Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Been saying this for awhile.

http://townhall.com/columnists/brucebia ... _anti-male" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In 1972, Congresswoman Patsy Mink authored an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The amendment, which was passed and signed into law, states that "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..." The law was called Title IX. The question now is whether this admirable idea has evolved into a law that is anti-male, and particularly anti-black male.

Before anyone jumps to conclusions, let me state for the record that I actively support Women’s college sports. Women’s softball is a fabulous and exciting game. Women’s basketball has improved dramatically, and now truly merits the coverage they receive on ESPN. Women’s volleyball, soccer, and several other sports are both well-played and competitive at the major college level. Unfortunately, there’s one thing they all have in common: they are utterly dependent upon Men’s football and basketball programs for their existence.

*sexist

Well, it would depend on which sport we're talking about. Clearly, minor female sports like softball and track depend on the male power sports. But at some schools, girls hoops or VB dominate. Now, this doesn't fit every school; heck, not even most. But there ARE schools like this.

I don't know if this translates into ticket prices, but this is the case if one looks at attendance and athletic success. Examples that leap to mind are Tennessee and UCONN (girls hoops). Girls VB was the dominant sport at UOP from the mid-80s to about 2000, right about the time legendary coach John Dunning took the Stanford job. Jayne Gibson-McHugh, his successor, was a nice girl and former US National Team member who was a good assistant but was clearly in over her head as HC and therefore ran the team into the ground, eventually removing UOP from the short list of teams who had never missed the NCAA Tournament. UOP has now reverted to the list of schools who fit the "run-by-boys-power-sports" paradigm, specifically boys hoops.

SuperHornet wrote:Well, it would depend on which sport we're talking about. Clearly, minor female sports like softball and track depend on the male power sports. But at some schools, girls hoops or VB dominate. Now, this doesn't fit every school; heck, not even most. But there ARE schools like this.

I don't know if this translates into ticket prices, but this is the case if one looks at attendance and athletic success. Examples that leap to mind are Tennessee and UCONN (girls hoops). Girls VB was the dominant sport at UOP from the mid-80s to about 2000, right about the time legendary coach John Dunning took the Stanford job. Jayne Gibson-McHugh, his successor, was a nice girl and former US National Team member who was a good assistant but was clearly in over her head as HC and therefore ran the team into the ground, eventually removing UOP from the short list of teams who had never missed the NCAA Tournament. UOP has now reverted to the list of schools who fit the "run-by-boys-power-sports" paradigm, specifically boys hoops.

There is NOT a single co-ed school where women's sports dominate. Never has been.

Sorry, but those are the facts

Title IX is awful.

dbackjon wrote:...Never has been.

Sorry, but those are the facts

ODU?

(exception to the rule though)

∞∞∞ wrote:

dbackjon wrote:...Never has been.

Sorry, but those are the facts

ODU?

(exception to the rule though)

Did they ever truly outdraw the men, or bring in more money than the men?

DJH wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: ODU?

(exception to the rule though)

Did they ever truly outdraw the men, or bring in more money than the men?

That would be my question.

dbackjon wrote:

DJH wrote:
Did they ever truly outdraw the men, or bring in more money than the men?

That would be my question.

I'll try to find the figures (and JBBP might know here), but from what I've read on Monarch Nation and CAAzone, the answer is yes. I believe they outdrew the men up until the 1990s (with some seasons being an exception of course). Our women's team was also the first ever to draw 10000+ for a women's basketball game in the history of the sport. Also, there's no denying the Lady Monarchs played a huge part in having grown the school's local fanbase since it's the sport that put out the ODU name onto the national stage. Connecticut always had a good men's basketball team, and Tennessee always had football, but without ODU women's basketball, people would never had heard of us (unless you followed Field Hockey which I doubt many did). It played an integral role in growing the athletic department.

∞∞∞ wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
That would be my question.

