Props to JS

[SpanglerFan316]

I don't agree that Title IX has gone too far. Women who get athletic scholarships are often highly intelligent and highly motivated; they will make great alums and may make important contributions (financial, intellectual, recruiting, etc.) to WSU someday.

Gawd I love liberals.
They are the first to point fingers and raise 10K dollars of hell when things don't go to their liking. However, when it comes time to fund their 'allegations of impropriety' poof... they disappear. In other words, when it's time to 'reach into those jeans and pull out those greens', you can't find them with a search warrant.
You can also thank them for the BCS crap we deal with every year come the end of college football. Instead of having a playoff system that would actually determine a champion (as they do in every other division) we are force-fed the BCS. But you can't blame the college presidents, who are held hostgage by the guaranteed money the BCS provides. Money, they HAVE to receive to comply with... our little equal opportunity for all edict, Title IX.
To think Cold and I are basically on the same page with this issue is scary enough. 8)

My standard reply to a post like this is "Have you been drinking?" but I suspect that your political views were more influential when you posted than your alcohol consumption. I can think of one Title IX case you would like:
In an unusual case, Title IX played a key role in a school's decision to upgrade its football program from Division I-AA to Division I-A. The Western Kentucky University Board of Regents approved this move in November 2006, to take effect in 2009.[9] At the time of the vote, WKU was out of Title IX compliance because it offered approximately 20 too few scholarships for men; moving its football program to Division I-A would add 22 men's scholarships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX

If you are a "right-wing wacko" (meant, of course, in the kindest sense of the phrase) then I can understand that you are bitter. There were no WMDs. There were no terrorists in Iraq before Bush invaded. International security is worse because Bush invaded. Republicans will never again be believed when they claim to be the fiscally conservative party. Republicans will never again be believed when they claim to support the Constitution. ETC. But what do your political views have to do with WSU athletics? Why don't you rant in the Off-Topic forum? Or, at least, make your point clearly enough that we can understand what you are trying to say. PLEASE.

[CharlieHog]

it seems clear that the purpose of a university and its programs is not to make a profit but to accomplish a mission.

BINGO.

I am not a liberal, and I most definitely am not a socialist but, believe it or not, the University and their sports teams do not exist just so you'll have something to do on Saturdays.

[pinstripers]

My grandaughters play sports. In spite of that, I think title 9 is a bunch of crap. I am a registered Republican, btw. I can't see why it should be mandated that any particular group must be offered an extra carricular activity just because a different group is offered one. Anybody really think we should have seperate programs for German-Americans, or gays, or those who are shorter than 5'6" or are red-headed? I just don't get it, sorry.

[vbird53]

Without either defending or defaming Title IX (because I see both benefits and inequities in it), I do wonder why any university would consciously make determinations about academics or athletics primarily on the basis of "profit or loss." While budgetary issues are an unavoidable fact of life in most areas of human existence (universities included), it seems clear that the purpose of a university and its programs is not to make a profit but to accomplish a mission. That is why universities are subsidized institutions. We pay for them largely out of our taxes (or in the case of private universities out of a combination of private donations and federal support) precisely because they are not really intended to be money-making institutions but service institutions. In a perfect world, the university exists to educate and enrich its students and its community. We don't live in a perfect world but it is certainly not unrealistic to ask a university to at least attempt to decide on the basis of usefulness rather than profit. Whether the issue is holding a literature class or fielding a tennis team, the issue is not primarily whether it will make money but whether it is the best thing we can offer among competing priorities first for the student body and then for the community at large.

Title IX has not been concerned about profit and loss, which is my opinion, is a good thing. It has opened up opportunities that have often benefited both students and communities. On the other hand, it has removed choice-making from the individual universities and forced a one-size fits all mandate from the government. That is almost never a good thing because it assumes that someone from the outside knows what is best for every university's students and community. It is unclear that the ends of Title IX justifies the means.

At the end of the day, classes, research, the arts, and sports in a university do not exist either for profit or for their own ends, but rather for the purpose of producing an educated society. Living completely by that creedo is utopian and quite possible unattainable, but failing to strive to make decisions on that basis is a betrayal of the institution and the taxpayers who fund it.

The university should absolutely have the purpose of accomplishing a mission. However, that of course, is why athletic departments were created (and act almost separate from the university). There is no doubt that athletic departments were implemented to create funds.

On the other hand, the athletic department does not operate as a corporation, where our $100,000 profit will be split by the shareholders. This "profit" will undoubtedly be put back into the product, as it should be.

