Gender Equity Report Cards are in

[HensRock]

A new study from womenssportsfoundation.org, grades major colleges and Universities on how they are doing with Gender Equity...

http://wsf-staging.mediapolis.com/cgi-bin/iowa/issues/disc/reportcard.html

Here's the Big Sky Conference:

Weber State: A-
Eastern Wash: A
Montana State: A
Sac. State: B
Idaho St: B-
NAU: C
Portland State: C
Montana: C-
No. Colorado: C-

[HensRock]

Atlantic-10/CAA

CAA:
Drexel: A
Northeastern: A-
UNCW: A-
Wm. & Mary: B+
George Mason: B+
VCU: B
Old Dominion: B-
Delaware: B-
Towson: C+
Georgia State: C+
James Madison: C
Hofstra: D+

Atlantic-10 Football:
Maine: A
New Hampshire: A-
UMass: A-
Rhode Island: B+
Richmond: B+
Villanova: B+

[HensRock]

Ohio Valley: xnonox

Tennessee Tech: A
Murray State: C-
Eastern Ill: D+
Jacksonville State: D+
SE MO State: D+
Austin Peay: D
Tennessee-Martin: D-
Morehead State: F
Samford: F
Tennessee State: F
Eastern Kentucky: F

[HensRock]

Gateway:

So. Illinois: A-
Indiana State: B
Youngstown State: B
Illinois State: B-
(SW) Missouri State: C+
Western Illinois: C+
Northern Iowa: D+
Western KY: D-

[HensRock]

MEAC: xnonox xnonox xnonox

SC State: D+
Hampton: D+
NCA&T: D
Bethune-Cookman: F
Coppin State: F
Delaware State: F
FAMU: F
Howard: F
Morgan State: F

[HensRock]

Ivy League:

Columbia: A
Harvard: A-
Brown: B+
Dartmouth: B+
Cornell: B+
Princeton: B
Yale: B+
Penn: C+

[HensRock]

Patriot League:

Bucknell: A
Lehigh: A
Lafayette: A-
Holy Cross: B+
Colgate: B-
Georgetown: C
Fordham: D-

[HensRock]

SoCon:

The Citadel: A
Georgia Southern: B+
App State: B
Wofford: C-
Chattanooga: D
Western Carolina: D
Elon: D-
Furman: D-

[HensRock]

Southland: xnonox xnonox xnonox

Texas State San Marcos: D+
Nicholls State: D
Sam Houston: D
SE Louisiana: D-
Stephen F Austin: D-
Central Arkansas: F
McNeese State: F
Northwestern State: F

[89Hen]

I have no idea what goes into the rankings (too lazy to read) but xeyebrowx on some of those teams, but even more so xeyebrowx xeyebrowx on some conferences as a whole.

[HensRock]

SWAC:

Arkansas-Pine Bluff: C+
Alabama State: C-
Prarie View: C-
Alabama A&M: D+
Grambling State: D-
Texas Southern: D-
Alcorn State: F
Jackson State: F
Mississippi Valley: F
Southern: F

[OL FU]

I have no idea what goes into the rankings (too lazy to read) but xeyebrowx on some of those teams, but even more so xeyebrowx xeyebrowx on some conferences as a whole.

I have to read it. Furman's score shocks mexeekx

[HensRock]

Read about it here:

Who's Playing College Sports - Trends in Participation (http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgi-bin/iowa/issues/disc/article.html?record=1201)

[HIU 93]

MEAC: xnonox xnonox xnonox

SC State: D+
Hampton: D+
NCA&T: D
Bethune-Cookman: F
Coppin State: F
Delaware State: F
FAMU: F
Howard: F
Morgan State: F

I don't know how they calculate this and what they use to base this on. I know that all MEAC have a majority female population and that Hampton specifically has more female atheletes on scholarship than male.

[JoshUCA]

You left off UCA from the SLC, but we got an F anyway...

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I don't know how they calculate this and what they use to base this on. I know that all MEAC have a majority female population and that Hampton specifically has more female atheletes on scholarship than male.

It looks like it's (basically) the gap between "female population" and "female participation". Title IX says that if your undergraduate population is 66% female, then 66% of your athletes should be women. If the gap between the percentages are greater than 22%, then that's a "failing grade".

