Iowa ranks last when it comes to Big Ten sports in 2012-13

[OUTofTOWNHAWK]

There are multiple ways a school can comply with Title IX, including ways that don't require them to have the same number of athletes. If a school meets the proportional demand of the student body (for example, if 42% of girls want the opportunity, then that's all the university has to provide), they comply.

It's not a bad thing to give opportunities to women. And keep in mind that Title IX only applies to institutions that receive funding from the government. Private schools are not bound by Title IX.

Before Title IX, it wasn't like men's non-revenue sports were better off. The money that now goes to women's sports was simply funneled to football and men's basketball. Baseball, swimming, etc. aren't losing money because of women's sports. And in fact, while women's opportunities have risen thanks to Title IX, men's opportunities have gone up since 1972, too. The percentage gap has closed, but the raw numbers show basically the same gap between the number of men and women athletes.

So _____ are entitled to play sports at ______because the fair % is _______not because of ability, money, or interest.


So to be fair we need to let somebody do something because of their sex because we have to have a __%.

__% of _____ have to get this job because we need a __%. Not because they are the most qualified but because we need to be fair to ____sex or _____race. So to be fair you cant have this job because we are full of this race and this sex. I understand you are better than these people at this job but we have to be FAIR.

 

[tm3308]

FIFY. I know you covered sports for the school paper so you care about all the non revenue generating sports, but you are in a very, very small minority of people that care about these sports. Also the comparison of title ix to the civil rights act is the most ignorant thing in this whole thread.

Why because women should just get their ***** back in the kitchen and stfu? People ***** about equal opportunity/affirmative action all the time, just like they do for Title IX. Obviously, women were better off to begin with than African-Americans were, but it still is a policy aimed for the advancement of women's rights, just like the Civil Rights Act did for African-Americans. You can't discriminate on the basis of sex, just like you can't discriminate on the basis of race, at institutions which receive government funding. Private schools can take whoever they want, but public schools have to, and should have to, provide equal opportunities.

Title IX was actually not originally directed at sports, but since collegiate athletics are part of publicly funded universities, it falls under the umbrella. The only reason it became an issue was because schools could no longer shovel all their money into football. Personally, I think that's a good thing.

 

[tm3308]

So _____ are entitled to play sports at ______because the fair % is _______not because of ability, money, or interest.


So to be fair we need to let somebody do something because of their sex because we have to have a __%.

__% of _____ have to get this job because we need a __%. Not because they are the most qualified but because we need to be fair to ____sex or _____race. So to be fair you cant have this job because we are full of this race and this sex. I understand you are better than these people at this job but we have to be FAIR.

We aren't talking about people competing for the same job here. We've got people suggesting we should just cut women's sports so that we can keep all the men's programs. Nevermind the fact that nobody gives a **** about men's sports outside of football and basketball (at most schools), and pretty much every program outside of those two loses money across the country. If and when a men's program gets cut in the name of Title IX, it's simply trading a program that "nobody" cares about for another program that "nobody" cares about. So what's the big deal?

Football carries the water for everything, everywhere. Title IX didn't make that a reality. It's been that way since long before 1972.

 

[OUTofTOWNHAWK]

We aren't talking about people competing for the same job here. We've got people suggesting we should just cut women's sports so that we can keep all the men's programs. Nevermind the fact that nobody gives a **** about men's sports outside of football and basketball (at most schools), and pretty much every program outside of those two loses money across the country. If and when a men's program gets cut in the name of Title IX, it's simply trading a program that "nobody" cares about for another program that "nobody" cares about. So what's the big deal?

Football carries the water for everything, everywhere. Title IX didn't make that a reality. It's been that way since long before 1972.

I understand why it must be done. However the logic of it is screwed up when you think about it. I relate it to the work force because that is what college is getting you ready for. Colleges are like big co. they get controlled the same way.

Its funny to me that to NOT be sexist we have to be sexist. Same thing with race. Dont judge a man by the color of his skin.....unless the gov is going to give you a grant for it.

