Posted on behalf of Ross Montolio:
Anyone who watches college sports has a favorite team; it might even be your own schools team. Most people only root for the sports that are highly broadcast mainly because they are the more popular sports. Now what would happen if the NCAA decided to eliminate all football for every school? The country and all those schools would go into an uproar of disapproval for eliminating the most popular college sport.
The debate of Title IX is one that happens every time a school cuts a sport. Schools and Universities throughout the country have been struggling during these rough times causing schools to cut different sports programs. According to ncaa.org, in the gender equality and title IX section it says, “an athletics program can be considered gender equitable when the participants in both the men's and women's sports programs would accept as fair and equitable the overall program of the other gender. No individual should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, institutionally or nationally, in intercollegiate athletics.” Because there are these rulings, set in 1972, by the NCAA it puts pressure on schools, especially athletic directors, to carefully go over all of their sports programs, if a school needs to cut a program. This is mentioned in a recent espn.com article.
The article is about the recent cut of the Northern Iowa baseball team. Like most sports teams that have programs cut, there was just not enough funding to support the baseball team. In the article mentions how Title IX affected the removal of the baseball program. “Although most men's teams tend to bring in more revenue, they're often the first on the chopping block so schools can remain compliant with Title IX laws”. So because of the title IX rulings it is the men’s sports that are looked at first. However another point brought up in the article says the median revenues for male and female NCAA sports were $22.2 million for men and $865,000 for women. “Of the men's revenue, football and men's basketball account for $19.6 million. For the women, basketball makes up $490,000, or more than half the total revenue”. In all there are three sports that make up for most of the money made by NCAA sports.
It is outrageous to think that the NCAA is in the right to say that they want equality in all of their sports, when only three sports make up almost all of their sports revenue. The Ridpath article talks about the loss of wrestling teams across the country because there is no wrestling for women offered. The article says how “The trend continued with the loss of several wrestling programs in 2007 including the University of Oregon's nationally competitive program, ostensibly for gender equity reasons”. The article also goes on to say that Oregon added a baseball team after the wrestling program was cut. According to the Lovett & Lowry article, which talks about women and the NCAA, the article mentions that “There is also reason to believe that women are more sensitive to women's issues and more willing to adopt change”. So should the NCAA still abide by the Title IX rules that are almost 40 years old or should schools only have sports that will be popular and make the school and NCAA money regardless of gender?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Every year title ix always seem to come up. This topic is very controversial and a lot of times people do not want to talk about it. I think that the NCAA should still abide by the title ix rules because women deserve the chance to play, there are many people out there who dislike women sports but its only right that they play because just having sports that are popular will never fly, that will create all sorts of problems.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this title ix issue have forced a lot schools to cut teams which made people very unhappy. This is going to be a topic that will always be discussed, negatively and posititvely. In the article "women and the NCAA" this question seemed interesting to me "Why is it that whenever a group asks for equal rights, the dominant group's first reaction is defensive" (247). This is honestly a good question.
As sad as it sounds, women will always be on the backburner to men when it comes to sports, thats just the way it will probably be. The title ix rule gives women a voice and a opportunity so thats why i think the NCAA should still abide by it.
Title ix is too complex, thats why a lot of people tend to stay out of coversations involving it. Of course money will be involved, when is money not involved like in the wrestling article when it says "Spending in intercollegiate athletics escalates each
year as institutions strive to attain greater and greater success in a few select
sports" (267).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnytime Title IX comes up it brings with it much argument and controversy. I absolutely believe that female athletes deserve as much right to play as the male sports that make the big money do. However, I do believe that to a point it should be determined by the school which sports they keep. For example if a school has a very successful history in many sports than it should be able to keep the sports regardless of whether they have an acceptable ratio of male to female sports.
ReplyDeletePart of the Title IX rule was for equal representation and equal opportunities for athletes no matter the sex. "A recipient which operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics shall provide equal athletic opportunity for memebers of both sexes" (Ridpath, 260). What I don't think the law accounts for is the basic desire for the sports. Some schools can't field a woman's hockey team because they are in florida where hockey is not very popular, I just do not think schools need to be forced to field teams when there is no desire to have that sport in the area. My solution would be that there needs to be at least a minimum of womens to mens teams, but they should not be stuck in a bind where they can't have a popular team like baseball in a place where it is popular because they don't have a female rowing team that can go with it.
The Lovett and Lowry article deals with gender bias in college sports. "Gender Bias: The activities of the association should be conducted in a manner free of gender bias" (Lovett/Lowry, 246). In my opinion women have a right to be represented equal to men, but if it is going to lead to that school losing money, why should they do that? I believe that it depends on the sport and its popularity, and while some would say that this would eliminate almost all female sports i disagree. The University of Tennessee would NEVER drop their woman's basketball team, it has more appeal nationally than even the football team. This would also lead to improvement in the quality of the teams making the sport more exciting to watch which means more $$ coming into it.
