Mattthew S. said:

Minna H. said:

Matthew S., it is specious to use that argument because your alma mater could have taken some money from basketball or football to keep Men’s Track.

Here are a few links so I don’t go off the rails:

athletics.
facts and myths.
more info.

That is just the tip of the iceberg. Title IX is not just for women or athletics, by the way.

Now, I will turn to unis as that’s what this board is about.

I do realize that Title IX is not only about athletics–in fact, if you read the language of the law, athletics is hardly mentioned. But this doesn’t take away from the fact that collegiate athletics is the primary medium in which we see the effects of the law today.

Your suggestion that my alma mater could have diverted funds from the football and mens basketball programs is not wihout merit, but it does ignore the fact that the two most profitable athletic programs in collegiate athletics are football and basketball, in that order. And as you conceded earlier, the NCAA does place it’s emphasis on profitability. So to think that a school–particularly a southern university with a proud football tradition–would divert funds from it’s two biggest moneymakers is a bit naive (and I say that with all respect).

As John Adams once famously wrote “Facts are stubborn things”.

Matthew, I am not naive to believe a school WOULD divert money from basketball or football (which make money, but not for other sports or other disciplines); I am saying they COULD have, which is why I deplore schools that say it’s Title IX’s fault they had to cut this men’s team or that. No, they could have funded both if they really wanted to, but they chose not to.

I am sure there are smaller schools that may not have had as much of a choice, but I am still for women getting the chance to participate in sports (since that is what we are focusing on).

That is the last I will say on this topic (until it gets brought up again).

The problem with the websites you linked to is that, like MUCH of the Internet, they are biased. It looks as though they have a vested interest in keeping Title IX applicable, specifically for sports (since that is what the vast majority of their data is in reference to).

I don’t think anyone on here is saying that women sports should not be offerred or that Title IX hasn’t helped women’s athletics. What they are saying is that the effect of the law has had some unforseen, negative impact on MANY schools, large and small.

The matter of the fact is that women’s sports just don’t draw like men’s sports (except for a few isolated instances where a women’s program has had continued success like Tennessee, Duke and North Carolina in basketball and UCLA & Arizona in softball). It’s the harsh truth. I see it every day, colleagues at work saying they only watch “real” basketball when I mention the LSU women’s team game that I watched the previous night.

Don’t get rid of Title IX…just tweak it.

Minna H. said:

Matthew S., it is specious to use that argument because your alma mater could have taken some money from basketball or football to keep Men’s Track.

Here are a few links so I don’t go off the rails:

athletics.
facts and myths.
more info.

That is just the tip of the iceberg. Title IX is not just for women or athletics, by the way.

Now, I will turn to unis as that’s what this board is about.

I do realize that Title IX is not only about athletics–in fact, if you read the language of the law, athletics is hardly mentioned. But this doesn’t take away from the fact that collegiate athletics is the primary medium in which we see the effects of the law today.

Your suggestion that my alma mater could have diverted funds from the football and mens basketball programs is not wihout merit, but it does ignore the fact that the two most profitable athletic programs in collegiate athletics are football and basketball, in that order. And as you conceded earlier, the NCAA does place it’s emphasis on profitability. So to think that a school–particularly a southern university with a proud football tradition–would divert funds from it’s two biggest moneymakers is a bit naive (and I say that with all respect).

As John Adams once famously wrote “Facts are stubborn things”.

Matthew, I am not naive to believe a school WOULD divert money from basketball or football (which make money, but not for other sports or other disciplines); I am saying they COULD have, which is why I deplore schools that say it’s Title IX’s fault they had to cut this men’s team or that. No, they could have funded both if they really wanted to, but they chose not to.

I am sure there are smaller schools that may not have had as much of a choice, but I am still for women getting the chance to participate in sports (since that is what we are focusing on).

That is the last I will say on this topic (until it gets brought up again).

Richard said:

Stuby said:

I know they are a beloved sponsor of this site, and I may be out of touch, but do people really buy and wear something like this?

they don’t sponsor the site. Paul mentioned this last week I believe that their banner is up there because it’s relevant and they’re a good company.

Distant Replays pays for that ad, which means they are indeed a sponsor (but the site doesn’t get a cut from any sales thru their ad portal — they just pay a flat rate), and I’m happy to have them as such.

Getting ready for tonight’s SF party,
Paul

my apologies for not stating that right

Late post here…

Don’t know if it has been mentioned in a past Comments thread, but interviews before the USA-Mexico soccer match featured US players wearing this and this for their training tops. Apparently, there’s also a red alternate available. Yep, Nike put mismatched single sleeve stripes on all three training shirts. They’re probably as old as the current jerseys, but it was the first time I’ve noticed them.

They’re as old as the current jerseys. I have the blue one.

LaRoche in new Pirates’ Red: Pic 1
LaRoche in new Pirates’ Red: Pic 2
LaRoche in new Pirates’ Red: Pic 3

Also, I think the Hawks’ whites are the best overall uniforms in hockey. From the skinny stripes on the sweater, to the nice side stripes on the breezers, to the colourful logo, it is an excellent uniform.

Mattthew S. said:

Minna H. said:

Title IX is NOT the reason for the demise of men’s teams, despite what colleges and universities will tell you. I won’t get into it here because this is not the place, but please look it up if you really are interested in the subject.

I like the Lake Erie Monsters and the logo, but I agree that the monster should be breaking through ice. Has someone tested Lake Erie yet to see if it’s frozen? I bet most of our twelve-thousand lakes are frozen, though it was a balmy 3 degrees today; feels like summer.

The fact of the matter with Title IX Minna, is that schools are required to do the following:

1. – Provide athletic opportunites that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment.
2. – Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented gender.
3. – Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented gender.

What does this translate to at the collegiate level? Athletic scholarships. My alma mater had to drop baseball in the early 1970s because there were not enough funds to cover scholarships for a 20+ person baseball team while adding other women’s teams to come into agreement with Title IX. My alma mater had to drop Men’s Track and Field while adding Women’s Equestrian a few years ago for the saem reason. It comes down to cold, hard economics and the subsequent realization that no one, not even the Federal Government, can fund everything desired.

Now I’m not saying Title IX is a bad law, but I am saying that it has had some unforseen consequences that should be addressed. Like it or not, the almighty dollar rules in Division I athletics.

http://www.usdoj.gov...

Matthew S., it is specious to use that argument because your alma mater could have taken some money from basketball or football to keep Men’s Track.

Here are a few links so I don’t go off the rails:

athletics.
facts and myths.
more info.

That is just the tip of the iceberg. Title IX is not just for women or athletics, by the way.

Now, I will turn to unis as that’s what this board is about.

I do realize that Title IX is not only about athletics–in fact, if you read the language of the law, athletics is hardly mentioned. But this doesn’t take away from the fact that collegiate athletics is the primary medium in which we see the effects of the law today.

Your suggestion that my alma mater could have diverted funds from the football and mens basketball programs is not wihout merit, but it does ignore the fact that the two most profitable athletic programs in collegiate athletics are football and basketball, in that order. And as you conceded earlier, the NCAA does place it’s emphasis on profitability. So to think that a school–particularly a southern university with a proud football tradition–would divert funds from it’s two biggest moneymakers is a bit naive (and I say that with all respect).

As John Adams once famously wrote “Facts are stubborn things”.

Don’t know if it has been mentioned in a past Comments thread, but interviews before the USA-Mexico soccer match featured US players wearing this and this for their training tops. Apparently, there’s also a red alternate available. Yep, Nike put mismatched single sleeve stripes on all three training shirts. They’re probably as old as the current jerseys, but it was the first time I’ve noticed them.