I have Southern's (picked at random) in from on me. Their undergraduate population is 77.5% female (xeekx), while only 40% of these females participate in athletics. The gap is 37.5 points - so, they "fail".

HBCU's seem to get short shrift in all these studies. Since they aren't as highly funded as (say) the Ivies or Patriot League, they can't spend as much money to recruit women athletes, so they are considered "failing". One of the things I really hate about Title IX and the GPR rates is how these types of "report cards" come out in an effort (I guess) to shame schools into compliance, but the issues of noncompliance are so much more complicated than that. It's as if they're always trying to aim their guns at Auburn, and instead hitting Alabama A&M. xmadx xmadx xmadx

[AppGuy04]

It looks like they compare female enrollment to female sports participation

[HensRock]

I agree LFN,
I'm not casting judgement by posting these. It's just food for discussion during the off-season. Schools with a very high percentage female enrollment (like the example you gave in Southern) are really at risk.

[NoCoDanny]

This is bull****, basically if you have a higher percentage of female students and also a football team, which has a high number of male participants you get a bad grade because you have more males participating in sports and more female students.

Seems the goal for this organization is just to increase the amount of fake women's sports it can like bowling and equestrian.

I'll go on record as saying I love the fact that my school is 60 something % female! But don't think it's something we should be punished for. In fact these ho's should be penalizing schools with less than 50% females for not being female friendly environments.

Political correctness run amuk once again.

[89Hen]

I have Southern's (picked at random) in from on me. Their undergraduate population is 77.5% female (xeekx), while only 40% of these females participate in athletics. The gap is 37.5 points - so, they "fail".
Not trying to be nitpicky, but I just want to make sure I understand the numbers. I think the 40% is the percentage of female athletes compared to men, not 40% of the female population participate. I have no idea what the actual numbers are, but I'd have to believe the overall percentage of student athletes is 10% or less. Am I reading this right? xconfusedx

[Ronbo]

A new study from womenssportsfoundation.org, grades major colleges and Universities on how they are doing with Gender Equity...

http://wsf-staging.mediapolis.com/cgi-bin/iowa/issues/disc/reportcard.html

Here's the Big Sky Conference:

Weber State: A-
Eastern Wash: A
Montana State: A
Sac. State: B
Idaho St: B-
NAU: C
Portland State: C
Montana: C-
No. Colorado: C-

That's very funny that Montana gets a C-. Women's sports eats up all the revenue at Montana because we have so many female sports and they DON'T MAKE MONEY.. And we have dropped Men's wrestling, swimming, baseball, and golf to get where we are now.

At Montana:

Men's sports 6
Women's sports 8

I guess if we went to 2 Men's sports and 12 Women's sports they would be happy and give us an A. Feminists!

[UncleSam]

Until they exempt football from Title IX mandates (as there is no female equivalency) 'gender equality' will remain a bogus issue to me.

[dbackjon]

That's very funny that Montana gets a C-. Women's sports eats up all the revenue at Montana because we have so many female sports and they DON'T MAKE MONEY.. And we have dropped Men's wrestling, swimming, baseball, and golf to get where we are now.

At Montana:

Men's sports 6
Women's sports 8

I guess if we went to 2 Men's sports and 12 Women's sports they would be happy and give us an A. Feminists!

And yet they still claim that the ONLY effect of Title IX is to increase women's sports...xrolleyesx


While I support a good portion of Title IX, because without it, most schools would not have come even close to adding the number of sports they have, this report card is bogus, because it just looks at numbers, not desires of the female student body.

Another issue overlooked is WHY the majority of schools have such high female populations. What is happening to our men that they don't go to college anymore??? Maybe the focus should be on raising the MALE enrollment (maybe by adding some more male sports to get guys that normally wouldn't go to college????)

[Ivytalk]

Another issue overlooked is WHY the majority of schools have such high female populations. What is happening to our men that they don't go to college anymore??? Maybe the focus should be on raising the MALE enrollment (maybe by adding some more male sports to get guys that normally wouldn't go to college????)

jon, part of the answer is simple demographics: there are somewhat more girls than boys in the HS population. Harvard has admitted more women than men for 3 of the past 4 years, I think. There are a few recent books out there that purport to discuss why boys are "left behind" in academic achievement.xreadx I'll leave that to the psychologists.

