Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Poll: Do women athletes have as much credibility as male athletes?
This poll is closed.
Yes 30.77% 4 30.77%
No 69.23% 9 69.23%
Total 13 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Post Reply 
New Poll
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
trojanblood Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 370
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 12
I Root For: TROY
Location:
Post: #1
New Poll
I saw where Cal has cut their baseball and mens gymnastics teams, as well as, a couple of womens sports. Since the news broke, they have reinstated both the womens sports. That being said, do women athletes have as much credibility as male athletes?
(This post was last modified: 02-18-2011 06:18 AM by trojanblood.)
02-18-2011 06:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


FIUFan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,498
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 96
I Root For: FIU
Location: Coral Gables, FL
Post: #2
RE: New Poll
(02-18-2011 06:15 AM)trojanblood Wrote:  I saw where Cal has cut their baseball and mens gymnastics teams, as well as, a couple of womens sports. Since the news broke, they have reinstated both the womens sports. That being said, do women athletes have as much credibility as male athletes?

That's a tough way to word that poll. I'm sure every female athlete feels she puts in just as much work as her male counterpart and therefore is just as 'credible'. More to the point is whether or not Title IX should be reviewed these 20 years later (or however long its been) for unintended consequences.

I know FIU has lost many sports due to T/IX and forget about club sports like Crew or Rugby ever having a chance to become a varsity sport.

I think its great that girls/women have these additional opportunities but a straight 50/50 split, or even worse a ratio on the student body breakdown, has really thrown a wet blanket on male sports.

So imo, Title IX has gone too far and should be reviewed and modified but it will probably be a cold day in he!! before that happens.
02-18-2011 08:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SkullyMaroo Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 11,193
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 635
I Root For: South Alabama
Location: Mobile
Post: #3
RE: New Poll
I agree with FIUFan... strange way to word the poll. I am all for women athletics, but Title IX has definitely had adverse affects on men's sports. You can't simply base the number of female athletes on a ratio of the student body. A LOT of women simply have NO interest in sports... In addition, a lot of women are family oriented and focused on education and starting a family, having children, etc. I say Title IX definitely needs to be reviewed.
02-18-2011 08:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
InjunJohn Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 935
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 51
I Root For: ULM
Location:
Post: #4
RE: New Poll
The unintended consequence of Title IX (or maybe it was intended by some) has been the gutting of male sports...especially the Olympic Sports. Proponents of Title IX will say that schools don't have to cut men's sports, but in an era of tight athletic budgets, it simply isn't the case of keeping sports but shedding some teams to make room for women's sports, even if there is no demand for that sport.

There has been this drive to make all things equal but that drive doesn't take into account the level of support. There are schools out there who have created women's teams and can't get scholarship players due to the fact that there is little interest. As long as football is in the mix, there will be fewer men's teams and more women's teams in sports that draw little to no interest. In the name of gender equality (damn any facts) men are being offered fewer and fewer opportunities while more schools are offering a watered down version that has little support.

Safe sports for men: Football and basketball
Endangered sports for Men: Baseball
Life support: Wrestling, tennis, soccer, volleyball, swimming
02-18-2011 09:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SOT1977 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,410
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 30
I Root For: ULM
Location:
Post: #5
RE: New Poll
ULM used to have great programs in men's soccer, tennis, and gymnastics. All gone now thanks to T/IX.
02-18-2011 10:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


AstroCajun Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 2,698
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 167
I Root For: UL Ragin Cajuns
Location:
Post: #6
RE: New Poll
(02-18-2011 09:24 AM)InjunJohn Wrote:  The unintended consequence of Title IX (or maybe it was intended by some) has been the gutting of male sports...especially the Olympic Sports. Proponents of Title IX will say that schools don't have to cut men's sports, but in an era of tight athletic budgets, it simply isn't the case of keeping sports but shedding some teams to make room for women's sports, even if there is no demand for that sport.

There has been this drive to make all things equal but that drive doesn't take into account the level of support. There are schools out there who have created women's teams and can't get scholarship players due to the fact that there is little interest. As long as football is in the mix, there will be fewer men's teams and more women's teams in sports that draw little to no interest. In the name of gender equality (damn any facts) men are being offered fewer and fewer opportunities while more schools are offering a watered down version that has little support.

Safe sports for men: Football and basketball
Endangered sports for Men: Baseball
Life support: Wrestling, tennis, soccer, volleyball, swimming

You make some good points. The biggest problem is the requirement that for every men's scholarship, there must also be a women's scholarship opportunity.

