Frank Deford takes on Title IX . . . .

But at many schools, dropping football would actually put them out of Title IX compliance because men would then become the underrepresented sex with the loss of 100 athletes and (at the I-A level) 85 scholarships.

Provided, of course, they weren't redirected to othe rmen's programs.

 

I didn't mean drop football as a sport. I meant drop it from the Title IX debate. Sorry if I was misunderstood.

 

Like I said, my original post was playing on your words as a joke. That's why I used the

 

I've always thought Title IX should be expanded to all extra-curricular activities. (The arts, student government, etc.) I think a big part of the increase in female participation in athletics is that many parents see it as an attainable way to receive college aid.
It seems odd to me that a school make scholarship money available for a third-rate golfer ahead of a first-rate soprano.
I know it is apples and oranges, so don't go harshin' on me. That said - should non-revenue generating sports be judged equally regardless of gender? Should revenue generating sports that PAY for a lot of the Title IX opportunities be given special consideration. I say yes.

 

Thanks. Title IX is my "pet issue" because I owe my athletic participation, my education and my career to the law.

You make some great points, micro. So many people see the football argument as black and white: either count it or exclude it. Very few make the argument to scale back football spending.

There are not three genders - men, women and football - only two. In the letter of the law, it's pretty simple that football should not be excluded from the equation.

However, a college coach of an Olympic sport whom I admire and respect has a great argument: his team was being used as a dumping ground to ensure Title IX compliance. He was forced to roster about 50 athletes, many of who had never played the sport. Excluding football from the head count would ensure that his team could contract to a more appropriate number of skilled athletes.

While I see both sides of the argument, do lean more toward the letter of the law because I believe the spirit is about equality, not equality for most and special designation for some.

That said, I would be in favor of excluding football from the head count only if stringent restrictions were placed on all collegiate football programs with regard to scholarships, spending, booster activity, etc. If the volleyball team can't stay in a local hotel the night before a home game, the football team shouldn't be able to, either. Coaches salaries need to be reeled in. Spending for football-specific meeting rooms, weight rooms and dining rooms should be abolished. Locker room facilities should be equal among all sports. And so forth.

 

All of which will never happen, so things stay as they are.

Of course, the percentage of women who are interested in competing seriously in athletics is exactly the same as it is with men. We're all exactly the same, no matter which set of chromosomes we have.

As you said yourself, there are programs rostering athletes who have no business getting a college scholarship for the sake of Title IX compliance while other athletes who worked their tails off and deserve a scholarship can't get one because of the enforcement of the law. I understand there are other factors as well, but at some point you have to think about which sports have more people putting in the work to make it at that level.

And here we go again...... wheeeeeeeeeeeee

 

How do you expect them to spend money on those sports when they have to pay football coaches $1M or more and spend hundreds of thousands on weight rooms?

 

I was travelling and so didn't notice that I managed to put up my most incoherent SportsJournalists.com post in history. No posting before two Diet Cokes has to be the rule.
Frank's a nice guy, a giant in our biz, but every time he tries to pick up an important social issue, he drops it on his foot. (Once, he told TNR that white people liked to watch Princeton play basketball because people liked to watch "their kind." I almost fell out of my chair.)
Can't add much to Cadet's postings, except to point out that the movement conservative method of demolishing laws they don't like is to get into power and hire incompetents and people who hate those laws to enforce them. Title IX is no exception. Other examples abound.

 

Back to Mr. Deford:

By his own admission, JMU is cutting three women's sports in addition to the seven men's sports. Yet he conveniently glosses over the fact that three women's teams are being cut. What about those women? What about their participation opportunities? Or is this a covert way of saying that sports are more important to men?

Clearly Title IX can't be to blame for cutting the women's sports, right?

This is a classic error that Title IX opponents make when pointing fingers. They blame the law, not the administrators who have now had 35 years to bring their athletic departments into compliance with the law.

Instead of taking steps to right the wrongs from the beginning, administrators are now having knee-jerk reactions that force the elimination of teams while feeding the beast that is football/basketball. Instead of making decisions to scale back spending in those areas, they now deprive track and field, et. al. athletes of the chance to compete. Men and women are being affected by those decisions.

And let's talk about those "revenue" sports. The fact that those programs sell tickets does not mean they operate in the black. Rare is the college athletics department or sport that is self-sustaining.

From <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3870/is_9_22/ai_n16690336?lstpn=search_sampler&lstpc=search&lstpr=external&lstprs=other&lstwid=1&lstwn=search_results&lstwp=body_middle">CFO: The Magazine for Senior Financial Executives</a>:

 

And you are ignoring the fact that it is seven men's teams being cut and only three women's teams at JMU. I guess glossing over certain things works for both sides, eh?

Cadet, the really sad thing is I am a tremendous supporter of women's sports. I've covered them as much as men in my career, done a number of stories about the positive impact of Title IX and the growth of women's atheltics. But sometimes you and others who support the law go so far that even I can't stay with you.

 

I'm talking specifically in the college world where women are a majority. Women are still a minority in the workforce since a certain percentage choose not to work.

 

I didn't say they were getting scholarships, I said they were rostered. Most scholarships in the sports we're talking about - crew, fencing, cross-country, lacrosse, rifle - are partial scholarships. $500, maybe $1000 per semester to offset the cost of books. In no way are students in those "full equivalent" sports in it for the scholarship money; another common misconception. The only full rides go to football, basketball and volleyball.

As far as the sports that "have more people putting in the work to make it at that level," that's a slap to competitive women's sports. Do you think Candace Parker didn't put in as much work as Joakim Noah to get to the next level? That's the beauty of Title IX, that young girls can now dream and work toward goals of playing high school, collegiate and professional sports. Existence of the law has proved that in fact "if you build it, they will come" - if the opportunity is there, girls and women will take it.

Participation by girls in high school sports has exploded since Title IX took effect. According to the National Federation of State High School Associations, male participation increased 15 percent between 1971 and 2006. Female participation increased 900 percent during that same time.

And it's not just sports - the numbers are the same for women in other educational activities and professional programs like medicine and law. Do you think there aren't as many women interested in becoming doctors as there are men?