[Eyes of Old Main]

SoCon:
The Citadel: A

I wonder what citdog would say about that?

Looks like El Cid is in a good spot for this since thier female population is so small and they are probably overcompensating (nothing new, but that's a different story) so they don't get any more bad press (a la Shannon Faulkner).

[Ivytalk]

I wonder what citdog would say about that?

Looks like El Cid is in a good spot for this since thier female population is so small and they are probably overcompensating (nothing new, but that's a different story) so they don't get any more bad press (a la Shannon Faulkner).

Great thought, EOM. Citdog would probably say, "Yeah, both of our wimmin participate!";) :D

[Eyes of Old Main]

And yet they still claim that the ONLY effect of Title IX is to increase women's sports...xrolleyesx

They'll never admit they were wrong on this. Even though almost ever school has had programs effected and many have had some male sports cut (or at least had scholarships reduced).

I'm all for women's sports, but not at the expense of men's sports.

Perhaps exempting football from Title IX as mentioned above would help.

[UAalum72]

And yet they still claim that the ONLY effect of Title IX is to increase women's sports...xrolleyesx
No, the PURPOSE is to increase women's sports, not the effect

However, if you read the "More Information..."


For the 10-year/738 NCAA institutions sample, male participation grew by around 7,000 athletes between 1995-96 and 2004-05, an average of almost 10 athletes per institution.
For the complete four-year/1,895 institutions sample, male participation grew by almost 10,000 athletes between 2001-02 and 2004-05, an average of slightly over five athletes per institution.
For the 10-year/738 NCAA institutions sample, only tennis (-678) and wrestling (-488) experienced declines of more than 80 athletes between 1995-96 and 2004-05. In contrast, four men sports grew by much larger amounts: football grew by more than 4,000 participants while baseball (+1,561), lacrosse (+1,091) and soccer (+758) also rose sharply.
For some of the growing men’s sports (especially football), the participation increases were primarily due to growth in the average roster size. For schools whining about Title IX, why is this necessary? As a result, the total number of men’s teams essentially remained the same over the period of study.5. The only subset of higher education institutions that experienced declines in men’s participation levels was NCAA Division I-A schools

[dbackjon]

Some of the effects, and why overall male participation has not dropped are:

Schools moving up - adding both men's and women's schollies to compete at higher level - ala xDSU, UNC, etc. Also, those numbers include NAIA schools moving to the NCAA, start up programs (CCU, FAU, FIU, etc.)

Shifting to sports that can have one coach for both sports, like Cross-Country, Track, etc. These sports are also relatively cheap.

What they also DON'T break down, at least as I can find, is SCHOLLARSHIP numbers. The numbers quoted include D-III schools. How fair is it to include NON-Scholarship schools in the comparisons.

And note, they do acknowledge that FBS schools have experienced overall declines, which again proves my point.

REPORT is total BS....

[Lehigh Football Nation]

No, the PURPOSE is to increase women's sports...

And this is where the debate should start. Has Title IX fulfilled it's purpose? I'd argue yes it has. If you REALLY think Southern has to eliminate their football program and add a women's rowing team and women's lacrosse team in order to make these numbers, you should be made to argue why Southern would benefit from these programs over football. I really don't think these fans of Title IX have a very good answer to that question.

[DUPFLFan]

Until they exempt football from Title IX mandates (as there is no female equivalency) 'gender equality' will remain a bogus issue to me.

Exactly.

Drake gets a C- because there are 269 Men and 167 females participating. But if you look at the number of scholarships given, it is even (take out the 100 men in football)

Also Female participation has grown by 61 while men is down by 10.

Finally, are their numbers correct? Looking at the US Department of Education's web site for Equity participation http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDetail.asp. it says that there are 258 men and 188 women participants.

Wonder where they got their numbers

[Mountaineer#96]

No, the PURPOSE is to increase women's sports, not the effect

However, if you read the "More Information..."


