Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TBar1977

Wrestling With Title 9

Recommended Posts

Men’s wrestling is one of the sports that has struggled since the passage of Title IX. (AP) (2012)

 

Eric Pearson, chairman of the American Sports Council, which bills itself as “the leading group working for the reform of Title IX,” disagrees.

 

“The main issue that we’re concerned with is the way it’s enforced,” Pearson said. “Basically, the way proportionality works is the total number of athletes, the gender ratio of the athletes in your athletic department must mirror the gender ratio of your undergraduate student population.”

 

Female students currently make up about 57 percent of undergraduates at U.S. colleges and universities, but are only 43 percent of the schools’ student athletes. “What schools have to do,” Pearson continued, “is find ways to meet that ratio. And either they can elevate their numbers of the women’s side, or cut down the numbers on the men’s side. So that is what we feel is unproductive for both male and female athletes.”

 

http://onlyagame.wbur.org/2012/06/23/title-ix-men

 

 

If you are going to keep using the number of wrestling programs that have been dropped as evidence of something, then at least be better educated about it.

 

If you are going to state that schools not showing up at Nat Duals is the reason for wrestling programs being dropped, then you are going up against the leading experts in this field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T9 is one instrument for the destruction of Olympic Sports. FB and BB are the unquestioned favorite and women's sports are advantaged and will continue to get their share.

 

These rising Super Conferences and the possible compensation of FB and BB athletes will only create more financial stress to all concerns. It may be all too consuming and unstoppable? All that being said, the only chance that wrestling has is to be RELEVANT on and off their campus and in their community. Part of that relevance is success on the mat and in the classroom. It is an engaged and supportive alumni and fan base. Its a level of generosity and ultimately where the community cares.

 

If no one is in the stands; if there is no financial support; and lack of quantifiable achievements the program is at risk. 20,000 fans in Ok City are meaningless when there are 100 fans at ones home dual meets.

 

Last year I read that a program had $700K in expenses. That same program doesn't charge for entry to the meets. How long can they last before some manager says get rid of it? Be RELEVANT and you have a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Men’s wrestling is one of the sports that has struggled since the passage of Title IX. (AP) (2012)

 

Eric Pearson, chairman of the American Sports Council, which bills itself as “the leading group working for the reform of Title IX,” disagrees.

 

“The main issue that we’re concerned with is the way it’s enforced,” Pearson said. “Basically, the way proportionality works is the total number of athletes, the gender ratio of the athletes in your athletic department must mirror the gender ratio of your undergraduate student population.”

 

Female students currently make up about 57 percent of undergraduates at U.S. colleges and universities, but are only 43 percent of the schools’ student athletes. “What schools have to do,” Pearson continued, “is find ways to meet that ratio. And either they can elevate their numbers of the women’s side, or cut down the numbers on the men’s side. So that is what we feel is unproductive for both male and female athletes.”

 

http://onlyagame.wbur.org/2012/06/23/title-ix-men

 

 

If you are going to keep using the number of wrestling programs that have been dropped as evidence of something, then at least be better educated about it.

 

If you are going to state that schools not showing up at Nat Duals is the reason for wrestling programs being dropped, then you are going up against the leading experts in this field.

Title IX is an equal access to education law. If I am not mistaken the bill does not even mention athletics, yet the bill has been used to improve female athletic opportunities. Which by the way, increased female athletic opportunities is something I favor.

 

This little tidbit, "Female students currently make up about 57 percent of undergraduates at U.S. colleges and universities" is what should have everybody in an uproar. In the age group of 18 to 25 males make up about 50.3% of US population, yet only 43% of the undergraduate population. The percentage actually drops a few more points for post-graduate programs. All the back slapping and grandstanding as we have used this law to increase female athletic opportunities (which compared to all educational opportunities is small) is all wonderful. Yet we ignore this law and never seem interested in discussing what is happening to the male undergraduate student.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done a lot of research into the topic of T9 for many years and was once in great opposition to T9--due to the knee jerk reaction taken by administrators, not because of the impact on women. However, the law is so old that it is simply part of the landscape. While we had programs that were lost in the 70s and 80s due directly to T9 the programs we are losing more recently are due to mismanagement or not seeing value in the sport.