 

[tm3308]

I understand why it must be done. However the logic of it is screwed up when you think about it. I relate it to the work force because that is what college is getting you ready for. Colleges are like big co. they get controlled the same way.

Its funny to me that to NOT be sexist we have to be sexist. Same thing with race. Dont judge a man by the color of his skin.....unless the gov is going to give you a grant for it.

Trying to achieve equality in our society is only a sexist practice if you believe that women are inherently inferior to men, and therefore Title IX forces men to stoop down to accomodate women.

 

[OUTofTOWNHAWK]

Trying to achieve equality in our society is only a sexist practice if you believe that women are inherently inferior to men, and therefore Title IX forces men to stoop down to accomodate women.

See you are growing up in a world where everything has to be equal....even if you didnt earn it you deserve it.

Dont judge people on their race or gender....unless you are doing it for a good cause.

When you give somebody something or move them to the front of the line because of their race or gender you are doing the opposite to somebody else. So you didnt gain anything.

 

[tm3308]

By my count, there are 277 spots for female student-athletes at Iowa. 47 of those are on the rowing team, which I'm not even sure offers scholarships (they send out mass emails to every freshman girl each year looking for people to try out). And 22 of them are double-dippers (Track/Cross Country). So there are actually 255 athletes.

Men's programs have 348 opportunities, 125 of which are football. There are 17 athletes who compete for both the cross country and track teams. So there are 331 male athletes on the Iowa campus.

I don't know what the numbers are in terms of funding, but I'm willing to bet that the spending is heavily skewed in favor of men's sports, despite the number of athletes being roughly 57/43 in favor of the men. And I don't think that's a huge deal. These teams all either have great facilities, or will get them in the upcoming sports park plans that Barta is working on (baseball, softball, and track). Except for gymnastics, which practices in the wildly outdated Field House practice room (though they compete in Carver).

Honestly, other than paying for Ferentz's buyout, what would the extra money that would come from cutting all those sports do for football, basketball, or wrestling? Those programs already have pretty much everything they want, or will have it in the very near future (completion of football facilities).

 

[tm3308]

See you are growing up in a world where everything has to be equal....even if you didnt earn it you deserve it.

Dont judge people on their race or gender....unless you are doing it for a good cause.

When you give somebody something or move them to the front of the line because of their race or gender you are doing the opposite to somebody else. So you didnt gain anything.

And for the record, affirmative action doesn't apply unless you/your company:

1. have entered into at least one single government contract for $50,000 or more in any 12-month period; or

2. have government bills of lading which in any 12-month period total, or can reasonably be expected to total, $50,000 or more; or

3. serve as a depository of Government funds in any amount; or

4. are a financial institution which is an issuing and payment agent for United States savings bonds and savings notes in any amount.

The government doesn't impose this measure on the entire population. Just the ones with stronger ties to the government than your basic taxes, etc. It's no different than why we don't recognize a national religion.

 

[OUTofTOWNHAWK]

Okay I give up.........but 40% of all threads and posts on this site must be about female sports. Dont be sexist TM. Also 10% was be about Asian topics. If you dont do this the site will be shut down and you look down upon females and asian.

 

[OUTofTOWNHAWK]

And for the record, affirmative action doesn't apply unless you/your company:

1. have entered into at least one single government contract for $50,000 or more in any 12-month period; or

2. have government bills of lading which in any 12-month period total, or can reasonably be expected to total, $50,000 or more; or

3. serve as a depository of Government funds in any amount; or

4. are a financial institution which is an issuing and payment agent for United States savings bonds and savings notes in any amount.

The government doesn't impose this measure on the entire population. Just the ones with stronger ties to the government than your basic taxes, etc. It's no different than why we don't recognize a national religion.

Get your real estate license and then get back to me on what the gov can and cant do about race, sex, religion, and sexual orientation. They would bend me over backwords for thinking bad about anyone else but they still want to know if a female, vet or race other than white owns my co. If they cant do anything about that and it does not dictate how much work I get then why do they ask?

