<p>That absolutely degrades women. They are insinuating that women cannot compete at the same level as men. I actually happened to know (and play on a a team with) a girl, who was a better football -soccer- player than most men.</p>
<p>Nancy Lieberman has it right.</p>
<p>tsdad:</p>
<p>Actually, I was wondering about the scholarships. I am wondering why all scholarships aren’t used. Or, to put it another way, how many men are on the men’s teams, and get scholarships, at those schools? </p>
<p>And–what are the Title IX implications for men’s sports if women’s sports do not use all of their scholarships? Feel free to correct me if this is reaching or incorrect, but is it possible that (male practice with women) implies (fewer women’s scholarships and women’s participation) implies (fewer slots for male athletes in men’s sports)?</p>
<p>You have raised some very interesting questions.</p>
<p>In order to increase women’s participation, the NCAA authorized two more scholarships for women’s basketball than men’s. Women’s soccer can offer three more then men’s soccer. </p>
<p>I am not sure why the three elite bb schools I referred to above did not use their full quota of scholarships. When they, in bb and other wonmen’s sports, don’t it does create a problem for the men’s sports because you are (1) lowering the level of female participation; (2) creating a possible problem with the non-discriminatory distribution of athletic financial assistance.</p>
<p>Schools have offered legitimate non-discriminatory reasons why they haven’t filled all their women’s scholarships and OCR has accepted them and actually given them credit for the scholarships when doing their calculations. For example, a major women’s soccer school (12 scholarships for women and 9 for men permitted by the NCAA) offered full rides to several blue chippers. These offers were not accepted. Soccer is one of those sports where scholarships can be divided up (they can’t in women’s bb). There were several lower quality athletes that were offered partial scholarships that didn’t equal the amount of the full rides, but OCR gave the school credit for the full rides because they were offered. </p>
<p>Schools were also given credit when women withdrew from the school too late in the recruiting year to have the scholarships re-offered; when students transferring from a two-year school failed to graduate; when students were dropped from the team for academic or other reasons; and, when, an athlete accepted an academic scholarship and turned back her athletic scholarship. Also OCR will give a school full credit for all the scholarships it can eventually offer when they are phasing in a sport–you don’t offer all your scholarships the first year a team starts, and when a coach is hired too late in the academic year to do any recruiting.</p>
<p>
A team needs to keep a certain number of players on their roster in order to have subs, reserve players, developmental players, and sufficient critical mass to have productive practices. If the presence of guys reduces the size of that critical mass, such that fewer women are rostered, doesn’t that “diminish opportunities”?</p>
<p>“any inclusion of male practice players results in diminished participation opportunities for female student-athletes”</p>
<p>I don’t think I understand the argument. Is the problem that the benchwarmers are sitting around while the starters get extra practice time? If so, would there be a complaint if the coaching staff invited WNBA stars or Women’s Final Four team members to practice against the starters? I doubt it, and I don’t see the difference. Bringing in experts to spar against your starters means the benchwarmers are sitting out the practice whether the experts have breasts or not.</p>
<p>It would be pretty insulting to bring in random men from the street to practice against women varsity athletes, on the theory that they would automatically be better basketball players, but I can’t believe that any NCAA women’s coach would be that ignorant; they’re bringing in expert male players.</p>
<p>Title IX has some serious flaws to it, IMO.</p>
<p>I’m going to Southeast Missouri State University. Because I am male, I can participate on 4 team sports, but if I were female I could participate in 8? The numbers may be slightly off, but the point still stands.</p>
<p>I don’t see a big issue with the men practicing with the women. Those that aren’t going to get into practice with the guys there probably aren’t going to actually practice much anyway. Our high school girls team has 3 guys that coach it. The three of them scrimmage almost everyday with the girls. Even though they have enough girls in the gym, it’s a necessity because the ability is not there enough to help the team get better.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, there could well be complaints if the coaches were bringing in stars daily. For better or worse, that seems to be precisely what is at issue here.</p>
<p>
I found her column pretty unconvincing. It is the usual “I am Coach. I am God. Nobody can tell me what to do” harangue. No one would deny the utility of having stronger players to practice against (i.e., men), at least for those who get the benefit of the competition. Lieberman fails to specifically address the issue of whether using men in practice “diminishes” the experience, either qualitatively (for the non-starters) or quantitatively (by reducing the roster). I suppose the latter is less of a problem (at least for the school, not the team), since Title IX would require those roster spots be made up elsewhere. </p>
