Inequality in Sports

[NotAboutEgo]

This is a cool page...

http://www.yogiberramuseum.org/prog_womeninsports.html#top

Throughout history, social and cultural barriers have limited women's involvement in sports. Much has changed thanks to pioneering female athletes from Babe Didrikson to Billie Jean King to Jackie Joyner-Kersee, and the groundbreaking passage of Title IX in 1972. Record number of girls and women participate in all levels of athletics. While struggles persist - women's sports still combat the old-boys network and old stereotypes - equality and stability no longer seem such unattainable goals.

More girls and women play sports than ever before in American history, with millions competing in youth leagues, high school, college, and at the professional level, where tennis, golf, soccer and basketball are surging in popularity. Even as nonparticipants, young women are finding more and more career opportunities in the $212 billion sports industry.

The explosion of girls and women in sports didn't happen overnight, however. It took over a century of struggle, legislation and societal change to provide today's girls and women the opportunities their mothers and grandmothers were denied.

Without question, a catalyst for this remarkable transformation of the playing fields is Title IX, the 1972 law that mandated full equality for women's school athletics. Yet despite the great strides resulting from Title IX, controversial issues and inequities still abound. Why do many colleges remain resentful of Title IX? Why do women lag well behind men in pay, facilities, and media coverage? Why are negative perceptions about women athletes hard to change? Why does society still refer to women playing sports as women's sports?

These questions are worthy of examination and discussion for students. In understanding the history of women's rights in America, one can understand the history of women's athletics. It is a history of athletes who broke barriers, defied odds, and stoked imaginations. The dedication and determination of trailblazers, from Babe Didrikson (track and field and golf) to Althea Gibson (tennis) to Mia Hamm (soccer) to Serena and Venus Williams (tennis) continue to inspire.

As a growing number of girls and women are becoming part of the sports culture and are influenced by it, it's instructive to look at the experience of women athletes, especially how they challenged attitudes and assumptions about competition and expectations.


Old Boy Network:
Male-dominated institutions or thought process that seeks to maintain the status quo - e.g. keeping big-budget football programs untouched and exempt from Title IX.

[Utility07]

Football is not currently exempt from title IX, but it should be. As should basketball. But especially football, as its the only sport that uses more than 25ish people in its sport. Plus then theres the tons of money it makes schools which is why basketball should be exempt. Without the massive amounts of money schools like Nebraska and Ohio state and Michigan state make on football their facilities for ALL SPORTS wouldnt be nearly as nice as they are.

Besides, the way title IX is designed, you can pretty much do whatever the heck you want and still comply to one of the three prongs making you compliant.

All you need is to do one of the following.

1. Proportionate spots on teams for both genders to the population of the school.
2. Show you are making efforts to create more oppotunities for the under-represented sex.
3. Prove the underrepresented sex doesnt show interest in more sports.

At most schools, all women have to do is show theres a group that wants their sport, and they will get it, or they will have a basis to sue the pants off the school.

[MSUlaxer27]

Do we really get to talk about the elephant in the room? Or will I get "YELLED" at once again for expressing my opinion

[JeepingBaseball]

it's a solid topic, just have to weed thru a few obvious things.

[MSUlaxer27]

If you have played a sport at a Division I school than I will respect your opinion about possibly cutting football scholarships. Even then I will have a slight problem. Why kill the golden goose? Mens football brings in enough revenue to allow all the non revenue sports (both mens and womens) to exist.

Why are they referred to as "womens" sports? Because until they play head to head (which will prove that men and womens sports are not physiologically equal) people who follow the sports will need someway to determine the difference. In other words, when I hear on ESPN that the University of Kentucky beat Duke in basketball, I will assume unless it's qualified by " the women of" that it is talking about the men. Until men and women play on the court together, how else shall we determine the diference?

[JeepingBaseball]

why should we define the difference of men and women? Cut to the chase and make it equal. Be done with already.

[MSUlaxer27]

You know what. [Forget] it. DIII doesn't offer scholarships, DII is a transitory league between DIII and DI. My sport (lacrosse) was cut in college so that the university was in compliance with Title IX. Now I hope you can tell from my name which one it was. Two days ago our womens basketball coach left for another school, about two months ago there was talk about our mens basketball coach leaving for another school. Both had coached their respective teams to a national championship game in the past 7 years. When there was "talk" about our mens coach leaving there was an outporing on the message boards(like this one) about how much this would hurt our program. When the womens coach actually left the jist ( less than half the postings) on the same boards was thanks for the memories, Good luck (among nicer sentiments). Our mens team even after the head coach has gone so far as to include the womens team in our midnight madness, has not, not sold a game in our 16,000 seat arena twice in the last 400 games. The women Hosted an NCAA regional (in which they set a record for the highest attendance at a regional) yet could only bring in 8,000 fans.

