LumberJackSker
Active member
Can't you just sell some of your rolex watches or private jets nature boy and raise the money that way
Expanding Football Roster Has Title IX, Logistical Issues
- Thread starter Mavric
- Start date
Opportunity and fairness for who? Certainly not any male swimmers, divers, or soccer players who hoped to play for the University and obtain a scholarship. Ask them how ‘fair’ this politically correct nonsense is.
RedDenver
New member
You already answered your own question of why fairness needs to be protected with your previous post:
There are two separate issues here. Why is it somehow ‘fair’ to have the same number of male and female scholarships? After 50 or so years of Title IX, women’s sports should be able to stand on their own and pay for themselves. If they can’t, then end them.
But a fairer system in my view, is to either 1) eliminate sports that don’t pay for themselves, or 2) limit Title IX to non-revenue generating sports. When football not only pays for itself, but generates the money that funds everything else, why are those scholarships counted in such a way that limits other scholarships that could be available to male athletes in other sports?
Why do we simply accept these quotas as ‘fair’?
RedDenver
New member
If we were talking about professional sports that are businesses designed to create profits, then I'd agree with you. But we're talking about universities that are supposed to be about learning. How is a revenue metric even relevant for a university? An equally valid question is: why not eliminate revenue in university sports? Answer: because it provides funds for additional learning opportunities outside the specific sport making money. That's how you end up talking about fairness and equality - fairness and equality in opportunity of education. If we're not talking about sports in the university as part of education and learning, then split those sports out as minor league teams and let them profit or fold as a business.
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.
Mierin
Donor
desertshox
New member
Cdog923
New member
Let's be honest; it would still be 5 or so years before we got in the playoff in that scenario.
Enhance
Administrator
Male athletes have historically had clear advantages in college athletics, particularly in football and basketball. This particular portion of Title IX was implemented to ensure female athletes had equal opportunities at these institutions. Your personal opinion is, quite honestly, misguided and irrelevant.
You can stick your feet in the dirt and cry foul as much as you want but you have no legal standing in this battle and Title IX has mostly overwhelming support at all levels of government.
Last edited by a moderator:
VectorVictor
Donor
I would prefer we not add women's hockey until we add a men's hockey program--if we add women's hockey without the men's program being added, we'll never see men's hockey at DoNU.
I would like to see lacrosse and women's rugby be added for now, then hopefully look at hockey down the road, especially after all of the asinine budget cut talk/action has been exhausted.
Mierin
Donor
If that's the case I agree. But if we're never getting men's hockey anyway, we should get women's.
RedDenver
New member
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.