Title IX has been great in providing equality for young women in the United States. However, nothing in the actual Title IX text refers to collegiate athletics, even though that's how most people are familiar with the clause.
ReplyDeleteDorothy J. Lovett and Carla D. Lowry give some historical background information in "Women and the NCAA: Not Separate-Not Equal."
"After numerous failed lobbying and litigation efforts against Title IX, the NCAA developed the position that it was their responsibility to administer women's programs (Falla, 1981)," they write (244).
This was after the Association of Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW) folded.
Title IX has been ripe with litigation since it was applied to college sports. In "Changing Sides: The Failure of the Wrestling Community's Challenges to Title IX and New Strategies for Saving NCAA Sport Teams," by Bradley David Ridpath, Athena Yiamouyiannis,
Heather Lawrence and Kristen Galles, some landmark court cases are referenced.
They write, "Female athletes finally began to fight for their rights under Title IX in the early 1990s, some 20 years after the law's passage. They sued Colgate University, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Colorado State University, and Brown University after the schools eliminated their athletic teams {Cohen v. Brown University, 1992; Cook V. Colgate University, 1992; Favia v. Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 1993; Roberts v. Colorado State University, 1993)" (260).
These hit close to home, as the volleyball team sued Quinnipiac last spring when it was cut. With help from the ACLU, a judge granted an injunction, allowing them to compete this year. What was somewhat sad about this whole situation was that men's sports were cut to keep a struggling volleyball team around that I can imagine very few students care about.
I understand allowing for equal opportunities among male and female athletes. But cutting teams to fulfill a governmental requirement that doesn't even mention sports is kind of ridiculous.
As everyone else has been mentioning, Title IX is a very touchy subject, especially around our school. I’m sort of in between on this subject. There are definitely some things I agree with, and some that I do not agree with. First and foremost, I certainly agree with the fact that women should have equal right, and they should be able to play the same sports that men do in college. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
ReplyDeleteI think the biggest problem is caused by football teams. I really liked what Brett Utley said. There are 85 scholarships given out to football players. That’s ridiculous, and that throws off the entire ratio. He also mentioned that there are only 9.5 soccer scholarships giving out. That’s also ridiculous. That’s not even a starting lineup. How the heck does that all work out? I have to admit, the Title IX rule is very confusing. I mean, our school got rid of the men’s golf team, and the men’s track team. They upgraded cheerleading to a varsity sport, and somehow this school is still not complying with the title IX rules? Cutting 2 men sports, adding a women’s ‘sport’, and you’re still not doing it right? That’s all very confusing.
The Lovett and Lowry article tries to explain the title IX rules a little bit: “NCAA legislation: The association should not adopt legislation that would prevent member institutions from complying with applicable gender-equity laws, and should adopt legislation to enhance member institutions' compliance with applicable gender equity laws.” (246)
I’ve heard some really crazy ‘rumors’ at this school that have had to do with the title IX issue. One of the things I’ve heard is that a women’s team picked up some extra players just because our school wasn’t following the title IX laws. Now, I don’t know if that’s true, but if it is, then is title IX really helping. Is it fair to these girls to have to sit on the bench the entire season, just so that IX is obeyed?
Another thing that is misunderstood is the reason as to why men’s golf and men’s track were cut. Some people really think that it was because of title IX, when in reality, it was due to budget cuts. The Ridpath article clears that up as well. “The NCAA Division I membership, which typically includes the largest colleges and universities in the nation, along with those that play in the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS; formerly Division I-A) and the Football Championship Subdivision (formerly I-AA), continues to argue that men's programs are being eliminated for purposes of promoting gender equity.” (256)
Men’s programs are being cut all across the country, and it’s always said that it’s because of budget cuts, and not because of title IX. But does that really make sense? Would schools really cut teams that make more revenue over a team that makes less revenue?
I believe that in the end it will all come down to money. Ross mentioned that the men’s sports make more revenue than the women sports, which makes sense. I think that eventually, this will be a determining factor. Everyone is so money driven, and eventually the NCAA might just go with the sports that make the most money. If it were up to me, I would have a men’s and a women’s team for every sport. The only sports you couldn’t do that with is football. But you can have cheer be a varsity sport. Why not just make it all equal?
-Robin Schuppert
Title IX is right here at QU.
ReplyDeleteWith teams getting cut (and some getting reinstated), the school finds themselves right in the middle of a Title IX battle.
Unfortunately for women athletics, it's been an uphill battle from the start and it hasn't gotten much easier.
Lovett and Lowry shows how hard it has been for women. Here's what they wrote about the beginning of Title IX...
"This take-over occurred sifter five years of NCAA members defeating proposals to sponsor national championships for women (Lamar, 1994)" (244).