 

I have gone into this in depth in the past but I will just say this:

 

Blaming T9 for losing programs, today, is like a pilot blaming gravity for the plane crash. Yes, it is a factor but everyone knows it is a condition and you were able to operate successfully in the same situation previously (for 40 years) while others continue to manage to this day.

 

Blaming T9 is a scapegoat. (Though, that doesn't mean I don't support reform in proportionality)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This little tidbit, "Female students currently make up about 57 percent of undergraduates at U.S. colleges and universities" is what should have everybody in an uproar. In the age group of 18 to 25 males make up about 50.3% of US population, yet only 43% of the undergraduate population. The percentage actually drops a few more points for post-graduate programs. All the back slapping and grandstanding as we have used this law to increase female athletic opportunities (which compared to all educational opportunities is small) is all wonderful. Yet we ignore this law and never seem interested in discussing what is happening to the male undergraduate student.

 

I agree that is the travesty. Do other technological countries have this kind of imbalance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This little tidbit, "Female students currently make up about 57 percent of undergraduates at U.S. colleges and universities" is what should have everybody in an uproar. In the age group of 18 to 25 males make up about 50.3% of US population, yet only 43% of the undergraduate population. The percentage actually drops a few more points for post-graduate programs. All the back slapping and grandstanding as we have used this law to increase female athletic opportunities (which compared to all educational opportunities is small) is all wonderful. Yet we ignore this law and never seem interested in discussing what is happening to the male undergraduate student.

 

I agree that is the travesty. Do other technological countries have this kind of imbalance?

 

Schools have expanded, and marketed, to attract more students to low cost programs. Men are oft more interested in STEM and the trades than women are. As a result, you see schools expanding their social sciences and education programs which have more women enrolled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Title IX is part of the landscape and we need to look beyond the misapplication of this law to find solutions for wrestling.

 

But wrong is wrong, and reform is still needed. The idea that an injustice has become "the norm" is not a reason to continue the injustice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, Title IX is part of the landscape and we need to look beyond the misapplication of this law to find solutions for wrestling.

 

But wrong is wrong, and reform is still needed. The idea that an injustice has become "the norm" is not a reason to continue the injustice.

 

We are on the same page. I probably wasn't clear in the brevity of my post.

 

When wrestling is cut due to T9 it simply means administrators are saying wrestling isn't worth the money. This is a problem wrestling has on the PR side. And, I believe duals are something that helps alleviate this mind set. Having wrestlers that are good students, part of the community, and have a fan following are the most vital parts. Duals help this because they make the weakest guy in the lineup as vital as any other starter.

 

Lots of schools have cut wrestling merely as a means of allocating more money to football or basketball but it is really more of an indictment of wrestling and our methods than anything else. We need a system of measuring team success that looks at the whole team rather than one, or a few.

 

I do appose quotas and proportionality because they or oft arbitrary and don't account for choice but at the same time I see most of all applications of T9 that have resulted in the demise of wrestling, in recent years, as being a result of administrators not understanding wrestlers, the sport, and not seeing how it brings value to the school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is gonna be really awkward when TBar realizes that J Rob is one of the most vocal coaches opposing title IX. TBar claim him to be pure evil.

 

ocho, most wrestling coaches are critics of how Title 9 is applied in today's athletics landscape. Wrestling has been disproportionately impacted by Title 9.

 

I don't like Title 9 either. I think it is simply bad law, and someone touched on it above how males age 18-25 are under represented in colleges today. That is a travesty.

 

Title 9 is a great example of how a law sounds good in theory, but works terribly in the real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This little tidbit, "Female students currently make up about 57 percent of undergraduates at U.S. colleges and universities" is what should have everybody in an uproar. In the age group of 18 to 25 males make up about 50.3% of US population, yet only 43% of the undergraduate population. The percentage actually drops a few more points for post-graduate programs. All the back slapping and grandstanding as we have used this law to increase female athletic opportunities (which compared to all educational opportunities is small) is all wonderful. Yet we ignore this law and never seem interested in discussing what is happening to the male undergraduate student.

