I understand its supposed to level the p[laying field between mens and womens sports , but how? And at this point it seems like its doing more damage than helping. Break it down for me.
Can someone explain Title 9 to me like Im 5 ?
- Thread starter litedawg1968
- Start date
schools must provide male and female athletes with equal treatment and benefits. So if they pay football players they must pay women's basketball etc equally.
You have a daughter and a son. You have one pack of Reese's cups they want to eat (2 cups). You give each of them one.
Equal number of scholarships for mens and womens sports is the impact of the legislation that you see the most. Size of football and its scholarship base has decimated Olympic mens sports and the reason you have an Equestrian team to try to balance that ledger
Yes and no on your answer, it actually also has to do with the percentage of scholarships offered vs. your student body comp. UGA has always been heavier female > male so that has always led us to need more and more womens sports to complete the formula.
I had no idea this was part of the equation. How interesting this could get with male college attendance, in general, trending downward
But- the Reeses Cups were given to the Dad by the work the son( football ) did. Am I correct?
But we all know that the only sport in college that makes real money is football.
Well not quite. Basically they must be treated equally. Whether that means they all must receive the same “benefits” is up for debate but has been the interpretation by the dept of education.
This will be relevant when revenue sharing kicks in - does equal and fair treatment mean that the women’s equestrian team gets money generated by the men’s football team? Or is that unfair?
Is equal treatment that both sports get to share in __% of the revenue their team generates.
More like it took son and 84 of his friends to produce 200 cups. Dad decides he's taking 100 cups and giving the producers one cup and his daughters that attract no attendees while they chase the dog around in the back yard get one cup as well in the name of fairness. Dad then decides it's not fair to give only 3 daughters a cup so he searches for 82 more young women to chase the dog in order to fairly distribute the cups.
It is not tied to student body composition rather on "participation." Participation in this case means total number of student athletes. The practical application is that men and women have equal scholarships b/c we level the playing opportunities by adding high participation womens sports to balance against football
- Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;
- Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and
Basically it means that university-provided benefits must be distributed equally between men and women based on the percentage of the overall student population.
Hence if you have a 53% female student population, female athletes must get 53% of the benefits. The bulk of benefits are scholarships, and as others have pointed out, its why UGA has an equestrian team (with a ton of scholarships, BTW), and why there is no men's soccer team or gymnastics team. It's also why there are more softball scholarships than baseball scholarships.
It's also why there is a CCC, which is technically not a university-provided benefit. As the line between NIL and pay-for-play becomes more blurred, Title IX potentially becomes more of an issue.
Also Title IX covers a lot more issues in education, that have nothing to do with sports, such as how educational institutions deal with sexual harassment, etc.
Last edited:
Is the reason why if you have a daughter who plays a high school sport (no matter how good or bad), she can typically get a free education somewhere in the USA (may not be here first choice).
Too many scholarships in the lower tier female sports in an attempt to balance out football scholarships.
Really the entire thing is skewed b/c there’s no female sport equal to football in terms of participation/team size.
Too many scholarships in the lower tier female sports in an attempt to balance out football scholarships.
Really the entire thing is skewed b/c there’s no female sport equal to football in terms of participation/team size.
Right. And since the law was written in 1972, it needs to be changed, or just done away with. It appears to be no longer functional in todays college sports.
It’s also had its interpretation expanded multiple times. There are a lot more principles than details and it’s been expanded by interpretation a great deal.
Will be interesting how the new admin interprets the rule. But that's basically what the dept of ed memo said yesterday. One thing for sure is there will be more lawsuits.
no doubt. In the ends the winners are.....................the lawyers
Your son mows the lawn for twenty bucks. When he is done, you give him the money for a job well done. Then your daughter, who was laying on the couch scrolling Instagram while the lawn was being mowed, gets upset she isn't getting $20 too. To stop her from complaining and carrying on, you give her twenty bucks too.
sounds close. more like the boy generated $40 mowing and the daughter went out to eat and spent $10 and then gets back and the dad split the $40 between the two.
Sure, but what "benefits". The football team still receives greater "benefits" as the equestrian team. So that is the grey area.
Revenue sharing will be a key area for debate.
Absolutely agree on the CCC which is why I have been puzzled that the Title IX challenges are being viewed as a threat to traditional NIL as opposed to the revenue sharing (a fight I always saw as inevitable).
The key is university-sourced benefits. Tuition, meals, housing, medical care, etc.
Do football players get more of these than do equestrians? Maybe they do. I don’t know.
It's not supposed to level the playing field, it's part of the Civil Rights Act and is supposed to ensure no discrimination takes place.
It has gotten WAYYYYYY out of hand and needs to be restricted. Example - no one watches women's sports. Therefore they don't have money. If you let their sports programs wither on the vine, or don't create them to start with, that's illegal. Literally. It's the genesis behind private donations. UGA cannot fail to fund women's stuff, but private donors can donate to whatever they want, and that always football, MBB, and a little baseball. No other sports really move the needle, with rare exception.
That is not the correct analogy. I employ my son and daughter. My son can create Widget Xs, and my daughter can't create Widex Xs but can create Widget Ys. We sell them on Saturdays at the local swap shop. We sell widget Xs for $10 each. Widget Ys only get a dime each. On the way home, we stop to get some candy. My son can buy 100 Reeses cups for every one my daughter can buy.
As a father, out of goodwill and my love for her, I can give my money to help my daughter buy more. But, I would be bad father, IMO, to force my son to give his money to his sister. He might do so because he is a good kid, but it would not be a good example to require him to do so.
Do you think it will be done away with and a new law written? How do you see this playing out, if at all?
Not a chance that I know. In the post above where they talk equity v. equality of opportunity is what I hope the settle on. It's basically what Title IX has been since it's inception. And, it's worked well. But giving women's sports 50% of all revenue is absurd on its face.