<p>The manner in which substituting men for women in practice violates the spirit of Title IX is illustrated by NJres’ comment:
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are seven men’s teams and nine women’s teams at Southeast <a href=“http://www.semo.edu/cs/studentlife/athletics.htm[/url]”>http://www.semo.edu/cs/studentlife/athletics.htm</a>. The issue under Title IX is not the number of teams, but the number of opportunities to compete for each sex. Because Southeast has a football team it has substantially more opportunities to compete for males than for females, 161 to 116, even though women have more teams.</p>
<p>There are a total of 6,785 undergraduates at the school, 2,841 of them are male (42%) and 3,944 are female (58%). Compare that to the percenatge of opportunities to compete in the athletics program and you’ll see that of the 277 opportunities men have 58% of them (161 divided by 277) while women have 42%. <a href=“http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDetail.asp[/url]”>http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDetail.asp</a></p>
<p>If we were doing an interest and ability analysis under Title IX we would find that Southeast has failed to meet prong 1 of the three-part test. Under this section of the analysis we would expect the percentage of oppportunities to compete to be roughly equivalent to the percentage of each sex in the full-time undergraduate student body; roughly 58% of the athletes should be female, which is the reverse of the actual situation. We would then go one to see if Southeast met either prong 2 or prong 3 of the three-part test. They would only have to meet one of the prongs, anyone, to be in compliance. No part of the three-part test is better or more compliant than any other part.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, but those spots apparently do not necessarily need to be made up elsewhere. See post #24–the school can just drop male sports and then, apparently, the school does not have to make up the roster spots elsewhere. In that (theoretical) case, there would be fewer roster spots for both women and men.</p>
<p>As to Lieberman: coaches are paid to win. They are not paid to develop players #10-#12. Coaches need not care about #10-#12, except insofar as #10-#12 contribute to winning.</p>
<p>Title IX, however, seemingly does care about #10-#12. Therefore, imo it is incorrect to simply rely on the judgment of coaches when making decisions about Title IX issues.</p>
<p>OCR dislikes roster control although it is a way of meeting Title IX requirements. Because Title IX is about expanding opportunities, not limiting them, OCR has always urged colleges to increase the number of opportunities, and scholarships, for women, not limit the opportunities for men. OCR would much prefer that colleges meet their interest and abilities obligations by meeting prong 2 or 3, not prong 1. However, most colleges would prefer to cut wrestling or limit the size of some of the men’s squads than actually spending more money to provide additional opportunities for women. It is my impression that many schools are using Title IX as a justification to bring out of control athletics programs into line and Title IX is just an excuse. It’s their call and it’s legal. Not the preferred way, but legal nonetheless.</p>
<p>Did anyone else find this comment (by Nancy Lieberman) hilarious? I still can’t stop laughing!!!
</p>
<p>What an analogy!!!</p>
<p>^^ I have to agree that this statement makes me laugh LOL</p>
<p>
The men aren’t being coached. They are simply playing against the women. Just as any scrimage team that showed up would not get any coaching from the home varsity coach, neither do these men. They are used to simulate the bigger, stronger opponents that the starters will encounter. In every team sport, the first string is given more attention.</p>
<p>
That is not the point. The problem is that women displaced by men during practice will not get the benefit of coaching, or of playing under the most competitive circumstances such that they may improve, and are therefore disadvantaged.</p>
<p>These women that are displaced by men… could also be displaced by women. It is like a scrimmage. If the coach arranged for a daily scrimmage against a nearby college women’s team to increase the intensity and level of competition at her practice, you would have the same effect on the displaced 2nd stringers.</p>
<p>From the NY Times article, which I believes supports NJres:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
Isn’t that exactly the intent of Title IX?</p>
<p>There is, of course, a place for scrimmages. But daily scrimmages against a “nearby college team” would raise the same question about participation that is being raised by the CWA proposal.</p>
<p>It was pointed out in the Lieberman article, I think, or maybe in its companion article, that the second string women are no longer needed to simulate the opposition, they can work on other things. I don’t know if that is overall a plus or minus for them, there is a something to be said for enhancing their understanding, and/or experience, of different styles of play.</p>