Instead of asking the question why don't the women get enough sports opportunities (at a Major DI that routinely they can't find enough female athletes to fill their allowable scholarships), why don't we ask the question about why, irrespective of athletics, the number of male students in college has dropped over the last 20 years in relation to their percentage of the American population. There are more important problems that the fact that a few women can't prove they are "equal physically" to men.

[MSUlaxer27]

why should we define the difference of men and women? Cut to the chase and make it equal. Be done with already.

You have body parts that aren't the same as mine. You have the ability to carry a child. We are not and will be never be equal physically. I didn't say you and I are either better than each other because of this fact, but we are most assuredly different. If you had a 150 IQ and I had a 85 IQ would you insist we should be in the same the same classes in HS or college, so if conversely I can run faster and am stronger should we expect to have the same exact athletic opportunities?

[MSUlaxer27]

Football is not currently exempt from title IX, but it should be. As should basketball. But especially football, as its the only sport that uses more than 25ish people in its sport. Plus then theres the tons of money it makes schools which is why basketball should be exempt. Without the massive amounts of money schools like Nebraska and Ohio state and Michigan state make on football their facilities for ALL SPORTS wouldnt be nearly as nice as they are.

Besides, the way title IX is designed, you can pretty much do whatever the heck you want and still comply to one of the three prongs making you compliant.

All you need is to do one of the following.

1. Proportionate spots on teams for both genders to the population of the school.
2. Show you are making efforts to create more oppotunities for the under-represented sex.
3. Prove the underrepresented sex doesnt show interest in more sports.

At most schools, all women have to do is show theres a group that wants their sport, and they will get it, or they will have a basis to sue the pants off the school.

The 3 prongs of Title Ix are almost impossible to comply with:

1. Historically there are more male student athletes than women student athletes, however men now make up less than half of students: per NY Times

"Still, men now make up only 42 percent of the nation's college students. And with sex discrimination fading and their job opportunities widening, women are coming on much stronger, often leapfrogging the men to the academic finish.

"The boys are about where they were 30 years ago, but the girls are just on a tear, doing much, much better," said Tom Mortenson, a senior scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education in Washington."

So being 42% of the students but about 100,000 more in the general populace age 15 to 24 ( and 400,000 more ages 20 to 24 (2000 census)) based on college population (even though men outnumber women in the general population) according to prong 1 there should be more female student athletes. ( No talk of how we bring the male student population equal to the general population, huh?)

Men generally have had more student athletes than women, but to comply with prong 1 we must either find a way to increase the womens teams or reduce the mens teams (even while there is male interest in these teams) to comply. This is what most schools do.

Prong 2. Having been to a Big Ten school, my school supports 11 womens teams and only 10 mens teams. (In reverse of the numbers there are more opportunities for women to play college athletics than men). The Big Ten conference supports more womens "championships" than mens championships.
But if you consider women to be the underrepresented sex they are compliant

Prong 3. Prove that the underrepresented sex isn't interested. This is the whole,"if you build it they will come argument". Women insist that the only reason that there isn't more interest in women's sports because they haven't had the same opportunities as men. 35 years after Title IX was enacted there are still not enough women to fill all the open spots (and scholarships) that are available to them ( I know this for a fact at the school I went to) even though we are now going on the second generation of women to have grown up under Title IX there still are not enough women to fill all the opportunities that are available to them. Yet still a small minority of women complain they are discriminated against.

Lacrosse is the fastest growing sport in the nation in the nation up to the high school level: http://www.laxpower.com/common/ParticipationRates2006.php

Alright second fastest after bowling ( yet do any of us really consider bowling a sport?) Yet, there is simply no room for growth on the scholarship level for this sport for boys (only 56 universities in the country play this on the DI level (and only 49 offer scholarships (Ivy league doesn't offer scol.) because of Title IX.

Let's leave DI football out of this, this is the golden goose that allows the non-revenue sports to survive. (No one is going to pack 80,000 paying customers into a stadium to watch soccer, field hockey, lacrosse (regular season) track and field or ice hockey or on a regular basis)

[NotAboutEgo]

The 3 prongs of Title Ix are almost impossible to comply with:

1. Historically there are more male student athletes than women student athletes, however men now make up less than half of students: per NY Times)

This data means nothing, because historically, women have been told they can't play sports and programs weren't available to them up until the 1970's (maybe the late 1960's) in most cases. Women like my mom, who is now 61 years old, and other women like her never got the chance to play sports in school or in any kind of recreational sports programs, because they were told that girls don't play sports. My mom had to fight just to wear jeans to school and not be told she had to wear dresses to school. Comparing that to comparing what men have had since the beginning of time is a moot point. And the discrimination isn't gone to this day. Things are better, but the problem hasn't disappeared completely. Women were banned from playing in the ancient and modern Olympics for a long time. Men have taken it upon themselves to declare playing sports is their right and was not a right of women for so long. I will find info as examples.

"Still, men now make up only 42 percent of the nation's college students. And with sex discrimination fading and their job opportunities widening, women are coming on much stronger, often leapfrogging the men to the academic finish.