For the 10-year/738 NCAA institutions sample, male participation grew by around 7,000 athletes between 1995-96 and 2004-05, an average of almost 10 athletes per institution.
For the complete four-year/1,895 institutions sample, male participation grew by almost 10,000 athletes between 2001-02 and 2004-05, an average of slightly over five athletes per institution.
For the 10-year/738 NCAA institutions sample, only tennis (-678) and wrestling (-488) experienced declines of more than 80 athletes between 1995-96 and 2004-05. In contrast, four men sports grew by much larger amounts: football grew by more than 4,000 participants while baseball (+1,561), lacrosse (+1,091) and soccer (+758) also rose sharply.
For some of the growing men’s sports (especially football), the participation increases were primarily due to growth in the average roster size. For schools whining about Title IX, why is this necessary? As a result, the total number of men’s teams essentially remained the same over the period of study.5. The only subset of higher education institutions that experienced declines in men’s participation levels was NCAA Division I-A schools

With a business attitude towards sports that exists everywhere, the animosity grows from putting money into a sports program that returns none. For the most part womens sports programs do not return any money to the overall athletic programs that support them. Yes there are mens programs that return none as well, and there are womens programs that break even or return money too. There will always be exceptions.

If you examine ASU : the men's money sports are Football, and Basketball. The womens sports have nothing even close. The womens basketball program might break even on a good year. All the rest such as Softball, Field Hockey etc. only take money. There isn't even admission fees to watch these events. Lack of interest in a business sense should mean these sports should be cut, so that profitable ventures could benefit.

Given these circumstances schools like Citadel and Western Carolina who have struggled on the football field are pressed into playing games against two quality FBS programs a year. All this is done for $$$, and a lot will be turned over to programs that weren't even playing for it. Not to mention two likely losses on the schedule. That is where a great deal of this angst against Title IX comes from.

[DetroitFlyer]

"A"! I cannot even begin to tell you how relieved I am that we did so well!:D

[Ronbo]

There are some excellent revenue sports that Universities like Montana can't entertain because of Title IX. Wouldn't we all love to add a Division I Hockey program that brings in tons of cash? North Dakota, Minnesota, and probably many Eastern schools bring in $4-5 million from Hockey. At Montana we only have it as a Club sport and we can't even begin to hope it could be a real revenue producing sport because of scholarships.

[Mountaineer#96]

Hockey is a great sport, and you would think you guys being that close to Canada it would be on campus.

[ASU_Chad]

This is bull****, basically if you have a higher percentage of female students and also a football team, which has a high number of male participants you get a bad grade because you have more males participating in sports and more female students.

Seems the goal for this organization is just to increase the amount of fake women's sports it can like bowling and equestrian.

I'll go on record as saying I love the fact that my school is 60 something % female! But don't think it's something we should be punished for. In fact these ho's should be penalizing schools with less than 50% females for not being female friendly environments.

Political correctness run amuk once again.

I guess why there's no surprise the Citadel got an A.

[UAalum72]

And note, they do acknowledge that FBS schools have experienced overall declines, which again proves my point.

But FCS schools have not. And of the I-AA that dropped football in the last five years, most have been non-scholarship MAAC schools, while the NEC has added scholarships, and UCA, FIU, and FAU have moved into or passed thru I-AA.

[Ronbo]

Hockey is a great sport, and you would think you guys being that close to Canada it would be on campus.

Hockey is as a Club sport at Montana, no schollies. Also we have the 2007 National Men's "B" LaCross Champions. Also no schollie. If we added those Men's sports we'd need to add 4 more Women's to offset them.

[UncleSam]

The faulty Title IX assumption that the females always desire to participate in sports in the same percentages as males, as led to the creation of new scholarship sports in areas that have previously been of little or no interest to the school's female population. Sports such as Crew and Equestrian, are now offered at some schools in attempt to create an interest, rather than satisfy one. Meanwhile many male sports programs were there has always been traditional interest, like Wrestling and Swimming are now routinely discarded in the interest of alleged 'gender equality'. xnutsx

[WUTNDITWAA]

East Tennessee State is just a B+ after cutting its football program. Heck, I figure that this group would give ET an A+++++ and make it the poster child for all to follow, just for the effort. These "ladies" play hard ball. xrolleyesx

[AndrewFU21]

Eh, we got a D-, but anyone would tell you that women's athletics are supported very well at FU. Hell, we won the Germann Cup (http://www.soconsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4000&ATCLID=682763), which goes to the top women's athletics program in the SoCon, every year from 1993 to 2004.

