Title IX

[Unregistered]

A thread for those who want to discuss the impact of Title IX on college soccer - or high school soccer for that matter.

I will get things started -- Title IX's adoption in 1973 has been a tremendous boon for girls/women and society as a whole. According to the NHFS survey, the year before Title IX was adopted - nationwide girls participation in high school sports was 294,015. (a girl who played 3 sports would have participated 3 times in a year and been counted 3 times in that 294,015 number). That same year boys participated 3,666,917 times.

In the 13/14 school year boys up to 4,527,994 and girls were at 3,267,364. Still some work to do, but much improved.

The NCAA was not exactly on the cutting edge -- Until 1973 women were actually banned from competing in ncaa sports. It was not until 1981 that the NCAA actually started addressing women's sports. Prior to that the Association of Intercollegiate Athletics for Women actually held championships and governed college sports for women.

[Unregistered]

Bump. Come on morons who want to discuss Title IX. Have at it.

[Unregistered]

A thread for those who want to discuss the impact of Title IX on college soccer - or high school soccer for that matter.

I will get things started -- Title IX's adoption in 1973 has been a tremendous boon for girls/women and society as a whole. According to the NHFS survey, the year before Title IX was adopted - nationwide girls participation in high school sports was 294,015. (a girl who played 3 sports would have participated 3 times in a year and been counted 3 times in that 294,015 number). That same year boys participated 3,666,917 times.

In the 13/14 school year boys up to 4,527,994 and girls were at 3,267,364. Still some work to do, but much improved.

The NCAA was not exactly on the cutting edge -- Until 1973 women were actually banned from competing in ncaa sports. It was not until 1981 that the NCAA actually started addressing women's sports. Prior to that the Association of Intercollegiate Athletics for Women actually held championships and governed college sports for women.

So you think that the huge increase in girls participation in high school sports was all due to Title 9? I would guess that most of that increase was due to changing perceptions about what was acceptable for girls to do. In 1973, it wasn't cool for girls to do sports and now most of the cool girls do play sports.

[Unregistered]

Do you think Title IX was instrumental in changing perceptions or do you think some other combination of factors caused perceptions to change?

Do you think perceptions have changed enough? If so, why do you the rules for girls lacrosse are so different than boys' lacrosse?

[Unregistered]

So you think that the huge increase in girls participation in high school sports was all due to Title 9? I would guess that most of that increase was due to changing perceptions about what was acceptable for girls to do. In 1973, it wasn't cool for girls to do sports and now most of the cool girls do play sports.

In 1971 NFHS survey results for girls high school sports showed the following (nationwide numbers) the numbers after in the format xxxx/xxxx are the numbers from the 2013/14 survey.

Basketball: 4856 schools with 132,299 participants 17,754/433,354
Bowling: 21 schools 370 kids
Cross Country 77 schools 1719 kids 14,267/218,121
Field Hockey 159 schools 4,260 kids
Golf 116 schools 1118 kids
Gymnastics 1006 schools, 17226 kids
Lacrosse 15 schools, 450 kids
Skiing 142 schools 2659
SOCCER 28 schools, 700 kids 11,354/374,564
Softball 373 schools, 9,813 kids 15,225/364,297
Swimming 873 schools, 17229 kids 7,429/165,779
Tennis 2648 schools, 26,010 kids 10,117/184,080
Track 2992 schools, 62,211 kids 16,217/478,885
Volleyball, 1550 schools, 17952 kids 15,672/429,634

With the requirement that schools start giving girls a chance to play sports came the creation of girls' teams and competitions.

[Unregistered]

So you think that the huge increase in girls participation in high school sports was all due to Title 9? I would guess that most of that increase was due to changing perceptions about what was acceptable for girls to do. In 1973, it wasn't cool for girls to do sports and now most of the cool girls do play sports.

My opinion only of course, but Title IX was the biggest factor leading to a change in perception. Younger players had older players to look up to, were given the opportunity to play beyond high school, etc. Of course it's a chicken and the egg thing, and perceptions were changing mightly across the country during 73, but I think we're looking at another 50 years at slow change of perceptions if Title IX didn't force the issue.