I wonder what would happen if the NCAA would modify that rule to exempt football from the 1 for 1 requirement. I think it would allow for the return of threatened/endangered men's programs.
02-18-2011 10:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FIUFan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,498
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 96
I Root For: FIU
Location: Coral Gables, FL
Post: #7
RE: New Poll
(02-18-2011 10:15 AM)AstroCajun Wrote:  
(02-18-2011 09:24 AM)InjunJohn Wrote:  The unintended consequence of Title IX (or maybe it was intended by some) has been the gutting of male sports...especially the Olympic Sports. Proponents of Title IX will say that schools don't have to cut men's sports, but in an era of tight athletic budgets, it simply isn't the case of keeping sports but shedding some teams to make room for women's sports, even if there is no demand for that sport.

There has been this drive to make all things equal but that drive doesn't take into account the level of support. There are schools out there who have created women's teams and can't get scholarship players due to the fact that there is little interest. As long as football is in the mix, there will be fewer men's teams and more women's teams in sports that draw little to no interest. In the name of gender equality (damn any facts) men are being offered fewer and fewer opportunities while more schools are offering a watered down version that has little support.

Safe sports for men: Football and basketball
Endangered sports for Men: Baseball
Life support: Wrestling, tennis, soccer, volleyball, swimming

You make some good points. The biggest problem is the requirement that for every men's scholarship, there must also be a women's scholarship opportunity.

I wonder what would happen if the NCAA would modify that rule to exempt football from the 1 for 1 requirement. I think it would allow for the return of threatened/endangered men's programs.

That's a brilliant idea; or they could at least multiply football by a factor of .5 to bring the scholarships down and allow some room for other male sports.
02-18-2011 10:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
InjunJohn Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 935
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 51
I Root For: ULM
Location:
Post: #8
RE: New Poll
(02-18-2011 10:15 AM)AstroCajun Wrote:  
(02-18-2011 09:24 AM)InjunJohn Wrote:  The unintended consequence of Title IX (or maybe it was intended by some) has been the gutting of male sports...especially the Olympic Sports. Proponents of Title IX will say that schools don't have to cut men's sports, but in an era of tight athletic budgets, it simply isn't the case of keeping sports but shedding some teams to make room for women's sports, even if there is no demand for that sport.

There has been this drive to make all things equal but that drive doesn't take into account the level of support. There are schools out there who have created women's teams and can't get scholarship players due to the fact that there is little interest. As long as football is in the mix, there will be fewer men's teams and more women's teams in sports that draw little to no interest. In the name of gender equality (damn any facts) men are being offered fewer and fewer opportunities while more schools are offering a watered down version that has little support.

Safe sports for men: Football and basketball
Endangered sports for Men: Baseball
Life support: Wrestling, tennis, soccer, volleyball, swimming

You make some good points. The biggest problem is the requirement that for every men's scholarship, there must also be a women's scholarship opportunity.

I wonder what would happen if the NCAA would modify that rule to exempt football from the 1 for 1 requirement. I think it would allow for the return of threatened/endangered men's programs.

Yep. The big elephant is Football. 85 scholarships for football creates that huge disparity. And Title IX proponents throw that number in there to say how badly a university is treating the women and how the university isn't providing the opportunities. They conviently ignore that more people coming to see those games. They ignore that that the football team is the biggest revenue generator (regardless of the fact that most lose most lose money) and that football is the engine that drives most athletic departments at a university.

When I was attending ULM (NLU) back int he early 80s (yes, I am old, grumpy, and sometimes a bit senile), there was a men's soccer team, a men's tennis team, a men/women swim team and dive team. There are still women's soccer and tennis but the swim/dive teams are gone and there are no men's tennis and soccer.

The quest for parity has forced the elimination of mens sports and the elimination of sports that require a heavy lift finacially (maintaining a swimming pool). Cross country and golf require little money. Women's volleyball can use existing facilities. And women's teams in these areas can ride the money stream of the football team.
02-18-2011 10:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FIUFan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,498
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 96
I Root For: FIU
Location: Coral Gables, FL
Post: #9
RE: New Poll
Injun', you clearly bring up some important points but let's not make it confrontational, rather the NCAA should look for ways to slowly modify T/IX to bring the pendulum back to center.

Your points bring up room for compromise, however, if you were to go to the other side with even a hint of challenge....the walls will go up and the eyes will glaze over.
(This post was last modified: 02-18-2011 10:44 AM by FIUFan.)
02-18-2011 10:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


dahbeed Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,205
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 507
I Root For: wku toppahs!!!
Location: in womans fantasies
Post: #10
RE: New Poll
this is coming from a fan that doesn't watch 'chick-ball' or any 'chick-sport'.....except possibly volleyball on occasion.

the law mandating equal number of schollys is dead on right.

it has nothing to do with if they are 'credible'. i think they should lower the goals to 9 feet for women. they play with a smaller ball which inflates shooting % so why not. they play softball on 200' fields. do the same for hoops.

i have 2 sons. one has graduated from western and one enters this fall. they both had opportunities to get schollys for mens athletics. since they inherited half of my genes they were not chosen for such benefits.

but if a school offers scholarships for sports they should have equal opportunity for the man who had 2 daughters instead of 2 sons.

throw out all the chaff of football or mens hoops generates money. most universities lose big time money on all athletics. if they're offering schollys it should be equal.

this is all just my opinion of course. but i'm generally right. about everything.
02-18-2011 10:46 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FIUFan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,498
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 96
I Root For: FIU
Location: Coral Gables, FL
Post: #11
RE: New Poll
You're right, it's not about money but equality.

