PoleVaultPower.com

There are no schools that I know of that have only men's track and no women's.

Women's programs are allowed 3 paid coaches and men's programs are allowed 3 paid coaches. Combined programs are allowed 6.

Not all programs that have men and women programs are combined but even those are not usually share coaches (I know not all, but those usually have a lot of volunteers).

So a typical combined program is set up something like this:

1 Head Coach
1 Sprint Coach
1 Distance Coach
1 Jumps Coach
1 Throws Coach
1 Extra Coach (Sometimes a second sprint, distance, jumps, or throws coach. Rare occasions this guy or gal is a pole vault only coach).

So this means practically all men's programs are allowed to have 6 paid coaches, while only the women at a school with men's track get 6 coaches.

A woman's program that has had the men's team cut would look something like this:

1 Head Coach
1 Distance Coach
1 Sprint Coach

If the head coach coaches something then the third coach could be something else. But in any case, the women are getting less attention and a less quality experience than male counterparts at other institutions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now to cut to the chase. I hate Title IX as it is written and I think everyone should. There are some blatant policies that were used to defend having women's athletics that are not relevant and are now only used to cut men's programs.

Stupid things:

*Athletic departments need to represent the student body, if a university has 75% women and 25% men there needs to be three times as many women athletes then men.
-This would make since if people recruited athletes from their student bodies, but they do not.
-It would also make a little since if socially the same percentage of women as men actually wanted to do college athletics, they do not.
-This is also a two sided rule. If a school had 50% women and 50% men, but they had 60% women athletes and 40% men athletes, they would never get rid of women athletes in order to get the numbers equal.

I am currently at a program that has 40 men and 60 women. Each year we have more than 20 guys try out and almost none of them ever make the team although there are usually as many as 5 that could have gotten scholarships at smaller universities. In these same years we have at most 10 women try out. Of these 10, 9 probably would not qualify for a high school regional meet. All 10 will probably make the team unless the coaches are scared they are so nonathletic they will hurt themselves. Occasional a field event athlete like a pole vaulter will not make it because a 6'0 girl pole vaulter will just be a joke compared to 12-6 and 13-0 women on the team and require valuable time taken away from the coach just to make sure they do not hurt themselves.

So a rule that was designed to allow women to be able to compete has turned into a rule that usually ends up having opportunities taken away from the men as well as causing coaches to frantically search to campus for any woman that resembles an athlete just so they can keep the women's numbers up and keep the men's program.

Along with less coaches, the rule also prevents the women from being able to have as high of a quality of experience because there are so man of them, more less quality athletes to get in the way of their coaching, and less opportunity for them to compete just because they are feeling up spots to make the team Title IX compliant.

As an example of Equal Opportunity, if a team is really good a 15'6 pole vaulter is not always even guaranteed a walk on spot, but a 9'6 girl is.

not to mention the scholarship money that is just thrown at these girls, whereas a team of guys only has pennies to split up between them.

Wow 20, you really don't get it...

Then please enlighten the rest of us.

Please Bel, enlighten us all.

You really think there are no problems with Title IX?

You think that there is no problem with having to beg women to do sports so that men's programs will not get cut?

You think it is fair that men's track gets 12.6 scholarships while women's get 18?

It is about an equal opportunity and I am all for that! But I do not think you should have to cut men's sports because women can't play football.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY!

A 5'9 140 pound girl that runs a 11.3 in the 100m dash has a better chance of becoming a college wide receiver than the 5'6 125 pound male distance runner. There is no rule preventing women from playing football.

They balance the numbers because football has 100+ roster spots and no other woman sport is that big to balance out. So it is not equal opportunity for woman to men, it is women to men football players.

The reason it is so bad is because NCAA allows football to be that big because they pay the bills. I am fine with that. But if they get special treatment because they pay the bill, then there should be some kind of loop hole in Title IX to exclude them.

And I do know Title IX spills over into more than just the players. Title IX affects women coaches as far as how likely they are to be hired and how much they get paid.

**************When It comes down to it, no woman should not get to play because there are too many men. BUT there should never be a case where a man can not play because there are not enough women. The program I am at begs women to come out to raise our numbers and keep more men.

No I think there are issues with Title IX, but not the ones you mentioned. First off lets ignore the fact that you're discussing the NCAA a privet corporation and a law signed by Congress promoting the general welfare of the United States. Yes you are correct in the superficial fact that schools need to represent their population. But that is only one prong of the three pronged test. Making that prong a difficult one because population ratios change from year to year. As I write this I am curious about Simon Frasier...