[Unregistered]

So you think that the huge increase in girls participation in high school sports was all due to Title 9? I would guess that most of that increase was due to changing perceptions about what was acceptable for girls to do. In 1973, it wasn't cool for girls to do sports and now most of the cool girls do play sports.

Well not popular and not available. I have taught a course on this topic in college, fascinating stuff and a lot more complicated than can be explained here. Your take on it is definitely over simplistic, however I will tell you it is an interesting enough topic that reading about it would not be a boring read.

One thing to remember is that while we think of Title IX as it impacts sports, that sports was not the defining reason for enacting it in the first place. It was due to inequalities in education period and it mandated that any federally funded institution or program provided by a federally funded institution had to provide equal opportunity and equal investment in programs for both genders. The test to see if an institution is meeting the standard is itself fascinating and not focused as much on money as you would think. However, like many federal regulations, it is sometimes harder to administer than intended and many institutions go to dollar for dollar to prove compliance. In doing this is where sometimes the issues or appearance with reverse discrimation come into play.

[Unregistered]

A thread for those who want to discuss the impact of Title IX on college soccer - or high school soccer for that matter.

I will get things started -- Title IX's adoption in 1973 has been a tremendous boon for girls/women and society as a whole. According to the NHFS survey, the year before Title IX was adopted - nationwide girls participation in high school sports was 294,015. (a girl who played 3 sports would have participated 3 times in a year and been counted 3 times in that 294,015 number). That same year boys participated 3,666,917 times.

In the 13/14 school year boys up to 4,527,994 and girls were at 3,267,364. Still some work to do, but much improved.

The NCAA was not exactly on the cutting edge -- Until 1973 women were actually banned from competing in ncaa sports. It was not until 1981 that the NCAA actually started addressing women's sports. Prior to that the Association of Intercollegiate Athletics for Women actually held championships and governed college sports for women.

What is the point? I would rather go back to trashing girls that play ECNL and complain about the cost of ECNL.

[Unregistered]

Well not popular and not available. I have taught a course on this topic in college, fascinating stuff and a lot more complicated than can be explained here. Your take on it is definitely over simplistic, however I will tell you it is an interesting enough topic that reading about it would not be a boring read.

One thing to remember is that while we think of Title IX as it impacts sports, that sports was not the defining reason for enacting it in the first place. It was due to inequalities in education period and it mandated that any federally funded institution or program provided by a federally funded institution had to provide equal opportunity and equal investment in programs for both genders. The test to see if an institution is meeting the standard is itself fascinating and not focused as much on money as you would think. However, like many federal regulations, it is sometimes harder to administer than intended and many institutions go to dollar for dollar to prove compliance. In doing this is where sometimes the issues or appearance with reverse discrimation come into play.

Thanks for the thoughts. I'd appreciate your insights into the factors that the institutions look to in trying to meet the standard. All the focus seems to be on money. Thanks.

[Unregistered]

To me, what colleges look to in terms of compliance differs from school to school depending on (a) whether or not they operate a football program (b) whether the athletic department generates positive operating revenue; (c) the importance placed on compliance by the top administrators at the school; and (d) the overall culture of the school with respect to inclusiveness.

Quick litmus test: For Title IX compliance purposes does the school count the guys who scrimmage the women's basketball team as participants on the women's team? Does the school include women runners on multiple teams even if they do not actively participate, e.g. have the 100m dash specialist on the cross country team.

"Money" is not the issue. Think about it. If a school with a football program had to spend the same amount of money on its women's sports as its men's sports there would never be any complaints. There is more to it, but in general the two biggies are that schools need to be working to (1) equalize participation opportunities (number of male athletes and female athletes) so that they approx. equal their reflective percentages in the student population as a whole, and (2) providing the same types and level of benefits to women athletes as male athletes.

If a school is not running a football program the compliance with the first factor -- equalizing participation opportunities relative to the student body as a whole; is fairly simple. Add in football with anywhere from 80 to 100 guys on the roster and now you get a problem as there is no equivalent female sport that pulls those numbers. A school then has a choice: Add women's sports. Drop men's sports or do some combination. Given that most school administrators like to save money, dropping men's sports rather than adding women's sports is a "win - win".

