Title IX's Faulty Assumption

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by DarkBritches

This is not a zero sum game.

Actually, it is. Equality is when everything balances.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Actually, it is. Equality is when everything balances.

But even if you don't accept that premise, what do you suppose provides and pays for the opportunities for women via sports programs? It is the funding derived from men's sports. Many universities find themselves forced to drop revenue-earning men's sports under pressure from various sources, of which Title IX is not insignificant.

A healthy men's sports program enables a healthy women's sports program.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by DarkBritches

But we are also talking about long term economic momentum. You can't look at the current state of things and say that it will always be that way.

And it just makes sense that the way to make the most money is to have a lot of successful programs in both men's and women's athletics.

The way to make the most money at any given moment is not necessarily the very best way to wring the most money out of the system. Like the increase of volume in trading on the stock market. We should build up women's sports as a growing market. We should be entrepreneurs. It isn't so often that we can be entrepreneurs in an area where we can also be making a good choice for our daughters and their daughters and their daughters' daughters. But the future will be better for all because of Title IX, even if a few mens' programs suffer in the present.

And if I am wrong, so what? We will have tried for a better future and lost out. But if you never try for a better future, then you will never have a better future. Just more of the same.

Here's the problem: if "a few men's programs suffer in the present," they don't generate revenue for the women. The majority of the casualties amongst men's programs have been non-revenue sports, but not always is it so. The lifeblood of women's sports is dollars generated from men's sports. If you hurt men's sports, women's sports will be worse off in the long run.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by All-American

But even if you don't accept that premise, what do you suppose provides and pays for the opportunities for women via sports programs? It is the funding derived from men's sports. Many universities find themselves forced to drop revenue-earning men's sports under pressure from various sources, of which Title IX is not insignificant.

A healthy men's sports program enables a healthy women's sports program.

Agreed. Without mens sports, there would be no womens sports.

Title IX needs to be amended by removing collegiate athletics from under it's control.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by DarkBritches

But we are also talking about long term economic momentum. You can't look at the current state of things and say that it will always be that way.

And it just makes sense that the way to make the most money is to have a lot of successful programs in both men's and women's athletics.

The way to make the most money at any given moment is not necessarily the very best way to wring the most money out of the system. Like the increase of volume in trading on the stock market. We should build up women's sports as a growing market. We should be entrepreneurs. It isn't so often that we can be entrepreneurs in an area where we can also be making a good choice for our daughters and their daughters and their daughters' daughters. But the future will be better for all because of Title IX, even if a few mens' programs suffer in the present.

And if I am wrong, so what? We will have tried for a better future and lost out. But if you never try for a better future, then you will never have a better future. Just more of the same.

Women's athletics will never make money. It never has. The only way I would ever attend any kind of women's collegiate athletic event is if one of my daughters was participating.

In the stock market, a wise investor dumps the stocks that are decreasing his portfolio.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by DarkBritches

Maybe the value of Title IX can be figure out if you answer this question=> What is the purpose of sports as part of the university's larger mission?

The purpose of sports in the larger mission?

It's all about the money. Money generated from mens sports go to the university and is used to help fund other sports programs and also to help funding for academic areas on campus. College sports is a huge business and womens sports are a debit.

And it provides women an opportunity to participate on a collegiate level that wasn't there to begin with.

Now answer this: How about addressing the original point of this thread? Why is it forced upon mens programs when there is not as much interest in the participation on the womens' part? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that and explain why it's still a good idea.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by DarkBritches

Maybe the value of Title IX can be figure out if you answer this question=> What is the purpose of sports as part of the university's larger mission?

Three big ones:

1. It allows for students to participate as athletes.
2. It enables students to go to college, through scholarships which provide opportunities that may not have otherwise been available.
3. It contributes to a college atmosphere by contributing to a fundamental aspect of American culture.

Title IX definitely opens the doors for many women, per factors 1 and 2. I question whether the costs to men are presently worth the benefits being given to women. That's not to say that Title IX has not done a lot of good. I don't think the idea should be altogether discarded, but it should be modified to provide a greater benefit to both men and women.

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by DarkBritches

But we are also talking about long term economic momentum. You can't look at the current state of things and say that it will always be that way.

And it just makes sense that the way to make the most money is to have a lot of successful programs in both men's and women's athletics.

The way to make the most money at any given moment is not necessarily the very best way to wring the most money out of the system. Like the increase of volume in trading on the stock market. We should build up women's sports as a growing market. We should be entrepreneurs. It isn't so often that we can be entrepreneurs in an area where we can also be making a good choice for our daughters and their daughters and their daughters' daughters. But the future will be better for all because of Title IX, even if a few mens' programs suffer in the present.

And if I am wrong, so what? We will have tried for a better future and lost out. But if you never try for a better future, then you will never have a better future. Just more of the same.

Let's just for a moment assume everything you say is true.

Why is coercion needed to enforce it then?

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by DarkBritches

But we are also talking about long term economic momentum. You can't look at the current state of things and say that it will always be that way.

And it just makes sense that the way to make the most money is to have a lot of successful programs in both men's and women's athletics.

The way to make the most money at any given moment is not necessarily the very best way to wring the most money out of the system. Like the increase of volume in trading on the stock market. We should build up women's sports as a growing market. We should be entrepreneurs. It isn't so often that we can be entrepreneurs in an area where we can also be making a good choice for our daughters and their daughters and their daughters' daughters. But the future will be better for all because of Title IX, even if a few mens' programs suffer in the present.

And if I am wrong, so what? We will have tried for a better future and lost out. But if you never try for a better future, then you will never have a better future. Just more of the same.

The only women's athletic programs in the nation that aren't sucking away funds from their athletic deparments are marketing directly to the lesbian populations in the area. Bottom line, women do not share the same interest as men in sports, and they cannot physically perform at the same level as men in sports. Therefore, women's sports can't draw an audience that will support the cost, without marketing thems as a sexual commodity. I don't see that as an improvement.

Title IX has not caused "a few mens' programs [to] suffer in the present." It has made some men's programs completely obsolete.

Title IX defies the basic laws of supply and demand, and flies in the face of all logic. IMO there is not ONE VALID REASON for limiting funds for a profit producing sport to feed funds into a program that actually costs money to operate.

If women want to have equal funding for athletics then they need to be able to put on a performance that brings in a profit. Otherwise we're looking at an attitude of: "I want what I didn't earn, what I can't produce on my own, and I'm going to take it, regardless of the harm that may be inflicted on others, because I think it's not fair that I don't have EXACTLY as much as someone else." If they had required at least 15%, even 25% of funds to go to women's programs that would have been more palatable but HALF? HALF of the money to programs that can't produce EVEN ONE CENT IN PROFIT? That's what I call greed, and coveting.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

Therefore, women's sports can't draw an audience that will support the cost, without marketing thems as a sexual commodity.

You've done it! There's the answer right there! That's the only thing that will increase spectator interest in women's sports.