Worcester Telegram: Title town
Hudson captures D2 title
Worcester Telegram: Dearcangelis integral piece of Hawks’ puzzle
Metrowest News: Hudson 2, North Andover 1: Perfect timing
Boston Globe: DIVISION 2 SOFTBALL STATE FINAL | HUDSON 2, N. ANDOVER 1
Worth the wait for Hudson
After restart, offense comes out swinging
Boston Herald: Better late than never: Hudson finally finds offense to win title
Lawrence Eagle-Tribune: Storybook ending to Hart era not perfect
Congratulations! I got to see them in the championship game this year; missed it last year because of the World Cup.
You wonder, when you read the right-wing fruitcakes like Jessica Gavora attacking Title IX and equal money for girls sports, whether they have ever actually been to a girls high school or college athletic event? I doubt it. How could you say girls aren't as interested in sports when you see a scene like this?
Posts
7 comments:
Jessica Gavora was an athlete, if you'd do any such research rather than drone on with your man-hating, you'd see that her points are well thought out.
Have you read her book? I highly doubt it. So before you challenge Ms. Gavora's attendance at sporting events, which with a little research, rather than venom, you could have proved to be truth, I'd suggest you read opposing viewpoints rather than latch on to "reparationists" like Donna Lopiano.
And of course, deflecting the subject at hand.
Why are there more college bowling teams in some states than there are high school bowling teams? Sounds like fairness to me, right?
Congrats to Hudson on the state title.
And I have been to more fastpitch softball games in one summer than many of the so-called women's sports advocates.
I'm all for fair play, but the perversion of politics has turned this into an ugly situation.
Sincerely,
Someone who sees both sides of the arguement.
I'm proud to stand with Donna Lopiano who was a pioneer in women's sports. While Jessica Gavora was playing high school basketball, Donna Lopiano was fighting for equality for women in sports.
http://www.cwhf.org/hall/lopiano/lopiano.htm
Hate to burst your balloon, but there are MORE male athletes on NCAA teams today than there were in 1995-1996.
NEW YORK — Women's collegiate athletics opportunities grew by almost 26,000 and men's by about 7,000 at 738 NCAA schools between 1995-96 and 2004-05, according to a report released Tuesday by the Women's Sports Foundation.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2007-06-05-titleix_N.htm
Why are there so many college rowing teams for women? To pump up the numbers. Your beef is with the decisions of administrators, not with Title IX. I pay taxes, I expect my tax money to be spent equally. Ooh, radical.
Hate to re-burst yours, but the NCAA counts "new" teams as teams reclassifying from the NAIA, NJCAA and NCCAA as "new" teams, even though they've been exisiting for years.
Something the Title IX folks won't admit.
More opportunites? But LESS teams? That makes sense..
You tell me, what makes more sense, an equestrian team or a women's bowling team?
You assume a published report as "fact" when many Title IX deflectors (those that try to deflect how the law has been grossly perverted in regards to athletics) point to one such survey, when the NCAA doesn't list former NAIA, Juco and other teams that re-classify.
Those are existing opportunities, just like the teams added pre-NCAA (like women's basketball and it's AIWA) were counted as new opportunities, even thought they'd been around for a while.
You'll also notice that study was by the Women's Sports Foundation, which I have absolutely no faith in as being an unbiased entity.
The only place opportunity for men has grown MIGHT be the roundball and pigskin variety.
Women's sports at the Olympic Level are SOARING at the college level - I think that's fantastic.
Men's Olympic Sports are dying, all the while, several -- like wrestling, have ALL-TIME HIGHS in high school participation. Those sports aren't dying, they're being killed at the college level.
Do you think Title IX should be treated as a fairness doctrine, or continue on like D-Lo and such and it be used for reparations from a system that used to laugh and count their money?
With the amount of non-athletics folks running universities these days, you should understand that the "good ol' boy" days are gone and it's all gender QUOTAS. Yes, QUOTAS, that's all proportionality is.
Why should a woman be able to show up to college, get a chance to earn a full scholarship for ROWING when she's never done it before in her life, yet the men's tennis team is having kids take second-and-third jobs to supplement their "15% ride".
It's becoming a caste system that's not fair to the athletes.
Ask nearly any woman that plays Division I sports about how she felt when a men's sport gets dropped. You'll find the answer common -- "I'm all for Title IX, but how does cutting a men's sport give me any more opportunity?"
That's something groups like the WSF don't want to hear and won't acknowldge it -- including D-Lo calling one outspoken woman at James Madision "brainwashed"
Attention women, don't think for yourselves, let the WSF think for you -- that's what they'd like to happen.
No surveys, No sympathy for men's cut programs.
What's fair?
Yo, JB:
The numbers are the NCAA numbers. Take it up with them.