As for providing the same type/level of benefits that is where the scholarship issue comes into play. Lets be honest here though -- while scholarships provide a real benefit to the recipients, the operating "cost" to the big schools is a small fraction of the value. Adding one more or 200 more students to a student population of 20,000 - 40,000 is not going to through their expenses out of whack. The operating costs of running a soccer team are really:

1. Coaching salaries and benefits
2. Travel costs - meals, hotels, transportation
3. Direct costs for medical treatments and insurance
4. A % of shared athletic administration
5. A % of shared training and medical staff
6. A % of shared general athlete specific facilities (weight rooms, pool etc. . )
7. A % of shared athlete support staffing (tutors, study room staffing, etc. . )
8. Food costs, books, 3rd party fees paid by the school for kids on scholarships.
9. A % of field maintenance and operating costs.

Not insignificant by any means, but having 15 more girls setting in Calc 100 with 500 other freshmen is not going to tip over the financial scales for the school.

The type of benefits also pertains to facilities. Ever see the inside of a major basketball school's men's locker room? Now you have an issue as the girls should get the same treatment. Its easier with sports that share facilities like swimming/diving. Even still there are continuing issues that regularly crop up often with hotel/travel, field maintenance, access to training staff, number of asst. coaches and the like. It is a bit strange when you consider that Title IX has been around now for over 40 years.

[Unregistered]

To me, what colleges look to in terms of compliance differs from school to school depending on (a) whether or not they operate a football program (b) whether the athletic department generates positive operating revenue; (c) the importance placed on compliance by the top administrators at the school; and (d) the overall culture of the school with respect to inclusiveness.

Quick litmus test: For Title IX compliance purposes does the school count the guys who scrimmage the women's basketball team as participants on the women's team? Does the school include women runners on multiple teams even if they do not actively participate, e.g. have the 100m dash specialist on the cross country team.

"Money" is not the issue. Think about it. If a school with a football program had to spend the same amount of money on its women's sports as its men's sports there would never be any complaints. There is more to it, but in general the two biggies are that schools need to be working to (1) equalize participation opportunities (number of male athletes and female athletes) so that they approx. equal their reflective percentages in the student population as a whole, and (2) providing the same types and level of benefits to women athletes as male athletes.

If a school is not running a football program the compliance with the first factor -- equalizing participation opportunities relative to the student body as a whole; is fairly simple. Add in football with anywhere from 80 to 100 guys on the roster and now you get a problem as there is no equivalent female sport that pulls those numbers. A school then has a choice: Add women's sports. Drop men's sports or do some combination. Given that most school administrators like to save money, dropping men's sports rather than adding women's sports is a "win - win".

As for providing the same type/level of benefits that is where the scholarship issue comes into play. Lets be honest here though -- while scholarships provide a real benefit to the recipients, the operating "cost" to the big schools is a small fraction of the value. Adding one more or 200 more students to a student population of 20,000 - 40,000 is not going to through their expenses out of whack. The operating costs of running a soccer team are really:

1. Coaching salaries and benefits
2. Travel costs - meals, hotels, transportation
3. Direct costs for medical treatments and insurance
4. A % of shared athletic administration
5. A % of shared training and medical staff
6. A % of shared general athlete specific facilities (weight rooms, pool etc. . )
7. A % of shared athlete support staffing (tutors, study room staffing, etc. . )
8. Food costs, books, 3rd party fees paid by the school for kids on scholarships.
9. A % of field maintenance and operating costs.

Not insignificant by any means, but having 15 more girls setting in Calc 100 with 500 other freshmen is not going to tip over the financial scales for the school.

The type of benefits also pertains to facilities. Ever see the inside of a major basketball school's men's locker room? Now you have an issue as the girls should get the same treatment. Its easier with sports that share facilities like swimming/diving. Even still there are continuing issues that regularly crop up often with hotel/travel, field maintenance, access to training staff, number of asst. coaches and the like. It is a bit strange when you consider that Title IX has been around now for over 40 years.

Thanks for this. Very informative.