However, without penalizing football, its weighting should be reduced to allow some room for other sports. Now this will not save programs from the budget ax but it might allow otherwise closed programs to be started up again, as they are currently dead for no other reason than some arbitrary equal scholarship number.

For example, if we were to start-up men's tennis and golf again (two very Florida sports) we would have to invent (literally) two female sports to allow for this. There's little to no interest for additional female sports but arbitrarily they must be created.
02-18-2011 11:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
InjunJohn Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 935
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 51
I Root For: ULM
Location:
Post: #12
RE: New Poll
(02-18-2011 10:46 AM)dahbeed Wrote:  this is coming from a fan that doesn't watch 'chick-ball' or any 'chick-sport'.....except possibly volleyball on occasion.

the law mandating equal number of schollys is dead on right.

it has nothing to do with if they are 'credible'. i think they should lower the goals to 9 feet for women. they play with a smaller ball which inflates shooting % so why not. they play softball on 200' fields. do the same for hoops.

i have 2 sons. one has graduated from western and one enters this fall. they both had opportunities to get schollys for mens athletics. since they inherited half of my genes they were not chosen for such benefits.

but if a school offers scholarships for sports they should have equal opportunity for the man who had 2 daughters instead of 2 sons.

throw out all the chaff of football or mens hoops generates money. most universities lose big time money on all athletics. if they're offering schollys it should be equal.

this is all just my opinion of course. but i'm generally right. about everything.

We are discussing the effect that equal schollys has had on Men's sports. Even if there is no interest among the female population at the school, there are schools who are creating women's teams. Football takes up so many scholarships, that men's teams have to be sacrificed. So, for the man who has two daughters who may or may not be talented enough to truly compete at the collegiate level, the man with two sons has to sacrifice. Men's soccer is dying at the collegiate level. Men's swimming is dying. Wrestling is dying. Hell, I don't even know if there is any men's gymnastics at the collegiate level anymore.

There is no female equivelant to football. And while most schools lose money on football, it is still the biggest revenue generator out there. Just looking at WKU for example, more people will have watched the football team than will attend a basketball game this year. And you have a very strong tradition and are usually one the best (if not the best) basketball programs in the SBC. And for women's sports, the numbers are generally even lower for attendance.

NCAA mandates that require a certain number of sports feeds into the problem. To maintain a level, you have to have X amount of scholarship sports. Title IX wants parity between men and women. Who gets sacrificed? Men's sports. So, while someone is happy that their daughter got a chance to play at the collegiate level, there are many more parents of young men who are disappointed.
02-18-2011 11:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AstroCajun Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 2,698
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 167
I Root For: UL Ragin Cajuns
Location:
Post: #13
RE: New Poll
(02-18-2011 11:31 AM)InjunJohn Wrote:  
(02-18-2011 10:46 AM)dahbeed Wrote:  this is coming from a fan that doesn't watch 'chick-ball' or any 'chick-sport'.....except possibly volleyball on occasion.

the law mandating equal number of schollys is dead on right.

it has nothing to do with if they are 'credible'. i think they should lower the goals to 9 feet for women. they play with a smaller ball which inflates shooting % so why not. they play softball on 200' fields. do the same for hoops.

i have 2 sons. one has graduated from western and one enters this fall. they both had opportunities to get schollys for mens athletics. since they inherited half of my genes they were not chosen for such benefits.

but if a school offers scholarships for sports they should have equal opportunity for the man who had 2 daughters instead of 2 sons.

throw out all the chaff of football or mens hoops generates money. most universities lose big time money on all athletics. if they're offering schollys it should be equal.

this is all just my opinion of course. but i'm generally right. about everything.

We are discussing the effect that equal schollys has had on Men's sports. Even if there is no interest among the female population at the school, there are schools who are creating women's teams. Football takes up so many scholarships, that men's teams have to be sacrificed. So, for the man who has two daughters who may or may not be talented enough to truly compete at the collegiate level, the man with two sons has to sacrifice. Men's soccer is dying at the collegiate level. Men's swimming is dying. Wrestling is dying. Hell, I don't even know if there is any men's gymnastics at the collegiate level anymore.

There is no female equivelant to football. And while most schools lose money on football, it is still the biggest revenue generator out there. Just looking at WKU for example, more people will have watched the football team than will attend a basketball game this year. And you have a very strong tradition and are usually one the best (if not the best) basketball programs in the SBC. And for women's sports, the numbers are generally even lower for attendance.

