Subscribe to the NCSA BlogTitle IX Scholarship Controversy
June 24th, 2009 - byYesterday was the 37th anniversary of Title IX, the federal law that outlaws sex discrimination at schools receiving federal funds. The White House administration honored some of the most influential women in sports by hosting a round table discussion at the Eisenhower building discussing the challenges of furthering the letter and spirit of the law.
However, against the backdrop was a study released Tuesday showing 12,000 more athletic scholarships available for females than males in sports played by both men and women. The huge disparity is largely because football was left out of the study.
The College Sports Council, a watchdog group that charts the impact of Title IX on men’s sports, says the NCAA is not making decisions based on interest when it comes to women’s sports but is looking for sports with large rosters “to satisfy the gender quota,” said chairman Eric Pearson.
“If you are focused on just putting numbers out, you are inclined to go to sports like rowing,” Pearson added.
The CSC was not at Tuesday’s panel discussion.
Providing opportunities proportional to the student body for men and women athletes is one way schools can comply with Title IX.
According to figures for 2006-07, the latest available from the National Federation of State High School Associations, 5,048 girls wrestle in high school while 2,685 are on crew teams and 1,341 are on equestrian teams. Yet, women’s wrestling is not an NCAA sport while those others are.
“You can have strong interest in a women’s sport, but if it’s not a large-roster sport, the NCAA doesn’t go for it,” Pearson said.
The CSC study does not include football, which has 85 men’s scholarships. Pearson said football was left out to shine the spotlight on sports played by men and women. He says scholarships should be equal and schools should determine how they are used to meet Title IX guidelines.
The statistics raise a number of questions. Does Title IX discriminate against men particularly those in smaller team or individual sports? Does title IX discriminate against smaller women’s sports? Have we reached the day where title IX can be discarded?
June 24th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Has it really been 37 years? Seems like something that will never die with media, especially with colleges still cutting sports.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Having two sons on D1 baseball teams I am totally discussed with what Title IX has done to men’s sports. Baseball teams have 11.7 scholarships to divide between 35 players, with hardly any full scholarships given. Then I hear stories of full scholarships being given to women who look athletic for women’s rowing. There is no women’s sport that equals football so all the smaller men’s sports are having to pay the price. Football should stand alone – in most cases money coming from football it is what runs the college athletic programs. Then all the other programs should have equal scholarships between women and men. The smaller men’s sports have been shafted for a long time – it’s time to make it right.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
I have a daughter who will e playing softall this fall at a D1 program. They
only get 12 scholarships a year and they are divided amongst 20 girls. If it was not for title ix I doubt there would be any scholarships more less a team. Lets face it football gets the money because it brings the money in. Lets not go backwards as far as women go and take away what has tried to level the playing field
June 30th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Football is not a THIRD gender and should not be left out of the equation. I agree with looking at Women’s wrestling as an NCAA sport. How about starting women’s football also? It’’s fun and lots of women are playing in the IWFL, a professional women’s tackle football league http://www.iwflsports.com/. At the same time, let’s look with open eyes at the obscene “ARMS race” of money, media and support for FOOTBALL and MEN’s BASKETBALL? Tilte IX is a law and it’s not optional and it’s not just about sports/intercollegiagte athletics either, any program that excepts federal funding is expected to abide by Title IX. When you look at the whole picture of women in sports at all levels and stop cherry picking stats (like the CSC does) we are still leaving girls and women behind and treating them as second class citizens! As my mom would say to her kids in regard to sharing things, “one of you can break it in half and the other one can pick.” Athletic directors and college and school administrators need to stop rationalzing why they are not fair/just and start providing more for women, the historically under represented gender in sports, not just with money but with support and heart felt belief in the values of sports for girls and women. PS Show me how many colleges are actually running in the black with Football. Most of them run in the red. So let’s finally put that old saw to sleep.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:44 pm
What I don’t like is when schools blame Title IX for cutting men’s programs. For instance, last year Arizona State University, a powerhouse swimming school, cut the men’s swim team (and probably the women’s too), stating Title IX as the reason. That is a load of bull, and we know it. They wanted to cut swimming for whatever reason, but then they go and blame it on the girls.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:50 pm
There are a number of issues if the economic problems of high education and athletics are to be on an level playing field. The first issue of course is football which only pays it costs in about 15 schools national wide. One answer is to model after the NFL, and that is to further limit the number of scholarshiops to 55 or 60 or less. The pros have 45 plus (taxi, medical or what additional they call it). As football now exists there are large numbers of athletes playing football on full rides that never see any game time. That is a very expensive dummy holder.
If FB was reduced scholarship numbers, then chances to fund other sports increases, the quality of the game football is not compromised one bit. In fact it would force the talent to be spread around instead of larger programs buying up the talent in order to attempt to control the opposition.
Another factor. The olympic sports are not scholarship funded enough to field complete teams. Are they valued less than the two ivory towers.? Football has a 8 to 1 ratio. Scholarships to playing positions. BB a 3 to 1. Volley ball a 3 to 1 + or – a fraction. Track and field, cross country as an example has a ration of .60 in women’s and men’s .54 to one. It takes 32-34 slots including the doubling of many individuals to field a team. We can go through other sports as well BaseBall 1.1 to 1. etc.
Then we have head count FB, BB, Gymnastics, BB, and a couple of other sports which are guaranteed the multiple scholarship per playing positions. The equivalency sports on the other hand have the option to break their scholarships up in hopes of covering all the playing positions. As a result there will be Olympic sport national champions which only receive a partial scholarship while a FB dummy holder receives a full ride.
Over all, the question is what is of value by the NCAA and sufficient funding for Olympic sports to field full teams seems of no value to them.
Then what should be done In order to achieve gender and sport balance and to to provide each sport in which men and women participate the same number of scholarship, and sufficient scholarships to field full teams? For example men and women’s BB should receive the same say 15 AND 15. volley ball 12 and 12 and so forth and then an ratio to playing positions should be established equating to what ratio is required to field full teams.
There are those which believe the answer to be to add more women’s sports. That becomes a greater expense because it requires addition coaching positions, trainers, facilities, equipment, travel and all that goes with the production of an additional team.
If we just were able to take the present programs and increase the ratio’s as mentioned above, using existing programs the costs and equity could be easily established. Including the reduction of FB to a more reasonable number.
With analysis one can easily see to positive spin off of this proposal.