Langer and the White House

[zooropa]

Re: Langer and the White House

You can look if you care. I beleive some lacross teams have been. dont recall which schools.

You make the assertion, you furnish the proof.

And I'd love to know how many *lacrosse* teams are self-supporting.

[goon]

Re: Langer and the White House

Garbage.



510 men's teams have been added at NCAA member schools since 1988, the year that Congress definitively bound Title IX to college athletics.

From 2002 to 2011 male participation in NCAA athletics has increased faster than female participation.

Basically, everything you've ever been told about Title IX and men's athletics is wrong.

Tell that to all the wrestling and baseball and track programs that have been cut in regards to title IX. I am sure they will completely agree that no mens program has ever been affected in a negative way. If I cared to the time, I would find the graphs that show my point that womens sports were increasing at schools and colleges before title IX was even in the works. Its being rather short sighted if you think there have been no unintended consequences. But feel free to have your opinion, Im not going to change yours as your not going to change mine.

"If a school is nonproportional, the only teams they can cut are men's," said attorney Lawrence J. Joseph, who in 2007 sued unsuccessfully on behalf of male athletes at James Madison University whose teams were eliminated.

As a result, hundreds of men's teams across the country have been eliminated by schools citing Title IX. Joseph, whose Virginia-based group Equity in Athletics opposes the use of the proportionality test, said the law has strayed from its original intent.

"The original standard was that you should provide equal opportunity based on interest," he said. "Under the original standard, It was a vehicle to get women's teams up to speed, a women's basketball team with a men's basketball team. But the policy interpretation changed that."

In 2011, for example, the University of Delaware downgraded men's track and cross country teams to club status, citing the need to comply with Title IX requirements. Officials said the change would allow the overall gender breakdown of athletic rosters to more closely mirror that of the student body, which at the time was 58 percent female and 42 percent male.

Take out mens football which has no womens team to compare rosters too and then add up those numbers again. Bet you will find it not favoring mens programs like you think. football changes the numbers because its a huge money maker for many schools and rosters of 80 men are so big compared to womens sports rosters.

Guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[goon]

Re: Langer and the White House

You make the assertion, you furnish the proof.

And I'd love to know how many *lacrosse* teams are self-supporting.

fine if you dont beleive me, if i could find the news article it was in i would but you wont choose to accept it as fact anyway since it doesnt support your view which is fine.

I guess could you show me that no mens programs have ever been cut as a regards to title IX?

[goon]

Re: Langer and the White House

Well maybe I roughing the Goon up but you are right, its good to have this discussion. Yes and Jim was great football player especially for the Dolphins, he should have attended, but it was his choice.

your not roughing me up since its thread drift I am no longer going to comment on any thing that is not related to the topic in the thread.

[zooropa]

Re: Langer and the White House

fine if you dont beleive me, if i could find the news article it was in i would but you wont choose to accept it as fact anyway since it doesnt support your view which is fine.

My 'view' is that Title IX has not harmed men's athletic participation, which is borne out by statistics.
My 'view' is that Title IX has been used as 'window dressing' by colleges like Oregon that could afford to keep sports, but choose not to.
My 'view' is that almost as many wrestling programs were cut during the four years that Title IX did *not* apply to college athletics as have been cut in the 25 years since then.

I also find it highly doubtful that any university has *ever* cut a self-supporting athletic program due to Title IX considerations. And I would *love* to see any article that even attempts to argue otherwise.

I guess could you show me that no mens programs have ever been cut as a regards to title IX?

In the original post I clearly identified a school where men's programs *were* cut due to Title IX: UNO. But neither of those sports (wrestling and football) were self-supporting.

[goon]

Re: Langer and the White House

My 'view' is that Title IX has not harmed men's athletic participation, which is borne out by statistics.
My 'view' is that Title IX has been used as 'window dressing' by colleges like Oregon that could afford to keep sports, but choose not to.
My 'view' is that almost as many wrestling programs were cut during the four years that Title IX did *not* apply to college athletics as have been cut in the 25 years since then.

I also find it highly doubtful that any university has *ever* cut a self-supporting athletic program due to Title IX considerations. And I would *love* to see any article that even attempts to argue otherwise.