 

I agree that is the travesty. Do other technological countries have this kind of imbalance?

 

Schools have expanded, and marketed, to attract more students to low cost programs. Men are oft more interested in STEM and the trades than women are. As a result, you see schools expanding their social sciences and education programs which have more women enrolled.

 

Whether Science, Tech, Engineering or Math fields or other - 50.3% male population = 43% undergraduate programs. 50.3% population = 41.5% post-graduate programs. We are not talking some statistical anomaly explained away by trades or low cost programs. Males are under represented in just about all but a select few fields of post high school education programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schools have expanded, and marketed, to attract more students to low cost programs. Men are oft more interested in STEM and the trades than women are. As a result, you see schools expanding their social sciences and education programs which have more women enrolled.

 

Whether Science, Tech, Engineering or Math fields or other - 50.3% male population = 43% undergraduate programs. 50.3% population = 41.5% post-graduate programs. We are not talking some statistical anomaly explained away by trades or low cost programs. Males are under represented in just about all but a select few fields of post high school education programs.

 

I am not sure I totally follow what you are saying. All the data I have seen has supported what I have said.

 

Here is a view of stats from the Dept of Ed on bachelors degrees: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/S ... 0-h/ba.jpg

 

Bachelors degrees by academic area https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab ... 2s0302.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This little tidbit, "Female students currently make up about 57 percent of undergraduates at U.S. colleges and universities" is what should have everybody in an uproar. In the age group of 18 to 25 males make up about 50.3% of US population, yet only 43% of the undergraduate population. The percentage actually drops a few more points for post-graduate programs. All the back slapping and grandstanding as we have used this law to increase female athletic opportunities (which compared to all educational opportunities is small) is all wonderful. Yet we ignore this law and never seem interested in discussing what is happening to the male undergraduate student.

 

Exactly right. We are no longer a nation of laws - we are a nation of agendas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is not whether Title IX has impacted wrestling. It has and everyone who posts here is aware of that devastating impact. The issue is - where does wrestling go from here?

 

The problem with bringing a decade-old article on a decades old problem into that debate is that a lot has changed in the past 10 years. Most institutions are now Title IX compliant, and a number of newer institutions have recently been the position of having to ADD men's sports to be both Title IX and NCAA-compliant. Wrestling programs that are being dropped now are being dropped, among other reasons, because they are not popular, do not generate revenue, and create difficulties in putting together conference affiliations due to the relative dearth of programs (which, I admit, is primarily a result of Title IX.)

 

Title IX, while its merits may be debatable, has been remarkably successful at both creating access to college for women and expanding women's athletics. In doing so it has not harmed college sports' crown jewel, which is college football (for which, by the way, there is nothing resembling a women's equivalent - college football has weathered Title IX because it is insanely popular and generates revenue), nor has it harmed U.S. Olympic performance overall. In short, Title IX has made a huge omelet while breaking relatively few eggs. The political will to change Title IX is not there right now. There may be a day when there is such political will, but presently the overall level of satisfaction with it is high.

 

Also, even a total repeal of Title IX alone is unlikely to help college wrestling very much, at least in the short run, because there is very little economic incentive to revive old programs. By and large, the programs that have been scrapped did not draw well and did not generate revenue.

 

The only thing that can ensure wrestling's survival is to increase its popularity and its fanbase. And wrestling actually has an opportunity to do that in the present environment. Television coverage of the sport has increased dramatically over the past few years. ESPN has finally come around to understanding a few things that can really help wrestling: (1) its not going to get the NCAA basketball tournament soon; (2) the NCAA tournament is a great event; (3) wrestling has a pretty decent nationwide fanbase that gets excited about the NCAA tournament; and (4) people who aren't really wrestling fans will watch portions of the tournament as an alternative to basketball.

