Expanding Football Roster Has Title IX, Logistical Issues

Ric Flair said:
If it’s all about learning, then get rid of intercollegiate sports entirely. 

How Is fairness and opportunity to be based simply on gender? So Oprah’s daughter (if she had one) gets a bowling scholarship, but there’s no swimming team for some poor kid from Appalachia to be able to qualify for a scholarship for? Smells like bull**** to me.
Click to expand...


Does anyone else have the feeling we're slowly but surely gravitating this way?  If the NCAA continues to operate as it has, we'll soon be there.  When one looks at what's going on with college basketball right now, it's just a matter of time before college football gets the same look.  It would be naïve to think college football hasn't been operating similar to college basketball. 

 
junior4949 said:
Does anyone else have the feeling we're slowly but surely gravitating this way?  If the NCAA continues to operate as it has, we'll soon be there.  When one looks at what's going on with college basketball right now, it's just a matter of time before college football gets the same look.  It would be naïve to think college football hasn't been operating similar to college basketball. 
Click to expand...


There's too much money for it to go away completely. The most logical path, IMO, is that the Power 5 conferences will break away from the NCAA for football in the near future. What this does for basketball, I have no idea. 

 
junior4949 said:
Does anyone else have the feeling we're slowly but surely gravitating this way?  If the NCAA continues to operate as it has, we'll soon be there.  When one looks at what's going on with college basketball right now, it's just a matter of time before college football gets the same look.  It would be naïve to think college football hasn't been operating similar to college basketball. 
Click to expand...
I think the number of college sports at each university has been increasing over time, although I can't find an article to support or reject that conclusion.

 
RedDenver said:
I think the number of college sports at each university has been increasing over time, although I can't find an article to support or reject that conclusion.
Click to expand...


I was looking at it from a college football angle.  I've read where the NBA is already talking about things they can do to help stop what's going on at the college ranks.  It's being discussed to remove the one and done simply allowing kids to go from high school to the NBA.  This works at times in basketball, but probably wouldn't have much of an impact if the NFL chose a similar path.  It's also being discussed about development leagues.  This on the other hand could directly impact college football.  Highly touted high school players could opt out of college football for a developmental league where they will be getting paid above the table rather than under the table.  If the developmental leagues are marketed correctly, it would pull not only a lot of money from the college ranks but also a lot of viewership. 

 
junior4949 said:
If the developmental leagues are marketed correctly, it would pull not only a lot of money from the college ranks but also a lot of viewership. 
Click to expand...
I doubt this is what would happen. The money will go where the viewership goes. And the viewshiper is way more connected to the schools than the players.

Anecdotally, I don't watch or even really know anything at all about the minor league baseball teams, but I do follow the Husker baseball team a bit. I definitely wouldn't pay to get a sports package that shows minor league (or even NFL) football games, but I have done that for Husker football.

 
I think there are two significant challenges with a developmental league: generating a system where the player markedly benefits and convincing the player this is the best route to go.

The minor league system in baseball is built upon decades of systemic flow. Building something even remotely close to that would take an incredible amount of time, effort and resources.

And, perhaps most important of all, young players are conditioned to believe that playing in college is how they'll prepare their body and mind for the NFL. From a body perspective, most know they can't physically match up with NFL talent for at least a couple of years of body building. From a mind perspective, they know they'll be tested against the best players in the country every week of the season.

Lastly, and this is the real kicker - any developmental league would be viewed as a significant threat to college football in a number of ways.

 
RedDenver said:
As I said, getting rid of intercollegiate sports is one way to achieve equality, but it's obviously ridiculous because we've found another way to do it that keeps sports.

The reason it's gender-based is partially based on historically under-represented groups (women in sports) and also because we have separate men's and women's sports teams.

And your weird theoretical example at the end makes no sense.
Click to expand...


Why not have kids qualify for athletic scholarship based on a cumulative grievance score rather than athletic ability?

Give kids points for being a minority, female, gay or sexually confused, or overcoming a tough childhood. Then take points away for being white, male, fast, strong, cisgender, coming from wealthy families, and otherwise exhibiting signs of white privilege.

I think sexually confused, slow, fat, unathletic, transgender Asians  who have overcome rough childhoods are historically underrepresented in sports like football. That’s unfair.

 
Moiraine said:
Click to expand...
The best way to point out the absurdity of quotas is to use examples like I did above. Some have simply accepted that a 50/50 split of athletic scholarships along gender lines is 'fair.' Why?

Why not instead award scholarships based on quotas for race or ethnicity? African Americans represent just over 13 percent of the U.S. population. So set aside that many athletic scholarships for black athletes and reserve around 77 percent for white athletes. 

But that's crazy, racist, and discriminatory!!! Yes, it is. It's also unconstitutional. But the same problems that exist with racial quotas be also permeate gender quotas.

 
Ric Flair said:
Why not instead award scholarships based on quotas for race or ethnicity? African Americans represent just over 13 percent of the U.S. population. So set aside that many athletic scholarships for black athletes and reserve around 77 percent for white athletes. 

But that's crazy, racist, and discriminatory!!! Yes, it is. It's also unconstitutional. But the same problems that exist with racial quotas be also permeate gender quotas.
Click to expand...
First, we do set aside scholarships for African Americans and minorities. It's called affirmative action.

Second, Title IX was created specifically with the sex in mind. That's the whole basis for its existence so trying to extrapolate it into a hyperbolic argument about race, ethnicity, gender identity, their weight (  :confucius  ) is illogical and unnecessary. And, as I mentioned previously, you have no legal standing for your argument. The vast majority of public officials support Title IX and every single institution that receives federal dollars is required to abide by it, lest they lose the funding.