It seems like the report is based way too much on a school's female population, so any school with a lot of women is automatically going to have a harder time making the grade.

[travelinman67]

And yet they still claim that the ONLY effect of Title IX is to increase women's sports...xrolleyesx


While I support a good portion of Title IX, because without it, most schools would not have come even close to adding the number of sports they have, this report card is bogus, because it just looks at numbers, not desires of the female student body.

Another issue overlooked is WHY the majority of schools have such high female populations. What is happening to our men that they don't go to college anymore??? Maybe the focus should be on raising the MALE enrollment (maybe by adding some more male sports to get guys that normally wouldn't go to college????)

Dang, dback! You and I agree 100% on something. You took the words right out of my mouth. The numbers are pure crap. More interesting was why some conferences had notably "lower" grades overall...

How in the heck can they compare the "percentages" of an area like Eastern Kentucky with schools in New England. Values, family/life plans, work ethics/traditions are so drastically different throughout the country, this "report card" is totally worthless. dback's right. They should be looking at why more women attend college than men.

In fact...

Maybe NCAA should look into providing GREATER BENEFITS to male student athletes than to women to attract more male students!!!!!!xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx

(Duck, boys! Incoming...)

[travelinman67]

Eh, we got a D-, but anyone would tell you that women's athletics are supported very well at FU. Hell, we won the Germann Cup (http://www.soconsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4000&ATCLID=682763), which goes to the top women's athletics program in the SoCon, every year from 1993 to 2004.

It seems like the report is based way too much on a school's female population, so any school with a lot of women is automatically going to have a harder time making the grade.

Nice. You got the words "women's", "D", "cup" and "supported" in the first two sentences and nobody noticed. xwhistlex xwhistlex

[JohnStOnge]

Until they exempt football from Title IX mandates (as there is no female equivalency) 'gender equality' will remain a bogus issue to me.


It's a bogus thing anyway. It's supposed to be an "equal opportunity" thing but, as always, the target is actually "equal results." I've written it before but now's a good time to write it again:

Equal opportunity would be eliminating the distinction between mens and womens athletics then allowing members of both sexes to compete for positions. Of course such equal opportunity would result in few if any females getting athletic scholarships (maybe in gymnastics or something).

The idea that a certain percent of the student body being female means a certain percent of athletic scholarships should go to females is like the idea that the fact that a certain percentage of the student body is in wheelchairs means a certain percentage of athletic scholarships has to go to people in wheelchairs.

Women are not, on average, as athletic as men. That's just the way it is. The very establishment of separate athletic competitions for the two groups is actually recognition of that. It is not "unfair" that men have proportionately more athletic scholarships. Way more.

This whole thing is just one more example of the ridiculous egalitarianism that afflicts this culture.

[JohnStOnge]

Has Title IX fulfilled it's purpose? .

That depends to some extent on if you look at the stated purpose or the real purpose. The stated purpose is equal opportunity. It hasn't done that. What it's done is give a woman of a given ability level far more opportunity than a man of the same ability level has. For example: A male 100 meters sprinter with a best time of 10.7 coming out of high school will not have the scholarship opportunitites that a woman 100 meters sprinter with the same best time coming out of high school will.

It's not equal opportunity at all now. Women can get athletic scholarships over men who have objectively superior ability.

But if you talk about the real objective, equal results, there has been movement in that direction. Not there yet, but working on it.

[TexasTerror]

Noticed for the SLC reports...the non-FB schools had better 'grades' than that of the football ones...

