11/21/24
April 12, 2005
The Survey Says ... Title IX is in Trouble: According to Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation and mother of a 13-year-old female jock, the federal government is softening compliance requirements for Title IX, allowing schools to conduct e-mail surveys to determine "insufficient interest among women students to support a particular sport."
A lot of people don't watch college sports, but that doesn't mean they are a bad idea. How many people attend a Div III men's basketball game? How many people attend college tennis matches? The purpose of college sports is not solely to entertain spectators. More people watch and play women sports than they did before Title 9. That shows that it is working to do what is intended. The Department of Education is drastically changing Title 9 and pretending that they are not to avoid a huge outcry. If people are against Title 9, then the public should demand it be changed. However, the Administration hasn't had any success challenging it directly. Instead, they are just undermining a popular program.
posted by bperk at 12:41 PM on April 13, 2005
well said, bperk. ncaa sports isn't just about march madness and bowl games. for the vast majority of college athletes it's about competition and participation. and title ix has helped in that regard. side note: what's with the google ads for fur jockstraps?
posted by goddam at 12:59 PM on April 13, 2005
Women sports suck and no one watches them for sport. Fact! That is why female athletics needs Title 9. Otherwise it would FAIL due to basic economics. 90,000 people attended the Women's World Cup soccer final in 1999. Fact! Even the first round had an average attendance of more than 30,000. Fact! 140,000 people attended the women's tennis du Maurier Open in 1998. Fact! Every college sport but football and basketball would fail if teams had to break even financially. Fact! Top-tier women's sports have better per-game attendance than some pro franchises in men's hockey and baseball. As more women compete in collegiate sports because of Title IX, I expect we'll see even better competition and better attendance. However, it's pointless to argue this with most people. The typical male sports fan will deride women's sports up until the day he has a daughter who wants to compete.
posted by rcade at 01:38 PM on April 13, 2005
I like women's sports myself, but there is wolf being cried here. We're not talking about women's sports being cut under the new rules--the fact that the team is there already establishes interest. But what they're saying is that there are large quantities of women out there who want to play but won't even take the trouble to say so (never mind going the traditioinal routes of setting up a club or petitioning for intramurals). Is it really right to be ordered to take money away from some other sport on nothing more than "if you build it, they will come"?
posted by silverpie at 01:57 PM on April 13, 2005
Women sports suck and no one watches them for sport. Fact! I just vanished in a puff into the ether. Or was it a wisp of regret? More later on the original topic which has considerable substance and all that...
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:19 PM on April 13, 2005
There is a reason they do end run type deals on rules...its because to discuss it directly wouldn't get them where they wanted. Almost anytime you see them making indirect changes to a scheme, they are up to something bad. Hey, I was a college wrestler and the team I wrestled for no longer exists anymore at that school...is that Title IX's fault...not necessarily, but that is what everyone thinks. From what I understand, and I think Rcade wrote, they could pick anything besides football and basketball (actually, hockey has to bring in money locally, at U of North Dakota for example, but not nationally) and get rid of it if the decision was based on cost analysis alone. They can make changes to Title IX, some are even necessary over the course of time...but don't just go and gut it then say its a "minor change" or "tweaking it" a little.
posted by chris2sy at 03:08 PM on April 13, 2005
I enjoy women's March Madness as well, but that is the only sport and time I would ever watch a woman's sport in competition. (well maybe if they were unclothed) but, in saying that I think women as do alot of men build character,and learn life long lesson's thru sports. They would otherwise have no oppeortunity of leaning this worries me because most of these ladies come from very poor backgrounds, and this is pretty much the only way you are going to open their eyes to secondary education, which will also open the doors to (networking) or business opportunities which are to be applied after sports are all said and done.
posted by rockhard10 at 09:55 AM on April 14, 2005
I will also say this. Most women's sports do need to be cut out for sake of not bringing the whole women's athletic ship down at some lesser universities..
posted by rockhard10 at 09:58 AM on April 14, 2005
Women sports suck and no one watches them for sport. Fact! The only time guys are interested in females playing a sport is if they are hot. Hence the popularity of womens volleyball, ice-skating, gymnastics. If they are cute and show some leg, we watch. Any decent boys high-school basketball team(like Mater Dei in LA) could beat the best WNBA team no problem. That is why female athletics needs Title 9. Otherwise it would FAIL due to basic economics. No money coming in, no product coming out!