Even if we think that equality is the mission, lets consider emerging sports, why have we not seen supported women varsity rugby teams pop up all over the country you can easily have 60+ women on a roster. ...because clearly the altruism of the NCAA and most higher education is at the forefront of the well fair of its student-workers.

To say that we as a society have surpassed discrimination is naive to the point that the United States is a place were all are created equally, except of those who are 5/8th of a person. As if by some altruistic utopia that we were already equal, to learn by our own actions that no we weren't.
When Title IX was enacted involvement of women athletes increased by 800% that's not a trend... it worked.

Right now there seems to be a trend that Men are not getting it done in the class room, so what is the issue. We should let the other shoe drop, no... education of boys across the country is becoming a problem.

As from a coaching stand point, complaining that a 475 jumper can't get a spot. Well heck, if a school already has 4 guys over 490. Then why bring in a 475 guy, to screw with the dynamics of a tight crew. There are many reasons when athletes are turned away from school/team. To say that it is always Title IX is a cop out.

If you feel so strongly that 18 scholarships are to much for women then I would encourage your to consider Division 2 where each team gets 12.6 or D3 where no scholarships are awarded. To say that football should be excluded from the rule specifically goes against the idea that there be equality across public funds...

Currently doing a report on Title IX.

Interesting fact about equality. The NCAA allows a completely fully funded program (sponsoring all sports) to have 225 women's scholarships and 209.6 men's scholarships.

There are also 5 sports that only women are allowed to participate in and none that men are solely allowed to play (Football and Wrestling would be closest).

12 women's sports offer more scholarships than their male counterpart. Only two men have more scholarships than women (Football and Wrestling).

i agree with PV2020 those numbers make a lot of sense and i've always felt like title IX gave men the short end of the stick

I would truly encourage you do do more research.

This is the publication from the NCAA web site taking a look at gender equality... Lookin at all of these numbers please explain how male athletes get "the short end of the stick"...

http://www.ncaapublications.com/product ... GEQS10.pdf

bel142 wrote:I would truly encourage you do do more research.

This is the publication from the NCAA web site taking a look at gender equality... Lookin at all of these numbers please explain how male athletes get "the short end of the stick"...

<span><a class="smarterwiki-linkify" href="http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/GEQS10.pdf">http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/GEQS10.pdf</a></span>

I have continued to do my research and have read all the facts you have presented. You still will not state your opinion of the matter or what I should be looking for.

The only two categories men are still 'advantaged' in are number of participants and total expenses. However expenses on women's programs is growing at a faster rate than men and in almost all sports except "for profit" programs (football, baseball, basketball) the women have more participants than men (the exceptions being ice hockey, wrestling, and golf). So it would stand to be self explanatory that men's programs would have more spending because there are more participants. The extra shoes, uniforms, practice gear, plane tickets, hotel rooms, food, and more are not free and increase per person.

If there is anything that is still not equal it is probably the salary of coaches. However this is more to due with outing effects not related to rules. Most coaches of 'for profit' sports have clauses that involve fan attendance and a percentage of ticket sales. The more money you make the athletic program, the more they pay you, just like in all businesses. If you compare the salary of a male and women's basketball coach the men's coach makes more regardless if it is a male coach or female coach. At most programs the men's team fills the arena and ticket coast makes a profit for the school while women's basket ball teams have trouble filling the student section and most the time the tickets are free.

More money is not typically put towards men programs compared to women's programs when they are non profit programs. A men's track team is going to usually have all the same equipment, go to the same meets, as well as travel and stay in the same hotels. I have seen some programs that have separate programs where the men and women would go to the same meet but the women would stay in a nicer hotel because they were allowed a bigger budge.

The same theory applies to participation. More people watch men's sports in the same way more men play sports than women. Yes there are a lot of women that play sports and they should be allowed to just as the men, but if more men happen want to want to play, they should not be limited.

My biggest issue with Title IX is roster caps on the men's side to force participation to be equal across the sexes. The rules forcing women to get more scholarships are not fair either but the NCAA is trying to overcompensate for putting more money towards 'for profit sports'.

My biggest issue with the roster caps trying to force equality of numbers is because this is not done in any places where there are more women then men. If a university theater program has 80% women and 20% men, even if the school is 55% women and 45% men, they would not say we have to get rid of close to a third of those women to get them down to 55%. Both athletic and theater are government funded programs by the university, but while they may encourage more men to try it, they are not going to tell some women they can not just to make it appear to be equal. They understand that there are just more women that wan't to participate.

fyi. I use the statement 'for profit' several times because these programs may not make a profit as they usually spend every dime they make, but they do generate a substantial more percentage of their own operating cost than other programs.