Texas San Antonio: A-
Lamar University: B+
Texas Arlington: B-
Texas A&M-Corpus Christi: C+
Texas State San Marcos: D+
Nicholls State: D
Sam Houston: D
SE Louisiana: D-
Stephen F Austin: D-
Central Arkansas: F
McNeese State: F
Northwestern State: F

[patssle]

fiancial reports are in too:

women's sports: losing money

[TexasTerror]

fiancial reports are in too:

women's sports: losing money

So are mens' sports...xrulesx

[MplsBison]

Until they exempt football from Title IX mandates (as there is no female equivalency) 'gender equality' will remain a bogus issue to me.

xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx

xbowx xbowx xbowx xbowx xbowx xbowx xbowx xbowx xbowx

[MplsBison]

Finally, are their numbers correct? Looking at the US Department of Education's web site for Equity participation http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDetail.asp. it says that there are 258 men and 188 women participants.

Wonder where they got their numbers

It may have something to do with how they count cross country and track members.

[MplsBison]

I guess if we went to 2 Men's sports and 12 Women's sports they would be happy and give us an A.


The whole "lets get participation up" movement is a running gag reel.


Utter steaming, slimy crock of manure.

[dbackjon]

But FCS schools have not. And of the I-AA that dropped football in the last five years, most have been non-scholarship MAAC schools, while the NEC has added scholarships, and UCA, FIU, and FAU have moved into or passed thru I-AA.

How much of that is due to move ups?

I want to see the equivalent of same-store growth calculations - i.e. what was the affect on schools that were full-schollie FCS programs 10 years ago.

[Golden Eagle]

Not only did Tennessee Tech make an A (shame on the rest of the OVC), we were singled out as one of four D-I schools to recieve the "Opportunity Award" honor from the Women's Sports Foundation. The others were Washington State, Purdue, and Buffalo.

http://www.ttusports.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2655&Itemid=1

[ngineer]

Patriot League:

Bucknell: A
Lehigh: A
Lafayette: A-
Holy Cross: B+
Colgate: B-
Georgetown: C
Fordham: D-

AND TAKE NOTE THAT BUCKNELL AND LEHIGH HAVE WRESTLING TEAMS!

[Maroon&White]

I sure hope none of you are running athletic departments. They'd certainly be in terrible condition.

[TheCatamount]

These ratings are a joke, I give them no credit

[SeattleGriz]

I don't know how they calculate this and what they use to base this on. I know that all MEAC have a majority female population and that Hampton specifically has more female atheletes on scholarship than male.

Yeah right! I see how it is now...HATER!

Sorry man, couldn't resist. I am SO teasing. I don' know what make up the criteria either!

[97Torero]

Hard to agree with the results. At USD, 50% of the athletes are female (208 male to 205 female). The extra womens sports offset football and in San Diego, crew is a popular sport for the girls. However, USD still gets a c+ because 61% of the student body is female. Trust me, from my experiences at USD, its a small percentage of women at USD that want to take part in athletics.

[I Bleed Purple]

The faulty Title IX assumption that the females always desire to participate in sports in the same percentages as males, as led to the creation of new scholarship sports in areas that have previously been of little or no interest to the school's female population. Sports such as Crew and Equestrian, are now offered at some schools in attempt to create an interest, rather than satisfy one. Meanwhile many male sports programs were there has always been traditional interest, like Wrestling and Swimming are now routinely discarded in the interest of alleged 'gender equality'. xnutsx

This is quoted so that it can be reread.

Weber State won a club sports championship in baseball a couple years back. Be nice to have an actual program. Ogden does have an awesome baseball field that can be used.

[UAalum72]

Mentioning Equestrian is bogus, a red herring. There are only 14 Division I horse programs.

On the other hand, 11,000 women play in 347 college rugby clubs. That could be a balance for football. And they don't need any sissy helmets or shoulder pads.

[appfan2008]

app state got a b... thats cool

[OL FU]

Eh, we got a D-, but anyone would tell you that women's athletics are supported very well at FU. Hell, we won the Germann Cup (http://www.soconsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4000&ATCLID=682763), which goes to the top women's athletics program in the SoCon, every year from 1993 to 2004.

It seems like the report is based way too much on a school's female population, so any school with a lot of women is automatically going to have a harder time making the grade.