Since you say you're all for fair play, I'm going to assume that you are in favor of giving women the opportunity to play sports. You just think schools should be able to do it without the federal stricture of Title IX. Maybe you really think that all those college administrators who have fought for 35 years to keep from spending the same amount of money on women's sports that they spend on men's sports will be all about equality once they get the feds off their back.
I don't think they will, so I think Title IX must stay law.
Neither of us likes the way college administrators (97+ % male, by the way) are administering Title IX. For every male wrestler or tennis player whose sport is dying on the vine, there is a high school female whose sports is gymnastics or tennis who sees colleges dropping those sports. Those sports are dropped in favor of rowing and lacrosse, sports that pump up the women's numbers quickly. There are also female ice hockey players and wrestlers who have fought to have teams created, but schools prefer less expensive sports with more people on each team.
I think you hit on the nub of the problem with this statement: "The only place opportunity for men has grown MIGHT be the roundball and pigskin variety.
That's where schools are choosing to put their men's opportunities. That's an administration problem, not a Title IX problem.
And if you really think that girls just aren't as interested in sports, we're done here, because that's just silly.
Typical "man-hating, women should be just as bulky and masculine as men" type of thinking I'd expect from someone that fails to see the FLAWS all over the interpretation of Title IX.
WSF wants reparations from the years of shortcomings and turning a blind-eye to lost educational opportunities for men seems "ho hum."
Will you be content when every woman athlete looks like Xena and won't be happy until the eradication of dolls and stuffed animals?
It's the WSF and other women's groups that don't have the CURRENT athlete in mind when making such claims. So they're all supposed to thank Title IX for growing up where REC SPORTS are the first line of athletics -- and guess what, they're not dictated by Title IX.
Women's pro leagues around the world exist without Title IX -- that's called societal change.
My current squeeze was a women's college athlete, I've attended countless women's sporting events (and I wasn't forced) and I'm all for equal play.
How about cutting all things women dominate to make room for more men? This isn't about a history lesson, it's about what's fair now, not what kept D-Lo from being a mediocre whatever.
Unrelated side note: I enjoy your blog for the most part, but ..... now, I'm done.
I notice you don't address any of my points. Don't the college administrators bear any responsibility for their choices? What about all the female gymnasts and tennis players? Where's your sympathy for them?
I guess we'll never know.
:)
First off, let me apologize for my vindictive tone, it's just a cause that I feel strongly about and really hate it when opportunities are lost for no good reason other than their are "too many" of something. I loathe close-minded thinking. I'm all for listening to the opposing viewpoint. Hence, since you asked for my replies, here they go.
I do, however, enjoy the blog, since I've been reading it for a few months now.
Since you say you're all for fair play, I'm going to assume that you are in favor of giving women the opportunity to play sports. You just think schools should be able to do it without the federal stricture of Title IX. Maybe you really think that all those college administrators who have fought for 35 years to keep from spending the same amount of money on women's sports that they spend on men's sports will be all about equality once they get the feds off their back.
No where in any prong of Title IX does it relate to spending, money or any financial figure, other than the wording that "schools receiving federal money" -- Title IX is all about "opportunity." Do I think spending should be more in line? Absolutely, but at what cost.
Is it fair to offer a woman a full scholarship for rowing when she never competed in that sport in high school or even at the recreational level? My alma mater is a powerhouse in women's basketball and the spending between the men's and women's teams is equal -- the men's team has been improving, and for that reason, the fan support has too. For years, the women outdrew the men, now that's changing. It's not because of spending. The athletic department at said school also pushes each team fairly, providing equal coverage, promotion and such for home games. Men's soccer outdrew women's soccer. The women won the conference title, both went to the NCAA's.
Spending is not something that Title IX, as it is written, has governance over -- that's something where I feel the WSF has a point, but it's misdirected. Title IX, as the three prongs state, is about equal opportunity -- and that's been perverted by Proportionality. With the "hit list" put out each year about teams in trouble with Title IX compliance, why is it always based on Proportionality, when groups like the WSF always deflect the quota-clause that is proportionality by saying "there's two other prongs."
Why doesn't the WSF look at those other two prongs when putting out their yearly hit-lists? I think that's a fair question. And one D-Lo will never answer, or skirt around by going back and saying "For 35 years ... blah blah blah."
Neither of us likes the way college administrators (97+ % male, by the way) are administering Title IX. For every male wrestler or tennis player whose sport is dying on the vine, there is a high school female whose sports is gymnastics or tennis who sees colleges dropping those sports. Those sports are dropped in favor of rowing and lacrosse, sports that pump up the women's numbers quickly. There are also female ice hockey players and wrestlers who have fought to have teams created, but schools prefer less expensive sports with more people on each team.
You're probably well aware of Junior tennis and how the level of competition with USA Tennis is much higher than that of high school tennis -- hence Jennifer Capriati's comment a few years back of "I don't know what Title IX is." Well, on the high school level, it didn't make an impact. I think Billie Jean King was a pioneer, I have great admiration for her, but what role did Title IX play in the Virginia Slims Tour? If anything, it was reversed. Interesting you bring up gymnastics. Why is men's gymnastics dead and women's still status quo? Cut the men.