 

ESPN wants, or is going to want, more. It likes wrestling as a product right now. The difficulty is that the tournament really cannot be expanded, and even if it could be the logistics of broadcasting the individual tournament are difficult. The duals present an opportunity to dramatically expand "championship" wrestling coverage (the only kind ESPN is really interested in) with a broadcast friendly format. The question is - will the wrestling community give it to them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post, Doc.

 

I posted not just the 10 year old article, but also an article from 2012. I did so basically to illustrate that the drop in programs over the past 20 or 30 years has little to do with Nat Duals, which was implied on this msg. board time and time again.

 

I agree with you regarding where do we go from here. To me, the sport would best improve by 1) looking within to make it more exciting, meaning going after non action 2) focusing on the duals that have proven they do work - on campus duals between rivals.

 

If they are going to implement a compulsory Nat Duals event, then I think the point carryover is a risk best not taken. The point carryover may have some positive aspect to it, but it also does two things that I think are negative. One, it ensures that the duals event by itself does not decide anything. Many fans would not attend an event that has no real conclusion. Two, it would place teams behind at the start of the Tournament, some of which were never even invited to participate at duals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If they are going to implement a compulsory Nat Duals event, then I think the point carryover is a risk best not taken. The point carryover may have some positive aspect to it, but it also does two things that I think are negative. One, it ensures that the duals event by itself does not decide anything. Many fans would not attend an event that has no real conclusion. Two, it would place teams behind at the start of the Tournament, some of which were never even invited to participate at duals.

 

Does this mean you prefer the NCAA Duals determining the champion over the hybrid proposal?

 

Just to note: There are no compulsory events in the NCAA. Teams are free to not attend an NCAA championship if they would like. Ivy League football does this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great post, Doc.

 

I posted not just the 10 year old article, but also an article from 2012. I did so basically to illustrate that the drop in programs over the past 20 or 30 years has little to do with Nat Duals, which was implied on this msg. board time and time again.

 

I agree with you regarding where do we go from here. To me, the sport would best improve by 1) looking within to make it more exciting, meaning going after non action 2) focusing on the duals that have proven they do work - on campus duals between rivals.

 

If they are going to implement a compulsory Nat Duals event, then I think the point carryover is a risk best not taken. The point carryover may have some positive aspect to it, but it also does two things that I think are negative. One, it ensures that the duals event by itself does not decide anything. Many fans would not attend an event that has no real conclusion. Two, it would place teams behind at the start of the Tournament, some of which were never even invited to participate at duals.

 

Tbar - I don't believe anyone has said we've lost programs because of national duals. It is frustrating how you twist things. It really does no service to your argument. Why we've lost programs is driven by many factors - title IX surely being a big one. The idea about a revitalized and important national duals is that it is a route to help stem and or turn the tide. Give it some importance, get it televised, get incredible dual matches in place.

 

I do want to commend you for laying out what you think to be another path in a clear and concise format. That's what we need. We need more proposals that can be debated against each other (and perhaps steal from each other).

 

I agree that more action is a good thing. I also agree that great rivalry duals on campus are a good thing. I, for one, believe a real national duals tournament would add on and make it even better!

 

You mention 2 specific issues with point carryover. Thank you. These are your two concerns -- good to know.

 

Your point #1 - Not sure what you mean. Wouldn't it decide the dual team champion?

 

Your point #2 - Fair point. Our qualification system does the same thing. Some teams only bring 1 person. Some none! But this would layer on top of that and I can see why people would think that the cards are stacked AGAIN against many teams winning a team title. This can seem unfair. I myself am a bit worried that if a team like Penn State won national duals, it would further solidify that the NCAA title is figured out by the end of day 1. Not great. You mention though the teams not even invited to National duals --- are you really saying those teams have a shot at the team title to begin with? Are you really upset that the reshuffling of the teams finishing 1-15 is going to matter at all to teams in the 20-50 range?

 

Trying to understand your concern on point 2 better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T9 is one instrument for the destruction of Olympic Sports. FB and BB are the unquestioned favorite and women's sports are advantaged and will continue to get their share.

 

.

 

Problem is that across the board Title IX has not hindered US Olympic performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...