That is a good point. I realized the report is not based on success, but I was confused since our women's teams typically fared better than our men's teams. xnodx except obviously where there is no comparison - football

[MplsBison]

On the other hand, 11,000 women play in 347 college rugby clubs. That could be a balance for football. And they don't need any sissy helmets or shoulder pads.

Still wouldn't even be close.



The only thing that's ever going to match football for women is women's football.


Maybe one day?

[dgreco]

I dont know though. if you look at the teams with A's specifically my school, because I checked it out. Bryant we got an A-, and we have 11 mens sports and 11 womens sports including football. So there is a way to get the A and still have football.

[dbackjon]

On the other hand, 11,000 women play in 347 college rugby clubs. That could be a balance for football. And they don't need any sissy helmets or shoulder pads.


Now if the NCAA would just recognize Rugby as a sport...


They should recognize Dance and Cheer as sports as well, and hold competitions in it. Most schools already spend a lot of money on those sports.

[Maverick]

Actually the only sport that can come close to having 80-90 women on a squad would be rowing. With the multiple boats of four and eight (would help if they added sculling (one person two oars) currently only sweep (one person, one oar) has NCAA status) configurations as well as varsity and novice levels it has proven to be the only recent adddition that has the potential. Of course that little problem of having a river or lake nearby that is large enough to accomodate meets (the course is 2000 meters but you need a larger/longer area for staging and practice). It does have some start-up costs in providing rowing machines for dry land training as well some schools have tanks of water that they use. A boathouse (or storage area for the boats near the water) that could possibly double as a training area/lockerroom adds to the cost. The cost to benefit ratio is pretty high when the impact on Title IX is considered. Another interesting fact is that recruiting costs are not too high as a lot of schools can see other rowers at the same meets and also recruit women who have never rowed to the novice team by recruiting incoming students. The biggest drawback is that it is one of the hardest and physically demanding sports in terms of training with early morning workouts on the water and long hard workouts on the rowing machines. The attrition rate on the novice teams is pretty high.

[already123]

Title-IX blows in my opinion...I think way too much emphasis has been put on this whole issue. NAU doesn't even have a baseball team anymore because of it! at NAU there are 9 female sports compared to 5 mens...unfair

[dgreco]

Title-IX blows in my opinion...I think way too much emphasis has been put on this whole issue. NAU doesn't even have a baseball team anymore because of it! at NAU there are 9 female sports compared to 5 mens...unfair

that is also mismanagement of the schools funds also. Title IX isnt made to opress a group, it is made to form equity between groups. Many school compete with equal number of men's and women's sports and don't have those isssues. You also have to understand it is easier to get rid of mens non-revenue sport baseball, to keep an athletics program. Would you rather have no sports or only club level?

[ronpayne]

Now if the NCAA would just recognize Rugby as a sport...


They should recognize Dance and Cheer as sports as well, and hold competitions in it. Most schools already spend a lot of money on those sports.

As a member of the band, I think that cheerleaders and dance teams are as much athletic as the other sports, and should be counted. That would even out "numbers" as far as title IX is concerned. I'm glad AppState got a B, but I don't put any stock in any one group's "report card". Every group has their own agenda, and while they each have (presumably) good intentions, they still have their own agenda.

Blah blah blah - dance and cheer are athletic. Count them as student athletes. And while you are at it, they should get university funding (if they don't already). Yay band!

[already123]

that is also mismanagement of the schools funds also. Title IX isnt made to opress a group, it is made to form equity between groups. Many school compete with equal number of men's and women's sports and don't have those isssues. You also have to understand it is easier to get rid of mens non-revenue sport baseball, to keep an athletics program. Would you rather have no sports or only club level?


Yea, I understand what you mean but its still BULL to me. After they cut baseball the picked up womens golf and tennis. Wanna talk about non-revenue?!xnonono2x

[youwouldno]

I see nothing about the methodology for the grades. And all that assumes 'gender equity' is a necessary goal, which personally I disagree with. It's not the fault of universities that men's sports are more popular.

[UncleSam]

Mentioning Equestrian is bogus, a red herring. There are only 14 Division I horse programs.

On the other hand, 11,000 women play in 347 college rugby clubs. That could be a balance for football. And they don't need any sissy helmets or shoulder pads.


Then that's 14 too many.