|
Post by #1CoyoteFan (Admin) on May 28, 2013 22:07:34 GMT -6
Title IX has outlived its usefulness. Women's athletics are here and here to stay. There are more than adequate opportunites for women in athletics today. Today Title IX is not advancing women's opportunities it is limiting men's opportunities. I am waiting for the day a men's wrestler, gymnast, or baseball player sues because of what Title IX has done to these sports. Title IX is just outdated, but it is still needed because there are enough stupid AD's that would totally run out some of the women's programs (See the SEC) for more football revenue. The fact is, not as many women play college sports as men. The opportunities are there, but it also takes in the ratio of men and women at a school, which is also stupid. There just isnt' a women's sport that can put out the numbers that football does and Title IX doesn't really account for that through future numbers. It needs revisions is what it needs.
|
|
|
Post by canislatrans on May 29, 2013 9:34:03 GMT -6
More football revenue, would provide for more and better program's (women's and men's). Just like now at USD, the successful Women's BB program, is providing revenue that helps lesser programs like Men's golf for instance (I know it's not a direct correlation, however, there is a correlation). This would work without Title IX, and more efficiently. Why would you limit revenue growth from successful programs, just to keep a program to meet a numbers target, that is not based upon fan support or revenue to the athletic department?
|
|
|
Post by jackl on May 29, 2013 10:39:20 GMT -6
More football revenue, would provide for more and better program's (women's and men's). Just like now at USD, the successful Women's BB program, is providing revenue that helps lesser programs like Men's golf for instance (I know it's not a direct correlation, however, there is a correlation). This would work without Title IX, and more efficiently. Why would you limit revenue growth from successful programs, just to keep a program to meet a numbers target, that is not based upon fan support or revenue to the athletic department? Womens bb doesn't pay for it self,let alone help other programs.
|
|
|
Post by canislatrans on May 29, 2013 11:17:57 GMT -6
I'm not an expert on the revenue breakdowns, but I would guess that drawing 1,000+ fans in post-season games would be > Men's golf. My point was more towards nurturing successful programs to be more successful, which will ultimately lead to developing and adding additional programs, irrespective of gender. This would be done more efficiently without Title IX, than with it.
|
|
|
Post by #1CoyoteFan (Admin) on May 29, 2013 19:21:30 GMT -6
More football revenue, would provide for more and better program's (women's and men's). Just like now at USD, the successful Women's BB program, is providing revenue that helps lesser programs like Men's golf for instance (I know it's not a direct correlation, however, there is a correlation). This would work without Title IX, and more efficiently. Why would you limit revenue growth from successful programs, just to keep a program to meet a numbers target, that is not based upon fan support or revenue to the athletic department? Yeah, in a dream world it would be. Except you take away Title IX and do you think the football team would share any of its money with women's basketball. HAHAHHAHAHAHHA. Not a chance. Next you are going to say the rich are going to share their money with the poor just because. Same theory, isn't going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Yotes on May 29, 2013 20:02:28 GMT -6
I'm not an expert on the revenue breakdowns, but I would guess that drawing 1,000+ fans in post-season games would be > Men's golf. My point was more towards nurturing successful programs to be more successful, which will ultimately lead to developing and adding additional programs, irrespective of gender. This would be done more efficiently without Title IX, than with it. It is rare that even men's programs are profitable in any sport, especially with small schools like ours. There is no way the slight revenue the women's basketball team brings in outweighs even the travel costs. Athletics isn't about bringing a profit to the university, it's about getting good publicity.
|
|
|
Post by canislatrans on May 30, 2013 6:41:11 GMT -6
The dream (or rather nightmare) is that Title IX has helped women's sports, or university athletics a a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on May 30, 2013 7:34:51 GMT -6
The simple solution would be to take football out of the Title IX equation, scholarship wise. As long as opportunities in all other sports mirror each other I don't think there should be a problem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2013 8:13:13 GMT -6
The dream (or rather nightmare) is that Title IX has helped women's sports, or university athletics a a whole. Does Mandy Kouplal consider Title IX a nightmare?