But nothing's perfect. Since it's start, Title IX has been in hot water since the beginning. And it puts schools in a tough spot.
Schools have to support an equal number of sports compared to their student body, even if those sports may not be profitable.
At least, that's the general perception. As Ridpath, Yiamouyiannis, Lawrence and Galles write...
"The perception that Title IX and gender equity requirements are responsible
for the loss of hundreds of intercollegiate wrestling programs is widely accepted
by many who are affiliated with the sport (Benson, 2007; Hughes, 1999; Ridpath,
2007a, b) (255)."
As shown in the example of men's wrestling, many schools have had to cut these programs to stay in compliance with Title IX.
But, they've also had to cut many gymnastic programs as well.
Title IX is a confusing topic that won't be going away. Get used to it and all it's politics.
The term “Title IX” carries a lot of power. Whenever someone mentions it, all different topics and ideas come to mind. There are definitely people who support the law and others who don’t. Personally, I am stuck right in the middle. I am someone who supports the concept, but thinks some pieces of the law could be revised.
ReplyDeleteThere is no question that I fully support equal opportunity for men and women through collegiate athletics. However, I know that there are people out there that will compare the athletic abilities between men and women and base their belief on Title IX off of that. Well, I simply do not think that you can compare “athletic ability” between men and women, simply because of the genetic make-up of each. It is the idea of taking each sport and seeing the dominance between the specific team and the rest of their league or conference. By doing it that way, now apples are being compared to apples. Sure some people are opposed to the idea of Title IX, but I dare someone to go ahead and fire Geno Auriemma, the head coach of UCONN Women’s Basketball, who has basically dominated women’s college basketball for just about ever!
My understanding of Title IX is to create a forum of equal opportunity for both men and women. I do not have a problem with the idea of equal opportunity, but I do have a problem with the discrimination among sports. There is no denying the fact that Football and Basketball are primary revenue venues for the school. However, Football for instance, they receive eighty-five scholarships. Let that process for one second. Now, I am I know that the big time schools bring in massive amounts of money through football, but as a soccer player, it comes across as unfairness. Fully funded soccer programs receive 9.9 scholarships. Yes, you are correct, each starter on the team could not receive a full scholarship, when practically a water-boy for a football team could be on scholarship and go unnoticed.
What I am proposing is that somehow the NCAA figures out a way to compensate for such an extraordinary difference of scholarship dollars among sports. I am not saying that money needs to put into male sports at the expense of female sports, but I am saying that it is simply unfair for a football to be god awful and still receive a ridiculous amount of scholarships at the expense of other male sports. In the article “Women and the NCAA: Not Separate-Not Equal,” it was said that, “Put in a different context, male college athletes received approximately $179 million dollars more per year in athletic scholarship grants than their female counterparts (NCAA, 1992)” and basically what I would like to know is, is what percentage of that $179 million dollars is football based? Why not take some of that money and use it in a way to raise the level of other male sports? That way all the male athletic programs can prosper without affecting the female sports.
Title IX is crucial for the continuous growth of collegiate sports as a whole. With a few changes, the law could potentially be flawless. Just through “Googling” Title IX, I came across a pretty powerful quote. Cheryl Miller, who was an Olympian and arguably the best female basketball player ever, said, “Without Title IX, I’d be nowhere.”
Everyone knows that Quinnipiac has gone through its fair share of battle with title IX. We have lost a total of three men’s sports and the addition of completive cheer. With the case volleyball brought against Quinnipiac, they were forced to take those actions. Scholarships money is very important to the college athletics system. Title IX reminds me of the Jim Crow Laws separate but equal. They say that the sport that is the easiest to receive a scholarship in is women’s golf. Not many women get scholarships for this that is why it is easy to get one. Football at most schools is the killer in title IV because of how many receive scholarships.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, “Women and the NCAA: Not Separate—Not Equal,” the authors Lovett and Lowry say, “This integration, merger, take-over, or marriage (however one chooses to label it) was not gleefully anticipated by either group.” They were talking about the merge of the NCAA and the AIAW. The NCAA wasn’t excited about the merge.
Considering that there have been females to play in male college athletics, including Katie Hnida, who was the kicker at the University of Colorado. She claimed that she was sexually assaulted by a teammate. In the article, “Changing Sides: The Failure of the Wrestling Community's Challenges to Title IX and New Strategies for Saving NCAA Sport Teams,” the authors Ridpath, Yiamouyiannis, Lawrence say, “The perception that Title IX and gender equity requirements are responsible for the loss of hundreds of intercollegiate wrestling programs is widely accepted by many who are affiliated with the sport.” This reminds me of the case at Quinnipiac because we lost 3 men’s sports. I don’t think actual sports should be lost due to Title IV.
It shows that sports even collegiate sports come down to being a business, just like the professionals.