I'll try to find the figures (and JBBP might know here), but from what I've read on Monarch Nation and CAAzone, the answer is yes. I believe they outdrew the men up until the 1990s (with some seasons being an exception of course). Our women's team was also the first ever to draw 10000+ for a women's basketball game in the history of the sport. Also, there's no denying the Lady Monarchs played a huge part in having grown the school's local fanbase since it's the sport that put out the ODU name onto the national stage. Connecticut always had a good men's basketball team, and Tennessee always had football, but without ODU women's basketball, people would never had heard of us (unless you followed Field Hockey which I doubt many did). It played an integral role in growing the athletic department.

Interesting. ODU might be the one exception.

No matter how much Pat Summit wins, men usually outdraw the women, and both are a distant second to Football.

UConn - men outdraw women by a wide margin.

dbackjon wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: I'll try to find the figures (and JBBP might know here), but from what I've read on Monarch Nation and CAAzone, the answer is yes. I believe they outdrew the men up until the 1990s (with some seasons being an exception of course). Our women's team was also the first ever to draw 10000+ for a women's basketball game in the history of the sport. Also, there's no denying the Lady Monarchs played a huge part in having grown the school's local fanbase since it's the sport that put out the ODU name onto the national stage. Connecticut always had a good men's basketball team, and Tennessee always had football, but without ODU women's basketball, people would never had heard of us (unless you followed Field Hockey which I doubt many did). It played an integral role in growing the athletic department.

Interesting. ODU might be the one exception.

No matter how much Pat Summit wins, men usually outdraw the women, and both are a distant second to Football.

UConn - men outdraw women by a wide margin.

I just started a thread on Monarch Nation since I couldn't find any old facts concerning the stuff:

http://www.monarchnation.com/phpBB3/vie ... 33&start=0

Obviously no answers yet, but I'm sure the older and more knowledgeable ODU fans will chime in tomorrow.

The initial premise is silly:

Unfortunately, there’s one thing they all have in common: they are utterly dependent upon Men’s football and basketball programs for their existence.

The reality is, outside of the majority of the BCS schools (and actually not all), men's football and basketball are not profit generators. Very few schools truly make a profit off of those sports, and many lose money on those sports. If we're going to castigate women's sports (and let's be honest, that's what this thread is really about) then we also need to recognize that college sports, at the vast majority of NCAA institutions, are money losers. If we are to get rid of all the sports that don't make money, there wouldn't be much of any college sports outside of BCS football, BCS basketball, and a handful at most of FCS football schools. And it's odd to be criticizing Title IX because it hurts men's sports like baseball and track and wrestling when none of those sports are revenue generators - so basically, they are just like women's sports.

SuperHornet wrote:Well, it would depend on which sport we're talking about. Clearly, minor female sports like softball and track depend on the male power sports. But at some schools, girls hoops or VB dominate. Now, this doesn't fit every school; heck, not even most. But there ARE schools like this.

I don't know if this translates into ticket prices, but this is the case if one looks at attendance and athletic success. Examples that leap to mind are Tennessee and UCONN (girls hoops). Girls VB was the dominant sport at UOP from the mid-80s to about 2000, right about the time legendary coach John Dunning took the Stanford job. Jayne Gibson-McHugh, his successor, was a nice girl and former US National Team member who was a good assistant but was clearly in over her head as HC and therefore ran the team into the ground, eventually removing UOP from the short list of teams who had never missed the NCAA Tournament. UOP has now reverted to the list of schools who fit the "run-by-boys-power-sports" paradigm, specifically boys hoops.

I would garuntee that no program with D1 football or men's basketball relies on any women's sport to make money. In fact, I would bet there are less than 10-15 women's programs across the nation, in all sports, that make money. If the women's program are making money, chances are the mens programs are still making the real money, and the women's moneys just goes to support the other women's sports to curtail the loss of money from the mens programs

clenz wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:Well, it would depend on which sport we're talking about. Clearly, minor female sports like softball and track depend on the male power sports. But at some schools, girls hoops or VB dominate. Now, this doesn't fit every school; heck, not even most. But there ARE schools like this.

