Big_D
Member
Quinnipiac University recently lost a ruling by the Federal Appeals Court as they attempted to count cheerleading as a sport. You see, Quinnipiac is 62% female and as a result, the spending and athletic participation must also be 62% female. Therefore, they need to include cheerleading into the participation for women or else the sport participates would have been less than 62% female and (you probably guessed it) men's sports will have to be cut. Since the ruling, Quinnipiac is cutting mens golf, and mens outdoor track and field.
I am not against title IX 100% but there is no justification for cutting men's sports. Cant they just omit football and maybe men's basketball from title IX? The problem is that there is no female equivalent for football and therefore the minor mens sports (swimming and wrestling) need to get cut. The problem is that (dare I say!) men are more interested in playing sports than women.
Not too long ago Rutgers needed to cut, $175K from one of the mens program to comply with title ix. The institution responded by getting rid of mens tennis team. Just like that, those men are probably out of a scholarship. Did this really help one single woman by have these men missing out on the experience of college sports? Then, the National Womens Law Center responded by stated that Rutgers has spent exactly $175K on hotel rooms for the football team during their home games. Do these people really need to have it explained to them that cutting this expense for the football team is a bad idea?
You see Rutgers obtain a substantial amount of money from football than it does for any other sport, except probably mens basketball. In order to keep up its revenue, it has to provide an elite product on the field and they obviously do this by obtaining the top high school graduates. Now, in order to obtain these athletes, the school has go out of its way in providing extra incentives (i.e. hotel rooms) so they do not go to a competing school. The vast majority of the college sports do not bring in the revenue like football so they do not have the privilege of spending the night at a quiet hotel room before games as oppose to a noisy dorm room.
Something tells me that the National Womens Law Center knows this and just doesnt care.
I am not against title IX 100% but there is no justification for cutting men's sports. Cant they just omit football and maybe men's basketball from title IX? The problem is that there is no female equivalent for football and therefore the minor mens sports (swimming and wrestling) need to get cut. The problem is that (dare I say!) men are more interested in playing sports than women.
Not too long ago Rutgers needed to cut, $175K from one of the mens program to comply with title ix. The institution responded by getting rid of mens tennis team. Just like that, those men are probably out of a scholarship. Did this really help one single woman by have these men missing out on the experience of college sports? Then, the National Womens Law Center responded by stated that Rutgers has spent exactly $175K on hotel rooms for the football team during their home games. Do these people really need to have it explained to them that cutting this expense for the football team is a bad idea?
You see Rutgers obtain a substantial amount of money from football than it does for any other sport, except probably mens basketball. In order to keep up its revenue, it has to provide an elite product on the field and they obviously do this by obtaining the top high school graduates. Now, in order to obtain these athletes, the school has go out of its way in providing extra incentives (i.e. hotel rooms) so they do not go to a competing school. The vast majority of the college sports do not bring in the revenue like football so they do not have the privilege of spending the night at a quiet hotel room before games as oppose to a noisy dorm room.
Something tells me that the National Womens Law Center knows this and just doesnt care.