<p>This is competitive, Div1A ball we’re talking about. It’s all about winning. Starters ALWAYS get the bulk of coaching attention on any competitive team. These men really are just used in the same manner as tackling dummies, except they can run, jump, & shoot. </p>
<p>No scholarhsip athlete is guaranteed participation opportunity. They earn it. The girl from the NYT article, Ally James, gets that. If athletic participation doled out in equal amounts is what an athlete desires, she can play at the intramural level.</p>
<p>Well based upon countless generations of evolution and development it’s absolutely true that women cannot compete on the same physical level as men. So I fail to see how it is insulting to state obvious, clinical fact. Men are bigger, faster, and stronger. </p>
<p>Now to the main debate, </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Couldn’t this argument be turned around, that by NOT allowing men in practice you are denying the starters of the competitive circumstances underwhich they might improve and that the NCAA is placing them at a disadvantage?</p>
<p>Try this exercise however, say a coach decides that he or she is simply going to have the starters run drills all practice while the 2nd and 3rd string sit on the sidelines. Is that any different then the use of men? According to your complaint drb these players would be disadvantaged and uncoached.</p>
<p>Why do people keep invoking bizarre scenarios - WNBA ringers, daily scrimmages against other schools, benching everyone except the starters? Why not little green men? Yes, indeed in that scenario the players would be disadvantaged and uncoached. And no player in their right mind would seek to join that team.</p>
<p>How you feel about this largely reflects whether you take an elitist (not meant necessarily in a bad way) or inclusive (also known as “kumbaya” by its detractors) view of team sport participation. And this is largely a function of where you (or your kid) fall in the skill spectrum. Title IX was created (by committee, no less!) at least in response to an attitude that, because women cannot compete at the the same level as men, there was no reason to support them equally. It seems philosophically consistent that, having mandated equal opportunity for female student-athletes, one does so for as many as possible, and not just a select few.</p>
<p>“this is largely a function of where you (or your kid) fall in the skill spectrum.”</p>
<p>Nah, I’m athletically challenged, as is the rest of my family. I’d be an intramural embarrassment. But I take the elitist view.</p>
<p>The vast majority of NCAA schools (maybe all of them?) offer intramural and club sports as well as varsity. The usual explanation for the special treatment of varsity sports – including huge admissions boosts, scholarships, and extremely generous funding relative to other activities like yearbook and orchestra – is that these benefits are necessary in order to create excellence in the program, and that excellence in the program benefits the whole university. Well, if that’s the case, then why all the concern about whether mediocre players are getting maximum field time? If you want fun and exercise, IM sports are the answer; your spot on the varsity squad is a privilege based on your contribution to its excellence. If the squad wins more games when it benches you during practice, so be it.</p>
<p>Title IX is about women having the same access to athletic participation as men. It is completely reasonable to assume that starters on both men & women’s teams will be treated much differently than second-stringers. Title IX was only brought up because the scrimmage team is made up of men. If the scrimmage team was made up of 6 foot tall women with outstanding basketball skills (someone posted about a theoretical WNBA team being used,) would it still be linked to Title IX?</p>
<p>Div1A programs use the optimal training methods to produce winning teams. Nutritionists, therapists, equipment ---- the best available. Training against men is still the best way for women to improve. Would the NCAA committee be happier if three men’s practice squads were broght in, so 2nd & 3rd string girls could scrimmage, too? Or is this simply a PC issue, where they refuse to admit the obvious fact that men are bigger & stronger than women?</p>
<p>I personally remember being relieved when d graduated from middle school & was too old for the town’s rec teams which were all co-ed. She was extremely fast & athletic, with a competitive nature, but built like a stick figure. I dreaded seeing her play soccer or roller hockey against boys who outweighed her by 50 pounds or more. When you see the size & strength of these Div 1A women, you realize how rare a breed they are.</p>
<p>Of course excellence in men’s sports programs benefits the university far more than excellence in women’s programs, so by that logic there should be no requirement for gender equity.</p>
<p>I agree with Hanna. Take advantage of IM sports if you want equal playing time. (In fact, based on interest surveys, that would be a scenario favored by most college women.) I have athletic kids, but I’m under no illusions that Div1A teams will be knocking down our door. </p>
<p>Aren’t the best science students invited to do research and apply for fellowhips? Or should everyone get that opportunity to keep it fair.</p>
<p>Title IX is a non-discrimination law. It does not require that everything be equal. It recognizes that there are substantial differences between men’s athletics and women’s athletics. </p>
<p>(The above is not a response to any particular contribution. It’s just a point I wanted to make. There is so much misunderstanding of Title IX. You can blame lazy reporters and anti-Title IX groups. Some of the women’s groups are also responsible for creating the misunderstandings by citing spurious analyses to say that Title IX still has a long way to go. So there.)</p>
Actually, drb, you bring up a valid point. Not just about benefit to the college, but about individual benefit to women. Surveys show that most college women have NO DESIRE to compete in varsity collegiate sports. So if Title IX were really about serving women, it would allow intramural sports, fitness center access, aerobic & dance classes, rock-climbing clubs, etc. to count toward athletic opportunity gender equity. Shouldn’t it be about giving women what they want and making sure they are not denied opportunity to develop their physical health & a lifelong fitness mind-set?</p>
No, generally it is the best students from that institution that are invited, not the best students anywhere. The equivalent scenario for the male-female displacement would be if, say, a professor at Wesleyan used institutional support to have a student from Yale in his lab.</p>
<p>“a professor at Wesleyan used institutional support to have a student from Yale in his lab.”</p>
<p>I think a closer equivalent would be if a professor at Wesleyan used institutional support to have a teaching assistant from Yale in his lab. It’s not like the men are playing in the actual games; they’re there to teach new skills.</p>