You disagree with it and, while you're entitled to that opinion, it's wholly irrelevant. These are the rules in place that UNL will have to abide by if they want to expand certain sports. That's not going to change. If you'd like it to, contact your representative and tell them, but it will fall on mostly deaf ears.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ric Flair said:
Why not have kids qualify for athletic scholarship based on a cumulative grievance score rather than athletic ability?

Give kids points for being a minority, female, gay or sexually confused, or overcoming a tough childhood. Then take points away for being white, male, fast, strong, cisgender, coming from wealthy families, and otherwise exhibiting signs of white privilege.

I think sexually confused, slow, fat, unathletic, transgender Asians  who have overcome rough childhoods are historically underrepresented in sports like football. That’s unfair.
Click to expand...
Literally no one is saying that we should give athletic scholarships to un-athletic people. No one. So nice job on the strawman.

Plus, you continue to ignore the major factor that this is about education. This isn't sports in the abstract, but rather the use of sports to educate. That's why we're talking about equality. As I've already said, if you don't want to use sports to educate, then by all means push for removing sports from universities, but I don't agree with that stance and it seems like you just want to spite some people based on their gender.

Whether a sport makes or loses revenue doesn't really matter in this discussion since we're talking about how best to utilize sports as an educational opportunity. Also, if we were to limit sports by revenue, then no sports would even exist at colleges because they all started out as revenue losing endeavors.

 
Enhance said:
I think there are two significant challenges with a developmental league: generating a system where the player markedly benefits and convincing the player this is the best route to go.

The minor league system in baseball is built upon decades of systemic flow. Building something even remotely close to that would take an incredible amount of time, effort and resources.

And, perhaps most important of all, young players are conditioned to believe that playing in college is how they'll prepare their body and mind for the NFL. From a body perspective, most know they can't physically match up with NFL talent for at least a couple of years of body building. From a mind perspective, they know they'll be tested against the best players in the country every week of the season.

Lastly, and this is the real kicker - any developmental league would be viewed as a significant threat to college football in a number of ways.
Click to expand...


Significant changes are coming down the pipe with regards to football.  I just read where former Ohio State RB Beanie Wells at age 29 is experiencing symptoms of traumatic brain injury from his days of playing football.  I have read where some states are discussing banning tackle football for youth younger than 12-14.  I have also read where insurance companies are looking into classifying football as high risk and injuries from playing as uninsurable.  The days of giving football players a free ride through college for their services on the football field are eventually going to be viewed as not worth the risk.  This is where a developmental league will come into play.  The players will be paid to play.  It will be up to them and their families whether the pay is worth the risk. 

I suppose there are other options out there, but given how the sport is currently played this is more than likely the direction we're headed.  When one considers the amount of money some of the programs are making off of their college football programs and when one considers the amount of cheating the NCAA is allowing after witnessing what's gone down in college basketball, it would seem there's already significant threats to college football. 

 
Enhance said:
First, we do set aside scholarships for African Americans and minorities. It's called affirmative action.

Second, Title IX was created specifically with the sex in mind. That's the whole basis for its existence so trying to extrapolate it into a hyperbolic argument about race, ethnicity, gender identity, their weight (  :confucius  ) is illogical and unnecessary. And, as I mentioned previously, you have no legal standing for your argument. The vast majority of public officials support Title IX and every single institution that receives federal dollars is required to abide by it, lest they lose the funding.

You disagree with it and, while you're entitled to that opinion, it's wholly irrelevant. These are the rules in place that UNL will have to abide by if they want to expand certain sports. That's not going to change. If you'd like it to, contact your representative and tell them, but it will fall on mostly deaf ears.
Click to expand...


Why not set aside athletic scholarships based on race? 

No doubt Title IX was created with sex/gender in mind. The question is whether it even made sense...and if it did, whether it still does. When do we start judging people by “the content of their character” rather than the color of their skin or the shape of their genitilia?

 
junior4949 said:
The days of giving football players a free ride through college for their services on the football field are eventually going to be viewed as not worth the risk.  This is where a developmental league will come into play.  The players will be paid to play.  It will be up to them and their families whether the pay is worth the risk. 
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I'm ready to go this far, though, particularly when we consider just how pervasive and profitable major college football still is. They're also receiving free tuition and they know it's a path to a) getting better and b) getting to the NFL. There are so many questions (particularly funding questions) from a developmental league standpoint.

 
Ric Flair said:
Why not set aside athletic scholarships based on race? 

No doubt Title IX was created with sex/gender in mind. The question is whether it even made sense...and if it did, whether it still does. When do we start judging people by “the content of their character” rather than the color of their skin or the shape of their genitilia?
Click to expand...
I don't think people see a current need to set aside athletic scholarships based on race. Athletic programs have the leeway to take students based on skill. This is different than say something like an academic scholarship where white caucasians receive a disproportionately high number of scholarships in comparison to minorities. I don't think minorities feel they're being unfairly treated in regards to athletic opportunities, but I may be mistaken.

As for your second part, "judging people by the content of their character" is a worthy albeit naive viewpoint. If we judged people that way, and only that way, the world be a much better place. The problem is we don't and that's why things like affirmative action were created. We still have a lot of cultural and socio economic issues in the country that have not been corrected. Hell, some states had Jim Crow era laws on the books as recently as 2013, and some still might.

The only way you can judge people by the content of their character is when all other variables are equal.

 
Back
Top