Gymnastics also parallel's tennis -- some of the best gymnasts are the best when they're in 9th and 10th grade -- way too early for college.
One thing should be noted when groups like the WSF point to more male opportunities created, etc. The NCAA study is flawed, because as I said earlier, it counts existing college teams that re-classify to the NCAA as new opportunity. That's inflating both men's and women's numbers. Smaller, liberal arts colleges add men's sports as a way to draw in more males to their campus, because they're enrollment driven. How do you get 100 men to your small college? Add football. D-3, for example, non-scholarship, they're there just to play.
High school participation numbers should be used to view on what sports could be cut. I never want to see sports cut, but what we're seeing is that the 97% of college administrators, while men, many have never worn a pair of cleates or stepped on a mat or started on the rubber. It's academics that are administering athletics -- Myles Brand got his job because he's the one that fired Bobby Knight at Indiana -- the presidents loved that. Not to mention, his wife is a women's studies professor -- which in my opinion, doesn't make him the least bit impartial to Title IX discussions.
Wrestling, for example, is growing on the high school level, and where do many of the high school coaches and mentors come from? College wrestling programs. My coach wrestled in college, wasn't a starter, wasn't a superstar, but he was a good coach and made sure his kids did the right things. The more men's programs we lose, the more mentors we lose and the more problems high school boys will have -- especially if the high school system starts to mimic the perversion of the law that we're seeing in college. Teachers colleges are cutting non-rev sports.
On the flip-side, that's creating many more qualified coaches for high school girls sports, which is something, from my own experience, is needed. I tire of hearing how just a core group of women's athletes are role models. What about coaches, they should be role models. My sister was a cheerleader, that's what she chose to do. She did the competition squad and things of that nature. Was she interested in sports, well, only if you count cheerleading as one, something the WSF has chastised Maryland AD Debbie Yow for doing.
I think you hit on the nub of the problem with this statement: "The only place opportunity for men has grown MIGHT be the roundball and pigskin variety.
That's where schools are choosing to put their men's opportunities. That's an administration problem, not a Title IX problem.
But when the schools are cutting every sport other than football and basketball, what other option does that leave the kids that come out of high school doing something other than that. By contrast, there are opportunities for women that go from riding a horse, bowling, rowing a boat -- you realize there are more high school girls wrestling than rowing? Yes, there's stats for that too, check the NFHS numbers.
And if you really think that girls just aren't as interested in sports, we're done here, because that's just silly.
Now, there's the $64,000 question. But do you think men are just as interested in any other extra-curricular that women are. Are men more inclined to join the choir or kick a ball? Are men more inclined to be on the yearbook staff or tryout of a sport?
Now, there has been no conlcusive study EVER to show that women are less interested in sports; but there's also no study that shows the opposite. One reason: NO SURVEY. What's the best way to ask a woman what she wants? ASK. Why is the WSF so against finding out if there is interest? There's no study to disprove the notion that women are less interested, but look at rec sports participation, college intramural participation. Those are open to who wants to play. Is there discrimination in the home? Is this society telling little girls to play with dolls?
It might be silly, but for groups like the WSF to point to an argument that "women are just as interested" isn't validated by ANY study, because D-Lo and crew are deadset against any survey that could prove such, possibly showing that for a college-aged woman, a sororiority or a communications club, might peak their interest more than intercollegiate athletics.
I'm not against Title IX -- I'm against how the law has been perverted to add sports with no regional or local demand just to inflate numbers (in this, we are in agreement). I think ballfields, uniforms, practice times -- all that should be on par from men to women. There are great uses for it, however, to determine interest without a study coming close to being able to measure, it's all hearsay and bickering back and forth.
But the fact remains that there are programs being cut because of fear of these WSF hit-lists and groups like Arthur Bryant's TLPJ that will sue without a complaint.
If there's a budget issue and sports are cut, why are they almost EXCLUSIVELY male? Northern Iowa dropped men's and women's tennis. Citing budget concerns. Oh, but the proportion fell out of line, so they were sued for discrimination and had to re-instate the women's team, while the men were done. I ask you, is that fair? But it's all because of proportionality. WSF will point to "budget" as reasons sports are cut, but when a women's sport is cut, it cannot be about the budget.
And what about on the Division I level, where many colleges have 6-8 men's sports, where women's are often in the 10-12 range. Encouraged to carry more women while the men's sports are capped.
And what about women on men's teams -- like wrestling -- do you know that women on a men's wrestling team are counted as MEN? That's also true.
I have responded to your points, without venom, based on years of following the law. I like to think I have more of a common sense approach to the law -- something the law, in its current state, lacks.
Post a Comment