|
|
|
Post by coyotega on May 30, 2013 15:45:39 GMT -6
Title IX has outlived its usefulness. Women's athletics are here and here to stay. There are more than adequate opportunites for women in athletics today. Today Title IX is not advancing women's opportunities it is limiting men's opportunities. I am waiting for the day a men's wrestler, gymnast, or baseball player sues because of what Title IX has done to these sports. Amen. Couldn't agree more.
|
|
|
Post by canislatrans on Jun 1, 2013 8:14:30 GMT -6
I love goyotes.net, I learn so much:
Women's college athletics before Title IX = failure; with Title IX = resounding success. My bad, I am drafting a letter to my congressman asking for Title IX times nine (Title 81, unless it's already in use).
You can't separate the greedy rich from their money, especially, when it comes to charitable donations. Where would the Yotes athletic department be if they had to rely on the rich? And which programs would be operating based upon popularity, if the big hand of the bureaucrats weren't there to make things right?
BTW, canislatrans is a big fan of Yotes women's sports. I watch whenever available on the internet, and I even follow stats tracks, for volleyball, softball, soccer and golf. I just had the apparently false belief that the athletes and their programs' success stood on their own merits. I've seen the light, FORWARD!
I know the thread is wasted, but it started with Jacks baseball, after all.
|
|
usdlaw
Senior Member
Posts: 930
|
Post by usdlaw on Jun 1, 2013 9:28:07 GMT -6
First, congrats to SDSU on winning Summit and a good showing against Oregon. Lost 3-2.
Second, USD did not drop baseball because of Title IX. Publicly, that is thought to be the case. The truth = Coach Itchy Scatchy ran the program into the ground in a few short years. His team was going to become academically ineligible, but the program was eliminated instead. Saved on some embarrassment. His team caused more campus issues then others, probably combined. It was not good. Some of the players he brought in from down south were nothing but trouble makers and not good students or good representation of the university. (Remind anyone of some of Ed's recruits with the recent tax scandals) FYI, there were maybe one or two baseball scholarships, most players did not get anything. Maybe three at the most. That means Title IX was not your major source of the problem for USD baseball back in 2001 or so when it was eliminated.
Third, baseball will never be brought back. At least I seriously doubt it ever will. Funding is not there, that is not necessarily a Title IX issue.
Fourth, Prentis is NOT a D1 park. It is barely good enough for the Rosebud League. A little SD Amateur baseball reference. I have played in the league so I can make fun of it. I remember the infield being terrible. I practiced and played a lot of games on it. Water drainage was not good, usually a pool would collect in shallow right field.
|
|
|
Post by Coyote Fan on Jun 1, 2013 14:52:31 GMT -6
I know some want baseball back in the worst way but I am not in favor of any program being considered as a new sport at USD that has to rely on good spring weather to even get in home games. The Jacks could hardly play a home game all year. Not only is the weather a factor for baseball but the midwest/northern teams typically have a disadvantage to the south and west when it comes to putting together a competitive national program. Not only should baseball not be brought back it shouldn't be brought back.
It's expensive but hockey would make more sense. There are no hockey programs north of Omaha and south of Grand Forks. USD could develop a little bit of a niche for hockey and do something that would seperate themselves from SDSU a bit instead of always trying to get nearer to them. Let the Jacks worry about the issues with an extreme nothern baseball program. Of course things would be contingent on the new arena's ability to host hockey. We have 2 tier 1 junior programs, one 35 miles to the southeast and another 60 miles to the north. There are alot of hockey fans in the area and some that might not mind following their alumni to some college games. College hockey is awsome and USD could be the only ticket in town if they wanted to be. I guess I slightly hi-jacked the baseball thread so sorry about that.
|
|
jackjd
Senior Member
Posts: 656
|
Post by jackjd on Jun 1, 2013 19:43:32 GMT -6
Jacks lost 4-3 in 13 innings today (Saturday) to the Dons of San Francisco to end their NCAA tourney hopes.
|
|
|
Post by canislatrans on Jun 2, 2013 5:25:02 GMT -6
Congrats to Jacks, good to see South Dakota represented on ESPN, would look a lot better in RED!
|
|