In the original post I clearly identified a school where men's programs *were* cut due to Title IX: UNO. But neither of those sports (wrestling and football) were self-supporting.

In fact, in 2007, the College Sports Council (now the American Sports Council) conducted a comprehensive analysis of NCAA data over 25 years (1981-2005), which revealed that, after controlling for the growth in the number of NCAA schools, the number of female athletes per school increased by 34 percent and the number of women's teams also increased by 34 percent. During the same time period, male athletes per school fell by 6 percent and men's teams by 17 percent.

Your point was wresting programs were being cut before title IX, my point womens programs were growing before title IX, its a "feel good" law and it clearly had an affect hurting mens programs as title IX says it helped womens. because it affected how budgeting for programs worked and scholarships and participation rates. There were unintended consequences beacause of it. Its impossible to say every mens program was cut as a result of tittle IX but its also impossible to say the growth and expanding womens sports and scholarships was only a result of title IX.

My last post of the subject. Sorry for the thread drift.

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: Langer and the White House

Garbage.

If SDSU can carry wrestling and baseball and be Title IX compliant to the strictest standard on the books, then dang near ANY university that sponsors wrestling can be compliant.

Does anyone in their right mind believe that TITLE IX was the reason why Oregon dropped wrestling to start baseball six years ago? Really? Oregon was too broke to add a total of 20 spots in some combination of women's sports? Really? A school that has over a hundred participants in non-revenue track & field? Then how the heck does SDSU do it?

I'm sorry, but this ticks me off no end. People babbling away about how Title IX ruined wrestling------when a school with an absolute shoestring budget can afford to be dollar-for-dollar Title IX compliant AND carry wrestling and baseball. Geez. If it were that difficult, SDSU should've dropped one or both YEARS ago.

Please. Spare me this garbage. It's not about Title IX, it's about ADs that don't have the willpower or the political capital to make this work.

The next time someone tells you that 'Title IX killed college wrestling' tell them about this podunk college in nowheresville USA that somehow managed to do something impossible----------or at least beyond the reach of the Phil-Knight-money soaked Pac-12 powerhouse--home of a $60M football practice facility-University of Oregon.

And you know what else? These schools that claim they dropped wrestling for Title IX reasons? Check their equity in athletics data. Most of them are still wildly out of compliance on headcount alone, let alone the incredible variance in expenditures at just about every D-1 school. It's closer to the truth to say wrestling's been cut to feed football.

I mean Title IX has given every AD that wants to ax wrestling to dump an addtional bucket of money into football the perfect excuse. I mean, there's nothing like blaming a federal law that is BARELY ENFORCED in athletics for a decision that is motivated by a desire to dump money into a more popular sport.

Again, Title IX is BARELY ENFORCED in college athletics. The way ADs summon that canard, you'd think the DoE was banging on doors 'round-the-clock demanding enrollment based Title IX compliance. Balderdash. What happens is ADs see an opportunity to either shift money to a higher profile sport (football), or to eliminate a program that really stinks and which is an embarrassment to the department.

AFAIK, there's one university that had a legitimate Title IX issue--UNO. They were wildly out of compliance----so far out they *were* going to get investigated by the DoE if they added the dozens of additional wrestlers and FB players required to compete in D-1. Even USD's decision to drop baseball was not to stave off DoE investigation, it was because they violated Title IX, lost a lawsuit, and didn't have enough money to add a women's sport to comply with *state*, not *federal* requirements.

Any school with a budget higher than SDSU's that claims they're too poor to be Title IX compliant and keep wrestling? Garbage.

Take a look at myth #2 here: http://espn.go.com/espnw/title-ix/ar...myths-title-ix

This was perfect. I would +rep 15 times if I could. I really don't want to read the page+ worth of responses.

Great post.

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: Langer and the White House

You can look if you care. I beleive some lacross teams have been. dont recall which schools.

Haha this is brilliant. You brought up an argument, got called on it, then told the person that called you out to do the research to back up your point. You may have just summed up the internet in less than twenty words.

[JimmyJack]

Re: Langer and the White House

Langer can do what he wants, of course. I wouldn't refuse an opportunity to meet the president, whoever he or she may be. I respect the office and understand that sometimes my ideas lose at the polls.

