Why do the parents of girls care so much?

[Unregistered]

I find this issue unreadable and unlistenable. I'm going to spray my phone with DDT as being infected.

[Unregistered]

Of course it is an opinion. And I would contend if you hold the opinion that you say you hold then you would be unable to watch pretty much any soccer men or women's in the U.S. and would be unable to watch youth soccer at all.

The relative increase in pricing in all youth sports has more to do with the societal/parental expectations for our kids than Title IX. Kids specialize far too young and play their core sports all year round. People pay to get any perceived advantage for something that really should just be a pastime. I am fairly sure that Title IX doesn't explain why all the Hockey kids in my town are held back by their parents and start kindergarten at 6 rather than 5. There has been a tonne written about the rising costs of all youth sports lately and really none of it attributes blame to Title IX.

As a matter of fact, I prefer watching , and even more so , being involved in youth soccer than any other level. I don't watch MLS , DIV 1 men or women anymore. I will watch men's soccer from some European and So American leagues.

Your opinion of what children play and why they play Youth soccer , and why their families participate is a bit misguided. The vast majority of children who play in America play at the Recreation level. The extreme and fringe areas are those driven by the soccer Moms and Dads caught up by the pressure of changes in society, and the dreams of a pot of gold for some.

I didn't blame Title iX as anything but a contributor to the rising cost of sports participation along with many other factors. It is a form of social engineering. At the College level, soccer doesn't bring any significant revenue into the schools, and it has contributed to the rising cost of higher education.

[Unregistered]

Title IX and other college issues aside, what makes some of the parents of girls so insane? I have two girls and two boys, different clubs over the years, so I've seen all kinds of good and bad parental behavior. 2/3's of the bad (maybe even more) is on the girls side. And I'm not just talking about the parent who runs up and down the sideline with their kids shouting out advice the entire game. We're talking truly bad behavior to refs, criticizing teammates and coaches, behaving badly even with their own daughters. What's up with that?

[Unregistered]

The relative increase in pricing in all youth sports has more to with the societal/parental expectations for our kids than Title IX. Kids specialize far too young and play their core sports all year round. People pay to get any perceived advantage for something that really should just be a pastime. I am fairly sure that Title IX doesn't explain why all the Hockey kids in my town are held back by their parents and start kindergarten at 6 rather than 5. There has been a tonne written about the rising costs of all youth sports lately and really none of it attributes blame tit on the girls side of sports, but it certainly does nit explain Title IX.

I agree with you. We see a gender difference here because this is a soccer web site, and there is a distinct difference in how the highest levels of youth soccer are perceived depending on gender (meaning those males who want to eventually pursue a soccer career will actually NOT consider going to college and thus their parents are unlikely to even be on these forums). Obviously, not so for females. But what you may see on the girls side in soccer, is not unlike what you will see in other youth sports where males dominate, such as baseball and football. What you see has happened to ALL youth sports relates to cultural changes in society. Title IX maybe part of it on the girls side of sports, but it does not explain what is happening on the boys side. It does explain in general terms, not sport specific, why parents of female athletes are just as crazy as parents of male athletes.

[forcepush71]

Your opinion of what children play and why they play Youth soccer , and why their families participate is a bit misguided. The vast majority of children who play in America play at the Recreation level. The extreme and fringe areas are those driven by the soccer Moms and Dads caught up by the pressure of changes in society, and the dreams of a pot of gold for some.

I didn't blame Title iX as anything but a contributor to the rising cost of sports participation along with many other factors. It is a form of social engineering. At the College level, soccer doesn't bring any significant revenue into the schools, and it has contributed to the rising cost of higher education.

Virtually no sport brings in any revenue to colleges. This includes most Division 1 Football programs. And to say that Soccer has contributed in any significant way to increasing college tuition costs is really off base. And all youth sport is recreational in this country. Some is more competitive of course but still recreational. The average cost of youth sports have increased across the board even for non competitive sport programs. Many casual players are supplementing in season training with sports camps and clinics, this of course comes at a cost. This is particularly a problem in urban and rural communities which have seen a dramatic drop in sports participation particularly for team sports.

[Unregistered]

Women's sports are an acquired taste.

An oxymoron if there ever was one

[Unregistered]

Virtually no sport brings in any revenue to colleges. This includes most Division 1 Football programs. And to say that Soccer has contributed in any significant way to increasing college tuition costs is really off base. And all youth sport is recreational in this country. Some is more competitive of course but still recreational. The average cost of youth sports have increased across the board even for non competitive sport programs. This is particularly a problem in urban and rural communities which have seen a dramatic drop in sports participation particularly for team sports.

Soccer for girls and women in America was virtually dead in the water until the US WNT won the World Cup. Een witjh Title iX around for decades. From that, there was an over 40 % increase in soccer teams at the College level. Are you saying that the addition of that number of athletes did not contribute to the higher cost of higher education for the schools that added it on ?