My take on Title IX:

Fine. Whatever. If you must fund the non-revenue producing sports in this way, then do so. However, there is not one single female sport that requires 85 scholarships like football. It is unfair that these 85 must be reciprocated scholarship for scholarship when no sport exists that could carry that "burden".

This fact (among many others) is why a community like ours does not have football. Not only would Wichita State have to fill 85 football scholarships, but also 85 other scholarships. (I can't seem to recall the actual amount of football scholarships needed, but I think it's 85).

[CharlieHog]

My grandaughters play sports. In spite of that, I think title 9 is a bunch of crap. I am a registered Republican, btw. I can't see why it should be mandated that any particular group must be offered an extra carricular activity just because a different group is offered one. Anybody really think we should have seperate programs for German-Americans, or gays, or those who are shorter than 5'6" or are red-headed? I just don't get it, sorry.

It has to be mandated because athletic departments would not offer opportunities to women if they didn't have to. The same is true on the high school level.

And do you really think German-American or people shorter than 5-6 is equivalent to women? Surely you can see the difference there.

[CharlieHog]

My take on Title IX:

Fine. Whatever. If you must fund the non-revenue producing sports in this way, then do so. However, there is not one single female sport that requires 85 scholarships like football. It is unfair that these 85 must be reciprocated scholarship for scholarship when no sport exists that could carry that "burden".

FWIW, I agree that football should be exempted. It's a special case on so many levels.

However, maybe football doesn't "need" 85 scholarships.

[Ricky Del Rio]

Some of this prattle is interesting and most is not. It ranges from the high brow esoteric intellect to the silly.

In the end, all of the prattle is meaningless. Title IX will never in a jillion years go away.

The Title IX exercise is an exercise in circular discussion and not much else.

I must admit, it is useful in identifying some of the liberals and conservatives provided one wants that kind of information.

[SpanglerFan316]

I must admit, it is useful in identifying some of the liberals and conservatives provided one wants that kind of information.

Last time I looked, being liberal or being conservative does not seem to affect a player's shooting or defense. (Of course, being a "moderate" is now illegal in the US. ;-) ) I don't see why politics should be introduced into sports. The law (e.g. Title IX) is the law. If you want to change the law, do so; WSU has to follow the (Kansas, Federal, NCAA, HLC, etc.) rules. I hope WSU athletics has a "big tent" and people with differing political views can be Shocker fans.

[SubGod22]

I agree with Charlie that football should be exempt. If it were, I'm not sure I'd have a problem with Title IX

[The Mad Hatter]

I agree with Charlie that football should be exempt. If it were, I'm not sure I'd have a problem with Title IX

I agree.

[vbird53]

I agree with Charlie that football should be exempt. If it were, I'm not sure I'd have a problem with Title IX

Hey, that was my point, not Charlie's.



j/k

[rrshock]

I think Charlie hit it on the head. Football doesn't need 85 scholarships. Only 11 guys are on the field at a time. There's 2 sides of the ball, so you have 22 starters. Then add a punter and a kicker and a replacement for each starter and kicker person and you come up with 48. Sounds like a good number to have, maybe take it to 50. Or they could split scholly's like baseball does.

Exempt football from Title 9 and cut the scholarship amount to 50. That would be a good start.

[vbird53]

I think Charlie hit it on the head. Football doesn't need 85 scholarships. Only 11 guys are on the field at a time. There's 2 sides of the ball, so you have 22 starters. Then add a punter and a kicker and a replacement for each starter and kicker person and you come up with 48. Sounds like a good number to have, maybe take it to 50. Or they could split scholly's like baseball does.

Exempt football from Title 9 and cut the scholarship amount to 50. That would be a good start.

Doesn't the NFL use a 56 man roster? Maybe colleges should do the same.

[CharlieHog]

NFL teams are allowed to activate 45 players for each game, plus 1 emergency QB.

I don't know why college rosters are so much bigger (when this isn't the case for other sports). Maybe there is some rationalization for it, but I can't think of it.

[1972Shocker]

NFL teams are allowed to activate 45 players for each game, plus 1 emergency QB.

I don't know why college rosters are so much bigger (when this isn't the case for other sports). Maybe there is some rationalization for it, but I can't think of it.

NFL players don't lose their eligibility after 4 years (or less). I was going to say graduate, but not sure that would be accurate.

If they have an injured player there are no restrictions on them adding to their rosters from their taxi squads and other sources.