NCAA mandates that require a certain number of sports feeds into the problem. To maintain a level, you have to have X amount of scholarship sports. Title IX wants parity between men and women. Who gets sacrificed? Men's sports. So, while someone is happy that their daughter got a chance to play at the collegiate level, there are many more parents of young men who are disappointed.

I agree, when a "big time" program like Cal cannot put out a baseball team, we have a problem.
02-18-2011 11:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


OwlFamily Online
FLORIDA ATLANTICS DEFENDER OF THE FAITH
*

Posts: 7,110
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation: 251
I Root For: FLORIDA ATLANTIC
Location: Boca Raton, FL.
Post: #14
RE: New Poll
In regards to football and the number of scholarships, part of the problem like many have said is the fact that the number of players needed is MUCH higher then any other program.

There is not one womans sport (or any other mens for that matter) that requires 85 scholarhps.

I agree either exclude football, or divide it by half.
02-18-2011 12:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dahbeed Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,205
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 507
I Root For: wku toppahs!!!
Location: in womans fantasies
Post: #15
RE: New Poll
injun juan.....the poll axed if they had credibility which is kinda retarded.

the poll did not axe if it was having an effect on football. you declare that's what we're talking about but i didn't see that in the poll. the thread may have veered there.

i have a hard time answering if it's credible.

i'm pretty sure the bcs conferences look at sun belt football the same way you guys are looking at chick sports. are we credible to the ohio states??? doubtful.

my answer is based on equal rights to the guy that has split tails instead of hairy @sses for offspring.

it should be equal. i could give a mierda less about a mens tennis team in florida. if it was popular they could cut back on football.

this is just my opinion. and i'm a guy that had two sons. but i get the argument for equality. most of the schools in the ncaa are state and federally funded. end of discussion.
02-18-2011 12:32 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KAjunRaider Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,199
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 242
I Root For: U.M.T.
Location: Atop Tiger Hill, TN
Post: #16
RE: New Poll
Maybe if these schools would quit spending $250 million on indoor football facilities and recruiting rooms, they'd be able to field a baseball program.
02-19-2011 02:08 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Paul of Troy Offline
The Man Who Watches
*

Posts: 2,483
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 223
I Root For: Tennessee, Troy
Location: Dothan, AL
Post: #17
RE: New Poll
What an odd way to phrase the question.

Someone once told me to not compare women's and men's sports. They said to think of them as different sports. Now, I can see that point of view, but I don't see it when I accidentally turn on women's basketball on the TV and quickly change it to avoid 2 hours of absolute boredom.

I guess it is kind of like watching the Premiere League and then trying to watch the MLS, it just doesn't compare skill wise. They just drew the short straw of the evolutionary tree. Naturally if you are smaller, weaker, and slower it isn't going to be as interesting to watch.

I remember when I played soccer in high school we use to scrimmage Troy's women's soccer team frequently. We always beat them...a high school team beating a scholarship collegiate program. Why? Because they were slower, smaller, and weaker. Were they bad soccer players? No, it's just a different game.
02-19-2011 03:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


KAjunRaider Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,199
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 242
I Root For: U.M.T.
Location: Atop Tiger Hill, TN
Post: #18
RE: New Poll
I remember back in Babe Ruth baseball, an opposing team had a female pitcher. She came awful close to striking me out. Luckily, she plunked me on an 0-2 count. She struck plenty of our players out that day, and went on to become an All-Star. She ended up playing D-1 college hoops.
(This post was last modified: 02-19-2011 06:49 PM by KAjunRaider.)
02-19-2011 05:35 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hilltopper2K Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 4,298
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 119
I Root For: WKU!!!
Location: Bowling Green, KY
Post: #19
RE: New Poll
(02-18-2011 10:46 AM)dahbeed Wrote:  i think they should lower the goals to 9 feet for women. they play with a smaller ball which inflates shooting % so why not. they play softball on 200' fields. do the same for hoops.

This is a brilliant idea. Women's basketball would be more entertaining by a factor of at least two if they could dunk.
02-19-2011 06:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KAjunRaider Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,199
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 242
I Root For: U.M.T.
Location: Atop Tiger Hill, TN
Post: #20
RE: New Poll
(02-19-2011 06:39 PM)Hilltopper2K Wrote:  
(02-18-2011 10:46 AM)dahbeed Wrote:  i think they should lower the goals to 9 feet for women. they play with a smaller ball which inflates shooting % so why not. they play softball on 200' fields. do the same for hoops.

This is a brilliant idea. Women's basketball would be more entertaining by a factor of at least two if they could dunk.

Come on down to Murfreesboro in a week or so. You'll see some entertaining women's hoops 05-stirthepot
02-19-2011 06:50 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.