<p>I had a TA in a Jewish Studies course at Harvard who was a Phd candidate at Brandeis. But she was there to help ME learn better, so why should I mind?</p>
<p>drb…the boys are students at the same college as the Div1A girl’s team. The coaches don’t have to look too far. There are tons of boys who couldn’t make the Div1A cut who are happy to play as scrimmage opponents for the girls.</p>
<p>You see this as a matter of displacement. Others see it as a matter of seeking every advantage in preparing the starters to succeed in a highly competitive arena. The second-stringers simply can’t simulate the opponents the teams will face. Men fill the bill quite readily. How many 6 foot 3 coordinated women who can sink three pointers are to be found at any given school?</p>
<p>Yes, if there were extra men’s squads brought in, so that all members of the team could play against men, that would appear to address the participation issue.</p>
<p>I defer to tsdad as to what Title IX requires. If Title IX permits male practice mates, so be it. I think we could still discuss the desirability of this “practice” at an educational institution, though, even if it is legally permissible.</p>
<p>As noted earlier, the idea of bringing in WNBA stars daily as practice mates would raise the same participation issues as does the use of male practice mates.</p>
<p>The idea that women supposedly do not want to participate in varsity sports has been used, I believe, as a lever against Title IX’s nondiscrimination goals. In other words, some would announce, without looking very hard, that women supposedly don’t want to participate in college sports and then use that as an excuse to not offer women’s sports on an equal basis with men’s.</p>
<p>ADad, it’s not true that those who state women don’t want to participate in as great numbers as men didn’t look very hard. The surveys show that most women of college age lose their desire for varsity competition. They move on to other activities or prefer to participate in sports that can be fit into their own time frame, not that of a rigid team schedule & training commitment. Men hang on to their love of competitive team sports much longer.</p>
<p>TSDAD, here is the link to Southeast’s Athletics Site. You’ll that the actual numbers are 8 female sports and 5 predominantly male sports. But as it has been mentioned, there are some females that play football too.</p>
<p>Another thing I don’t understand about Title IX is why should a football game’s profits pay for the volleyball team’s expenses?!?</p>
<p>Title IX does not require equality in intercollegiate athletics. OK. Repeat. Title IX does not require equality in intercollegiate athletics. </p>
<p>It does not require colleges to have any sports for anyone. It does not require colleges to have sports for women if there is no interest and ability in sports in general or any particular sport or if the current athletic program already meets the interest and ability of the women on campus or if the program has recently expanded to met the previously unmet needs of women or if the percentage of women in the athletic program is equivalent to the percentage of full-time women in the student body or if there is no likelihood of competition for a sport for which women have interest and ability in the college’s normal completive area. I can cite a community college in North Carolina that I found in compliance with Title IX where there was no sports for women and a couple of teams for men.</p>
<p>Also note that Title IX is a non-discrimination statute on the basis of sex and the government has frequently moved to ensure that men are not being discriminated against in athletics. The later plays out particularly in the area of non-discriminatory distribution of athletic financial assistance (AFA). The analysis for the latter uses a different data set that the one used for determining whether prong 1 of the interest and ability requirement is being met. In determining whether AFA is being distributed in a non-discriminatory manner OCR determines if the amount of AFA being distributed to each sex in the athletic program is within plus/minus one percent of the portion of each sex in the athletic program, not the student body as a whole. So if 60% of the athletes are male, not an unusual figure in a college with a football team, Title IX would require that the males receive 59% to 61% of the AFA absent legitimate non-discriminatory reasons, which I discussed in a post above. The standard is high because colleges budget for their scholarships in advance and can budget for non-discriminatory distribution. Any deviation from the 1% should be explainable by legitimate non-discriminatory reasons. OCR has not always been successful in getting colleges to plan for non-discriminatory distribution of AFA.</p>
<p>Intramurals and the like are covered under Title IX, but they are not intercollegiate varsity competition, and are subject to a different analysis. Frankly, I have never seen any complaints about discrimination in access to intramurals or health facilities. I have seen complaints where female athletes have felt unwelcome in weight rooms and harassed by male athletes. That doesn’t seem to be happening much anymore. Further, in the past colleges have not purchased weights appropriate for female athletes, allocated them enough time for using work-out rooms, and there have been allegations of discrimination in access to trainers including sexual harassment.</p>
<p>NCAA Division I Athletics - Ohio Valley Conference
Men?s Sports<br>
Baseball
Basketball
Cross Country
Football
Golf
Track (indoor/outdoor)
Six or Seven if you count track as two</p>
<p>Women’s Sports</p>
<p>Basketball
Cross Country
Gymnastics
Track (indoor/outdoor)
Soccer
Softball
Tennis
Volleyball
Eight or nine if you count track as two separate sports</p>
<p>Title IX considers the men’s and women’s program; not individual teams. It’s not the number of sports that counts; it’s the number of opportunities to compete. At Southeast the number of opportunities for men far exceeds their percentage in the undergraduate student body. They may be in compliance with prong 2 or 3 of the three-part test, but not prong 1. </p>
<p>As for your other question, I can’t even begin to answer it except to say that Congress from the very beginning of Title IX (in 1972) has rejected all attempts to give special consideration to revenue producing sports. In any case at the overwhelming number of colleges football is a money loser.</p>
OK, Hanna and SS, everyone else has posed bizarre hypotheticals - now its my turn. Is there any reason why an institution could not hire a practice team of ex-professional players, and use them to prepare their 1st stringers for that “highly competitive arena”? (This would actually be a service to those athletes whose pseudo-education has failed to prepare them for any other job except playing a sport).</p>