I don't know if this translates into ticket prices, but this is the case if one looks at attendance and athletic success. Examples that leap to mind are Tennessee and UCONN (girls hoops). Girls VB was the dominant sport at UOP from the mid-80s to about 2000, right about the time legendary coach John Dunning took the Stanford job. Jayne Gibson-McHugh, his successor, was a nice girl and former US National Team member who was a good assistant but was clearly in over her head as HC and therefore ran the team into the ground, eventually removing UOP from the short list of teams who had never missed the NCAA Tournament. UOP has now reverted to the list of schools who fit the "run-by-boys-power-sports" paradigm, specifically boys hoops.

I would garuntee that no program with D1 football or men's basketball relies on any women's sport to make money. In fact, I would bet there are less than 10-15 women's programs across the nation, in all sports, that make money. If the women's program are making money, chances are the mens programs are still making the real money, and the women's moneys just goes to support the other women's sports to curtail the loss of money from the mens programs

I wasn't necessarily speaking in terms of fiduciary revenues. I was speaking in terms of on-court success and popularity. UOP won two girls VB national championships in the mid-'80s, a time when the football team was beginning its downward slide and the boys hoops team was also in decline. For TN, Summitt's teams are generally more successful than Pearl's (though there was a boys push for a while until Pearl got busted). And for UCONN, the Auriemma's girls were making national noise a LONG time before Calhoun's boys did. While TN's football team has been successful off and on, one can hardly say the same for UCONN, especially since they went FBS (though there have been a few years of exception. The fiduciary numbers are skewed quite a bit, though, by the fact that stadia (especially at the FBS level) are generally larger than arenae. TV also plays a role at the FBS level; on-campus people are more likely to go if they can make fools of themselves on TV.

GannonFan wrote:The initial premise is silly:

Unfortunately, there’s one thing they all have in common: they are utterly dependent upon Men’s football and basketball programs for their existence.

The reality is, outside of the majority of the BCS schools (and actually not all), men's football and basketball are not profit generators. Very few schools truly make a profit off of those sports, and many lose money on those sports. If we're going to castigate women's sports (and let's be honest, that's what this thread is really about) then we also need to recognize that college sports, at the vast majority of NCAA institutions, are money losers. If we are to get rid of all the sports that don't make money, there wouldn't be much of any college sports outside of BCS football, BCS basketball, and a handful at most of FCS football schools. And it's odd to be criticizing Title IX because it hurts men's sports like baseball and track and wrestling when none of those sports are revenue generators - so basically, they are just like women's sports.

There are some non BCS basketball that make $.

BDKJMU wrote:

GannonFan wrote:The initial premise is silly:



The reality is, outside of the majority of the BCS schools (and actually not all), men's football and basketball are not profit generators. Very few schools truly make a profit off of those sports, and many lose money on those sports. If we're going to castigate women's sports (and let's be honest, that's what this thread is really about) then we also need to recognize that college sports, at the vast majority of NCAA institutions, are money losers. If we are to get rid of all the sports that don't make money, there wouldn't be much of any college sports outside of BCS football, BCS basketball, and a handful at most of FCS football schools. And it's odd to be criticizing Title IX because it hurts men's sports like baseball and track and wrestling when none of those sports are revenue generators - so basically, they are just like women's sports.

There are some non BCS basketball that make $.

UNI is one of them.

However, I said very few....not none

GannonFan wrote:The initial premise is silly:

Unfortunately, there’s one thing they all have in common: they are utterly dependent upon Men’s football and basketball programs for their existence.

The reality is, outside of the majority of the BCS schools (and actually not all), men's football and basketball are not profit generators. Very few schools truly make a profit off of those sports, and many lose money on those sports. If we're going to castigate women's sports (and let's be honest, that's what this thread is really about) then we also need to recognize that college sports, at the vast majority of NCAA institutions, are money losers. If we are to get rid of all the sports that don't make money, there wouldn't be much of any college sports outside of BCS football, BCS basketball, and a handful at most of FCS football schools. And it's odd to be criticizing Title IX because it hurts men's sports like baseball and track and wrestling when none of those sports are revenue generators - so basically, they are just like women's sports.

DJH wrote:Title IX is awful.

Part of the problem is the way it's interpreted. As I've said before one could eliminate the distinction between mens and womens athletics in colleges and just say it's a total meritocracy. Just have sports and have people compete for positions and scholarships regardless of sex (or race or anything else).