[goon]

Re: Langer and the White House

Haha this is brilliant. You brought up an argument, got called on it, then told the person that called you out to do the research to back up your point. You may have just summed up the internet in less than twenty words.

Yeah sorry I dont recall the specific school that it happened too, and i dont care to find the article or where it came from. Not just making it up but what eves.

to clarify, the article was talking about how the program was cut and it was cleary not a budget issue, through private funds along with its own revenue was not a money lossing sport, the point was they were showing it was cut as title IX numbers dictated. I would not be surprised if both mens and womens programs benefits from the one getting cut in the story. I think it was a california school.

[witness]

Re: Langer and the White House

Sure SDSU has wrestling but where's men's soccer and hockey? Nobody is denying that it has helped women sports tremendously and it women's sports continue to create more opportunities, just that due to financing and title IX requiring equal scholarships that men's sports have been cut because of it. Women will say it isn't from Title IX, but if you ask most people involved in college wrestling, Title IX is the reason.My thing is that Title IX should be updated with the rise of women's programs to meet today's problems as the last time it was rendered was in 1979. Taken from an article in 2003

Why are wrestlers so upset about this? The number of collegiate wrestling programs lost to Title IX compliance is staggering; this is especially alarming because, since 1993, wrestling has been a rapidly growing sport at the high-school level. Data compiled by Gary Abbott, director of special projects at USA Wrestling, indicates that in 2001, there were 244,984 athletes wrestling in high school; only 5,966 got to wrestle in the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Not to put too fine a point on it: there is only one N.C.A.A. spot for every 41 high-school wrestlers. The numbers have been going downhill for a while. In 1982, there were 363 N.C.A.A. wrestling teams with 7,914 wrestlers competing; in 2001, there were only 229 teams with fewer than 6,000 wrestlers. Yet, in that same period, the number of N.C.A.A. institutions has increased from 787 to 1,049. No wonder wrestlers are unhappy.

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: Langer and the White House

Sure SDSU has wrestling but where's men's soccer and hockey? Nobody is denying that it has helped women sports tremendously and it women's sports continue to create more opportunities, just that due to financing and title IX requiring equal scholarships that men's sports have been cut because of it. Women will say it isn't from Title IX, but if you ask most people involved in college wrestling, Title IX is the reason.My thing is that Title IX should be updated with the rise of women's programs to meet today's problems as the last time it was rendered was in 1979. Taken from an article in 2003

What about this?

Garbage.



510 men's teams have been added at NCAA member schools since 1988, the year that Congress definitively bound Title IX to college athletics.

From 2002 to 2011 male participation in NCAA athletics has increased faster than female participation.

Basically, everything you've ever been told about Title IX and men's athletics is wrong.

Has anyone directly responded to this?

[witness]

Re: Langer and the White House

Yeah sorry I dont recall the specific school that it happened too, and i dont care to find the article or where it came from. Not just making it up but what eves.to clarify, the article was talking about how the program was cut and it was cleary not a budget issue, through private funds along with its own revenue was not a money lossing sport, the point was they were showing it was cut as title IX numbers dictated. I would not be surprised if both mens and womens programs benefits from the one getting cut in the story. I think it was a california school.

It doesn't talk about a school in California but here is an article debunking the myth of Title IX:http://savingsports.blogspot.com/201...-real.html?m=1

Here a former wrestler talks about how he doesnt hate Title IX just that its complicated and the defunct wrestling program and how it has affected him.
Here is a quote from him, "How could you hate something that's creating opportunities and helping people?" he said. "But how could you celebrate something if it's also hurting people?"
http://www.espn.go.com/espnw/title-i...s-loss-program

[witness]

Re: Langer and the White House

What about this? Has anyone directly responded to this?

That chart is garbage, as it is high school sports. I did mention high school wrestling participation as well. We are talking about college here not high school.

[goon]

Re: Langer and the White House

What about this?



Has anyone directly responded to this?

Witness sort of just did. There are more NCAA instiututions now then in 1970, so its reasonable to assume more programs and growth of schools would grow participant numbers regardless of title IX.

Does it show a though that the precent of those in colleges are up in sports? I doubt it. More people are in college now then 1970 also, so the actual number of those playing college sports percentage wise is actually down. even though the total number is higher of athletes is "higher", its a bit misleading.