All youth sports are recreational of course, but the terrian changes drastically when parental involvement is ramped up, and the benefits of the endeavor are more serving of the adults and businesses in the Industry. The seasonal soccer player child is not what the market is after. The urban and rural communities , and the lower socio-economic strata are not even on the radar . That's because there isn't any $$$ to be made, and less parental egos to feed. No $$$ to be made, measn less investment . Youth soccer has changed from a Community based ( except for High school ) activity to a mosaic of choice mostly geared to the opportunity to increase revenue.

[Unregistered]

Virtually no sport brings in any revenue to colleges. This includes most Division 1 Football programs. And to say that Soccer has contributed in any significant way to increasing college tuition costs is really off base. And all youth sport is recreational in this country. Some is more competitive of course but still recreational. The average cost of youth sports have increased across the board even for non competitive sport programs. Many casual players are supplementing in season training with sports camps and clinics, this of course comes at a cost. This is particularly a problem in urban and rural communities which have seen a dramatic drop in sports participation particularly for team sports.

Football
NCAA Revenue/Expense Division I report," the median net revenue for college football in 2010 was $3.15 million per school. 43% of schools in this division generated negative median net revenue.

Basketball
the "NCAA Revenue/Expense Division I report" states the median net generated revenue for the 2010 men's basketball season was $788,000 per school. Similar to those in football, 44% of schools generated negative net revenue of $975,000.


Bottomline -- over half the school generate money. Add in the intangible advertising $ and the profitability goes up

[forcepush71]

Soccer for girls and women in America was virtually dead in the water until the US WNT won the World Cup. Een witjh Title iX around for decades. From that, there was an over 40 % increase in soccer teams at the College level. Are you saying that the addition of that number of athletes did not contribute to the higher cost of higher education for the schools that added it on ?

Yes I am saying that the 40% increase in Women's soccer participation has had no significant effect on overall tuition increases. There is basically zero discussion in Higher Ed about Women's soccer driving up tuition costs.

Football
NCAA Revenue/Expense Division I report," the median net revenue for college football in 2010 was $3.15 million per school. 43% of schools in this division generated negative median net revenue.

Basketball
the "NCAA Revenue/Expense Division I report" states the median net generated revenue for the 2010 men's basketball season was $788,000 per school. Similar to those in football, 44% of schools generated negative net revenue of $975,000.


Bottomline -- over half the school generate money. Add in the intangible advertising $ and the profitability goes up

Division 1 is divided into FBS and FBC divisions. The data to support your argument only relates to FBS. Once you include FBC less than half of Division 1 schools generate money for Football and Basketball.

[Unregistered]

Yes I am saying that the 40% increase in Women's soccer participation has had no significant effect on overall tuition increases. There is basically zero discussion in Higher Ed about Women's soccer driving up tuition costs.



Division 1 is divided into FBS and FBC divisions. The data to support your argument only relates to FBS. Once you include FBC less than half of Division 1 schools generate money for Football and Basketball.

Of course there isn't any discussion , they would like to keep it under the radar. You don't add teams and programs without an increase in cost. I didn't say it was significant, just a contributor. Colleges are bending over backwards to accept women, and have expanded " women's studies" into many areas bordering on the ridiculous. The soccer industry has taken notice, and responded with leagues like the ECNL.

Many people are questioning the continued rise of the cost of higher education. 36 % of young people between the ages of 25 and 34 are living with their parents, many of them with College Degrees. Contributing factors are College debt and Helicopter parenting. Why do we need so many soccer playing women graduating College , what is the redeeming social value for everyone else, those that are helping pay the freight ? I guess for the 70 % of women that become mothers, they will make knowledgeable soccer moms.

[Unregistered]

Of course there isn't any discussion , they would like to keep it under the radar. You don't add teams and programs without an increase in cost. I didn't say it was significant, just a contributor. Colleges are bending over backwards to accept women, and have expanded " women's studies" into many areas bordering on the ridiculous. The soccer industry has taken notice, and responded with leagues like the ECNL.

Many people are questioning the continued rise of the cost of higher education. 36 % of young people between the ages of 25 and 34 are living with their parents, many of them with College Degrees. Contributing factors are College debt and Helicopter parenting. Why do we need so many soccer playing women graduating College , what is the redeeming social value for everyone else, those that are helping pay the freight ? I guess for the 70 % of women that become mothers, they will make knowledgeable soccer moms.

Wow, colleges are bending over backwards to accept women?

[Unregistered]

Wow, colleges are bending over backwards to accept women?

enrollment rates

1972 Males- 39 %
Females 21.2 %

2012 Males 37.6 %
Females 44.5 %

[Unregistered]

enrollment rates

1972 Males- 39 %
Females 21.2 %

2012 Males 37.6 %
Females 44.5 %

Is it me or should the numbers add up to 100%?

[Unregistered]

Is it me or should the numbers add up to 100%?

It is you.


http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d...t13_302.60.asp

[Unregistered]

enrollment rates

1972 Males- 39 %
Females 21.2 %

2012 Males 37.6 %
Females 44.5 %

These percentages make no sense. Male, Female and what? Household pets?