Then of course there wouldn't be a whole lot of women with athletic scholarships. But it wouldn't be because they are women per se. It would be because the distribution of athletic aptitude among men is much "higher" than that among women.

Of course that wouldn't fly in our egalitarian culture because, though we say we are for equal opportunity, what we really want is equal results. We don't like it when one group is just generally better at something than another group is.

The reality is, outside of the majority of the BCS schools (and actually not all), men's football and basketball are not profit generators. Very few schools truly make a profit off of those sports, and many lose money on those sports. If we're going to castigate women's sports (and let's be honest, that's what this thread is really about) then we also need to recognize that college sports, at the vast majority of NCAA institutions, are money losers. If we are to get rid of all the sports that don't make money, there wouldn't be much of any college sports outside of BCS football, BCS basketball, and a handful at most of FCS football schools. And it's odd to be criticizing Title IX because it hurts men's sports like baseball and track and wrestling when none of those sports are revenue generators - so basically, they are just like women's sports.

Actually I saw a report that said that in recent years only two college athletic programs....LSU and Nebraska...consistently turn a profit without subsidy.

But that's not really the point. The point is that women, on average, are not as good athletically as men are. And it's not even close. It's ridiculous that this culture is into coercing anybody towards treating womens athletics as "equal" to mens athletics because they're NOT equal. It's that "irrational egalitarianism" thing again.

JohnStOnge wrote:

The reality is, outside of the majority of the BCS schools (and actually not all), men's football and basketball are not profit generators. Very few schools truly make a profit off of those sports, and many lose money on those sports. If we're going to castigate women's sports (and let's be honest, that's what this thread is really about) then we also need to recognize that college sports, at the vast majority of NCAA institutions, are money losers. If we are to get rid of all the sports that don't make money, there wouldn't be much of any college sports outside of BCS football, BCS basketball, and a handful at most of FCS football schools. And it's odd to be criticizing Title IX because it hurts men's sports like baseball and track and wrestling when none of those sports are revenue generators - so basically, they are just like women's sports.

Actually I saw a report that said that in recent years only two college athletic programs....LSU and Nebraska...consistently turn a profit without subsidy.

But that's not really the point. The point is that women, on average, are not as good athletically as men are. And it's not even close. It's ridiculous that this culture is into coercing anybody towards treating womens athletics as "equal" to mens athletics because they're NOT equal. It's that "irrational egalitarianism" thing again.

Your's is a weird view - it would appear that the only point of sports, to you, is to win. Anything else that is benficial from playing sports, including intercollegiate sports, like physical fitness, teamwork, goal setting and success achieving those goals, self esteem, and so on, are essentially worthless. Winning is the most important thing. Heck, under your stated perspective thing, everything that's not the top level of sports should be eliminated. Why even have things like FCS, DII, or DIII football - I mean, most players at those levels are not as good athletically as those who play FBS or especially BCS football. Let's cut those levels now.

Along with what's been said, I believe most of our Olympians are college athletes and collegiate athletics has been an excellent way to develop US competitors. Or do we wanna fall behind in that too since we seem to be starting to fall behind the developed world in everything else? Oh well, as long as we keep worshipping our great deity, the almighty dollar, everything will be fine...

Your's is a weird view - it would appear that the only point of sports, to you, is to win. Anything else that is benficial from playing sports, including intercollegiate sports, like physical fitness, teamwork, goal setting and success achieving those goals, self esteem, and so on, are essentially worthless. Winning is the most important thing. Heck, under your stated perspective thing, everything that's not the top level of sports should be eliminated. Why even have things like FCS, DII, or DIII football - I mean, most players at those levels are not as good athletically as those who play FBS or especially BCS football. Let's cut those levels now.

Nobody is being forced to or coerced into having a FCS football program by interpretation of a Federal statute.

True equal opportunity and absence of discrimination would be elimination of the distinction between mens and womens athletics and just letting everybody compete for positions regardless of sex. Why aren't we doing that if what we REALLY want is absence of "discrimination."

We obviously discriminate. We set up completely seprate competetive spheres.

Then legally we demand that two things that are obviously not equal be treated as though they are equal.