quote:
This is not true, club teams don't count towards Title XI. The reason men can't try out for WOMENS Soccer is because there is a MENS Soccer league in the NCAA. Since LSU does not have one, they have a different sport to take it's place (Football, Basketball, Cross Country, whatever) Title XI isn't technically around to give women opportunities, it makes sure all athletes, regardless of sex have equal opportunities, based on the population break down of your undergrads, to play sports at the school. It just so happens that at the vast majority of schools mens sports are the ones that are affected bc they are more popular.
This is the reason the Soccer team has 298344143 scholarships to give out, because we have to keep it even as far as men/women schollies based on our undergrad pop.
It is also the reason mens Soccer in the SEC is not an NCAA sport, because then we would have to get rid of another sport, or add a womens sport, which would take away scholarships
Same differnce, everybody knew what I was saying. We know what title IX is.
Posted on 3/6/12 at 1:13 pm to fastedLSU
So who does she go against in Big Cat? 
Posted on 3/6/12 at 1:13 pm to fastedLSU
i apparently dont know what it is. i thought i did but i also didnt think women could try out for mens team when title ix already took away mens programs so women could have them.
Posted on 3/6/12 at 1:15 pm to bbap
quote:
i apparently dont know what it is.
You can go back a page and learn how Title IX compliance is met. Or, better yet, you can learn in advance of making your posts.
Posted on 3/6/12 at 1:16 pm to bbap
quote:
i apparently dont know what it is. i thought i did but i also didnt think women could try out for mens team when title ix already took away mens programs so women could have them.
I get what you're saying. Right now women have 1 more sport they could potentially play @ LSU than men.
Do you think this would have goone this far if it were somebody else other than Mo?
Posted on 3/6/12 at 1:16 pm to Mitchell613
i read your post about what it is. huge flaw in the system if true.
Posted on 3/6/12 at 1:18 pm to bbap
I love this. BUT, if I were Les, I would tell Isom that her first tryout would be nothing but tackling kickoff returners. If she passes that test, then go to the kicking. If she passes kicking, then consider backing up our scholarship kickers if needed.
That's fair. Great story nonetheless.
That's fair. Great story nonetheless.
Posted on 3/6/12 at 1:19 pm to bbap
It's funny how fast people forget Pederson v. Louisiana State University, 201 F.3d 388 (2000).
Posted on 3/6/12 at 1:20 pm to Mitchell613
i mustve forgotten that case as well. either that or ive never heard of it.
Posted on 3/6/12 at 1:22 pm to Mitchell613
not saying I should be able to try out for a women's sport....but if women have equal opportunity to make the football team, they simply just aren't good enough than football needs to be removed from the title ix equation and not count towards the men's total
Posted on 3/6/12 at 1:23 pm to bbap
No one will remember this in a decade, so Id say everybody forgot.
Posted on 3/6/12 at 1:27 pm to Mitchell613
I shepardized that bitch:
CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The matter came before the court on petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc in eight appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana of cases consolidated for briefing and argument in which plaintiffs asserted defendant public university discriminated against women under Title IX in the provision of facilities and teams for intercollegiate athletic competition.
OVERVIEW: In two district court cases plaintiff alleged defendant public university and officials (defendants) discriminated against women under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C.S. §§ 1681-1688 (1994) (Title IX), in the provision of facilities and teams for intercollegiate athletic competition. The district court found defendant for years had continued to assume athletics was a male domain, and that its women students did not want to participate in the same manner and to the same extent as its male students. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision to decertify a putative class, its holding that defendants did not intentionally violate Title IX, and its dismissal of certain claims for lack of standing. Defendants challenged inter alia the district court's conclusion that defendants violated Title IX. The court affirmed the finding of Title IX noncompliance, but reversed the finding of no intentional violation, holding that defendant had persisted in a systematic, intentional, differential treatment of women, and that actions resulting from an application of archaic attitudes towards women constituted intentional discrimination.
OUTCOME: The court denied the petition for en banc rehearing, granted the petition for panel rehearing, vacated its previous opinion, held the suit was not barred by the Eleventh Amendment, that plaintiffs satisfied the numerosity prong of Rule 23(a), affirmed the district court judgment that defendants violated Title IX, and reversed the district court's finding that defendants did not intentionally discriminate.
CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The matter came before the court on petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc in eight appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana of cases consolidated for briefing and argument in which plaintiffs asserted defendant public university discriminated against women under Title IX in the provision of facilities and teams for intercollegiate athletic competition.
OVERVIEW: In two district court cases plaintiff alleged defendant public university and officials (defendants) discriminated against women under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C.S. §§ 1681-1688 (1994) (Title IX), in the provision of facilities and teams for intercollegiate athletic competition. The district court found defendant for years had continued to assume athletics was a male domain, and that its women students did not want to participate in the same manner and to the same extent as its male students. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision to decertify a putative class, its holding that defendants did not intentionally violate Title IX, and its dismissal of certain claims for lack of standing. Defendants challenged inter alia the district court's conclusion that defendants violated Title IX. The court affirmed the finding of Title IX noncompliance, but reversed the finding of no intentional violation, holding that defendant had persisted in a systematic, intentional, differential treatment of women, and that actions resulting from an application of archaic attitudes towards women constituted intentional discrimination.
OUTCOME: The court denied the petition for en banc rehearing, granted the petition for panel rehearing, vacated its previous opinion, held the suit was not barred by the Eleventh Amendment, that plaintiffs satisfied the numerosity prong of Rule 23(a), affirmed the district court judgment that defendants violated Title IX, and reversed the district court's finding that defendants did not intentionally discriminate.
Posted on 3/6/12 at 1:33 pm to Mitchell613
quote:
It's funny how fast people forget Pederson v. Louisiana State University, 201 F.3d 388 (2000).
Not that memorable in the grand scheme. At any rate, what does that case have to do with the issue at hand. Women have ample opporutnities to participate in varsity athletics. I'm sure it hurts, on some level, that their parents are the only ones who care about their competitions, but how is that the school's fault. To keep football in its place, southern schools have given up a number of sports--including men's soccer and wrestling. What compelling argument does a woman have for competing in football when she has so many other options (like, um, women's soccer)--irrespective of how uninteresting and unprofitable they are.
This post was edited on 3/6/12 at 1:35 pm
Posted on 3/6/12 at 1:35 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
What compelling argument does a woman have for competing in football when she has so many other options
That an institution must satisfy the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.
Posted on 3/6/12 at 1:45 pm to Mitchell613
I still don't really know who this girl is. Is she popular just cause she's attractive?
Posted on 3/6/12 at 1:45 pm to Mitchell613
quote:
That an institution must satisfy the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.
Exactly how far does that extend? What can they demand?
Page 15 of 27
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News