Expanding Football Roster Has Title IX, Logistical Issues

4skers89 said:
I don't think it's fair that a men's program is cut just because women don't play a sport that has as large of a roster need as football.  Most men's sports are also played by women so there is equality- basketball, baseball & softball, track, lacrosse, tennis, soccer,  gymnastics.  Women play volleyball and men play football.  The problem, which Title IX didn't consider, is the difference in roster sizes.  To solve the inequality they should create a token women's football program to balance out the numbers.  It's stupid to have to create a program that few women would be interested to participate in but it's the fairest solution.  Title IX was meant to create equality but in my mind it created inequality when they had to cut men's programs in order to maintain a football program.  Football should have been excluded from Title IX accounting which is fair because without the revenue it generates there wouldn't be as many sport programs for either gender.  Title IX should be that if you have a sport program for either gender you must offer the same or equivalent sport for the other gender with the same number of athletes for both genders. For example, if you create a women's lacrosse program you also need to create a men's lacrosse program with same number of women and men athletes.  Or if you start a men's hockey team then you must create a women's hockey or perhaps soccer program as long as the number of athletes is equal.  I don't hate women, I hate stupid rules.  If men's football didn't exist and there was a hugely popular women's pole dancing sports program with a roster of 150, when Title IX came along I'd be outraged if they cut the women's basketball program and men kept their basketball program.
Click to expand...






That's just weird. You're applying thoughts of discrimination to the sports themselves. Why does it matter how many sports there are? What should matter is how many athletes can play. Replacing the women's sports with touch football wouldn't do anything except reduce the # of sports on one side and increase it on the other. It changes nothing about the opportunity for athletes - except there's a good chance there wouldn't be enough interest of athletes to fill the roster, which translates to not enough female athletes in the AD. Great plan there. You're talking about fairness in sport # as if the sports themselves have feelings. It makes no sense. You seem to just be mad your pet male sport that generates no revenue isn't there. I'd like there to be hockey too, but it has literally nothing to do with fairness in gender - it only has to do with my personal desires.

It just makes no sense to force schools to do the same sports for each gender. The sports they pick should be determined by interest and the # of athletes available, while keeping the genders fairly equal. That's what they're doing.

btw, why would it need to be touch football? f#&% that. And why are you sadistic about it, wanting the games to be on Mondays and no practices and 1 coach. Why do you want to punish the women playing the sport you want to allow them to play? Why are you calling this team you're creating a "token" women's football team? All of these things you're saying are pretty damn mysoginist.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Dude said:
I don't have many convictions, but I firmly believe ballerinas make better pole dancers than gymnasts.  And I reckon you all can't change my mind.
Click to expand...




It makes sense, they're taller. Black pants on football players make for better looking asses. Especially cornerbacks.

Also I hate Nike uniforms. Their white pants make the players look like they're wearing diapers. There's this weird strip of cloth down the middle. Makes the game unwatchable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Landlord said:
I don't think you're technically correct either :lol:  

If I recall correctly, Title IX does not require equal opportunity for men and women. It requires proportionately equal opportunity based on the demographics of the student body. If the student body was 90% male, then the amount of student athletes could also be 90% male.
Click to expand...


Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics: 

1. Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;                          
2. Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and                          
3. Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.
Click to expand...
LINK

The language they use is "equitable." That may include something along the lines of what you're talking about, but I was directly refuting the claim equal opportunity has to exist or else the men's program goes away, which is not entirely true. You can have uneven amounts of male/female sports so long as there's equal opportunity to play.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
10_point_buck said:
Volleyball = very relavent. Football=.makes $$, not relavent for ages.  

No hate, just facts.  Kool Aid drinkers hate facts, I know.  Hope is all there is, hope we can win something, anything on the football field that matters.  I guess we have a fabricated sell out streak to hang our hats on.   

Football will always matter more, don’t disagree.  People bashing on women’s sports, sad at the very least.  Football is king, even when they suck and we have seen enough of that the last decade to last me forever.
Click to expand...
We can have an immense amount of respect for what Cook has done while accepting it's still second fiddle to the football program. It doesn't have to be as black and white as you're trying to make it. If you want sympathy for volleyball, power to you, but this board is a microcosm of the fan base. It's not volleyball that drives hundreds of thousands of page views here every year. And, if some other UNL sport can be manipulated to help football, I think we can all safely bet they're going to do what they can to make it happen.

I'm also still curious where Moos said the football program can do whatever it wants and disregard Title IX.

 
Moiraine said:
It makes sense, they're taller. Black pants on football players make for better looking asses. Especially cornerbacks.

Also I hate Nike uniforms. Their white pants make the players look like they're wearing diapers. There's this weird strip of cloth down the middle. Makes the game unwatchable.
Click to expand...


Do guys have butts?  I don't even have enough there to hold my pants up.  It's madness.

 
B.B. Hemingway said:
Cut out Nebrasketball.

Problem solved.
Click to expand...


tenor.gif


 
Every Nebraska fan I know thinks Cook is amazing and cheers for the volleyball team.  We all also get behind the basketball and baseball programs every time there is a glimmer of hope that something good is happening.  The difference is, we all are completely crazy about football regardless of how we are performing- even when we stink there are game day parties, tailgaters numbering in the thousands, full stands, etc...  Football is the sport that engages the majority of the population, period.      

 
4skers89 said:
I don't think it's fair that a men's program is cut just because women don't play a sport that has as large of a roster need as football.  Most men's sports are also played by women so there is equality- basketball, baseball & softball, track, lacrosse, tennis, soccer,  gymnastics.  Women play volleyball and men play football.  The problem, which Title IX didn't consider, is the difference in roster sizes.  To solve the inequality they should create a token women's football program to balance out the numbers.  It's stupid to have to create a program that few women would be interested to participate in but it's the fairest solution.  Title IX was meant to create equality but in my mind it created inequality when they had to cut men's programs in order to maintain a football program.  Football should have been excluded from Title IX accounting which is fair because without the revenue it generates there wouldn't be as many sport programs for either gender.  Title IX should be that if you have a sport program for either gender you must offer the same or equivalent sport for the other gender with the same number of athletes for both genders. For example, if you create a women's lacrosse program you also need to create a men's lacrosse program with same number of women and men athletes.  Or if you start a men's hockey team then you must create a women's hockey or perhaps soccer program as long as the number of athletes is equal.  I don't hate women, I hate stupid rules.  If men's football didn't exist and there was a hugely popular women's pole dancing sports program with a roster of 150, when Title IX came along I'd be outraged if they cut the women's basketball program and men kept their basketball program.
Click to expand...


incredulous.gif


 
Back
Top