 

[tm3308]

Get your real estate license and then get back to me on what the gov can and cant do about race, sex, religion, and sexual orientation. They would bend me over backwords for thinking bad about anyone else but they still want to know if a female, vet or race other than white owns my co. If they cant do anything about that and it does not dictate how much work I get then why do they ask?

Sexual harassment is a totally separate issue from affirmative action. And in order for any sort of affirmative action to be remotely effective, I'm sure they want statistics. Hell, if they didn't try to find that kind of info out, the minority could be in control of everything and nobody would know.

 

[OUTofTOWNHAWK]

Sexual harassment is a totally separate issue from affirmative action. And in order for any sort of affirmative action to be remotely effective, I'm sure they want statistics. Hell, if they didn't try to find that kind of info out, the minority could be in control of everything and nobody would know.

Sorry Tm you dont understand this. As for being an agent I can not have race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation come into ANY part of my work or they would put me on the news, take everything away from me, fine me, sue me and whatever else they could think of.

However if I want to sign up to do different government work they want to know not my race and gender but if my co is owned by

Female
African American
Native American
Vet owned

They arent keeping track of all races but the sub companies that this work goes through get money for having these groups filled. So if I mark one of those boxes I get work....if I dont I may get work.

I dont mark these boxes just so you know, but I have read online of agents that lie because of how wrong this is and they say it works everytime.

 

[ColoradoHAWKEYE]

Tork, you are beyond your years. Hack33, your trolling don't work on the smarter %, also i'm guessing you don't have kids yet and live in the confines of the whitebread midwest (iowa). A little culture and diversity hurts no one. Ooth, I hear your frustrations...what doesn't kill us, just makes us stronger.

 

[OUTofTOWNHAWK]

Tork, you are beyond your years. Hack33, your trolling don't work on the smarter %, also i'm guessing you don't have kids yet and live in the confines of the whitebread midwest (iowa). A little culture and diversity hurts no one. Ooth, I hear your frustrations...what doesn't kill us, just makes us stronger.

Thanks. TM and I want the same things we just dissagree how you get there. I want things to be equal but when the gov saids hey Ill make this equal... they are not. In fact they are doing what they are telling the public they cant do.

 

[tm3308]

Thanks. TM and I want the same things we just dissagree how you get there. I want things to be equal but when the gov saids hey Ill make this equal... they are not. In fact they are doing what they are telling the public they cant do.

I fully agree that the government imposing it isn't the ideal way to do it. But often times when it comes to stuff like this, it's the only way any sort of progress gets made. That says more about all of us than anything else.

 

[kmurp]

This has morphed into a political thread on affirmative action on a football board. The thread should be deleted IMO because it has nothing to do with Iowa football.

 

[Section136]

If we're going to use that logic, just cut everything at Iowa except for football, men's basketball, and wrestling. I would almost be willing to guarantee that those are the only sports on campus that make any money at all.

Everybody loves to point out how no one cares about women's sports, and all they do is lose money. At Iowa, almost none of the programs bring in profits. Maybe women's sports lose more, but I'm skeptical about that, too. Most of the men's programs are every bit as guilty of not pulling their weight.

Once again, where did I say anything about eliminating any sports at Iowa?

I just dont think women's sports deserve 35% of the AD budget when they are probably responsible for bringing in about 1/10 of that number in revenue. 3.5% may be a generous guess for revenue generated by women's sports.

 

[tm3308]

This has morphed into a political thread on affirmative action on a football board. The thread should be deleted IMO because it has nothing to do with Iowa football.

Honestly, it didn't belong in the football forum even when it was on topic.

 

[OUTofTOWNHAWK]

This has morphed into a political thread on affirmative action on a football board. The thread should be deleted IMO because it has nothing to do with Iowa football.

Dang it I was trying not to turn this into a KF thing and I went and made it about the gov.

 

[HawkPhreek]

The fact that there has to be a rule to have equal men and women sports already tells you it's not really equal. Not saying women's athletics isn't important but it's not important as men sports. There should be a rule saying that there has to be "x" nnumber of women sports. Otherwise some universities wouldn't offer very many do to finicial reasons, but equal isn't the correct answer IMO