"The boys are about where they were 30 years ago, but the girls are just on a tear, doing much, much better," said Tom Mortenson, a senior scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education in Washington."

So being 42% of the students but about 100,000 more in the general populace age 15 to 24 ( and 400,000 more ages 20 to 24 (2000 census)) based on college population (even though men outnumber women in the general population) according to prong 1 there should be more female student athletes. ( No talk of how we bring the male student population equal to the general population, huh?)

Men generally have had more student athletes than women, but to comply with prong 1 we must either find a way to increase the womens teams or reduce the mens teams (even while there is male interest in these teams) to comply. This is what most schools do.

Prong 2. Having been to a Big Ten school, my school supports 11 womens teams and only 10 mens teams. (In reverse of the numbers there are more opportunities for women to play college athletics than men). The Big Ten conference supports more womens "championships" than mens championships.
But if you consider women to be the underrepresented sex they are compliant

Prong 3. Prove that the underrepresented sex isn't interested. This is the whole,"if you build it they will come argument". Women insist that the only reason that there isn't more interest in women's sports because they haven't had the same opportunities as men. 35 years after Title IX was enacted there are still not enough women to fill all the open spots (and scholarships) that are available to them ( I know this for a fact at the school I went to) even though we are now going on the second generation of women to have grown up under Title IX there still are not enough women to fill all the opportunities that are available to them. Yet still a small minority of women complain they are discriminated against.

Lacrosse is the fastest growing sport in the nation in the nation up to the high school level: http://www.laxpower.com/common/ParticipationRates2006.php

Alright second fastest after bowling ( yet do any of us really consider bowling a sport?) Yet, there is simply no room for growth on the scholarship level for this sport for boys (only 56 universities in the country play this on the DI level (and only 49 offer scholarships (Ivy league doesn't offer scol.) because of Title IX.

Let's leave DI football out of this, this is the golden goose that allows the non-revenue sports to survive. (No one is going to pack 80,000 paying customers into a stadium to watch soccer, field hockey, lacrosse (regular season) track and field or ice hockey or on a regular basis)

Why is it that when local sports facilities, such as the ones in my area, open and start providing sports programs, they start men's leagues but fail to start women's leagues? This has happened with roller hockey and basketball just to name two. When I called one facility a few months ago, to join a women's basketball league, that put in a bunch of new basketball courts, the answer I got was that they are starting men's leagues but not women's leagues. They said if I wanted to play, I'd have to play in the men's leagues. I'm sure there are plenty of women in the area who'd love to play in a rec. women's basketball league, but this facility isn't providing one to them.

The same is true of the roller hockey leagues in the area. I enjoy playing both coed and women's roller hockey, but leagues for women don't exist, despite the fact that plenty of girls and women play and want to play roller hockey. Detroit area high schools and colleges have started men's roller hockey teams, but I have yet to find any girls' and women's roller hockey teams in high schools and colleges. AND it has NOTHING to do with not enough women wanting to play. A lot of people who play ice hockey also play roller hockey, including women. There are women's ice hockey leagues at all levels except for the pro level. Why wouldn't there be women's roller hockey leagues as well?

Why is it, that when I was on a youth baseball steering comittee with the Detroit Tigers and local youth groups, that the Tigers point blank stated they were working on creating opportunities for boys and they weren't interested at the time to create any opportunities for girls? These are just a few personal examples, and I know I can come up with oodles more.

This is what has affected women's sports and the fact that there are still less female athletes right now than male athletes, but the numbers are changing and growing. When something has been tradition and a discriminatory practice for many, many years, it takes time for things to change, especially when the party that has been discriminated against has to continue fighting to do what they want to do.

[NotAboutEgo]

The 3 prongs of Title Ix are almost impossible to comply with:

1. Historically there are more male student athletes than women student athletes, however men now make up less than half of students: per NY Times)

This info from the NY Times means nothing, because historically, women have been told they can't play sports and programs weren't available to them up until the 1970's (maybe the late 1960's) in most cases. Women like my mom, who is now 61 years old, and other women like her never got the chance to play sports in school or in any kind of recreational sports programs, because they were told that girls don't play sports. My mom had to fight just to wear jeans to school and not be told she had to wear dresses to school. Comparing that to comparing what men have had since the beginning of time is a moot point. And the discrimination isn't gone to this day. Things are better, but the problem hasn't disappeared completely. Women were banned from playing in the ancient and modern Olympics for a long time. Men have taken it upon themselves to declare playing sports is their right and was not a right of women for so long. I will find info as examples.

"Still, men now make up only 42 percent of the nation's college students. And with sex discrimination fading and their job opportunities widening, women are coming on much stronger, often leapfrogging the men to the academic finish.

"The boys are about where they were 30 years ago, but the girls are just on a tear, doing much, much better," said Tom Mortenson, a senior scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education in Washington."

So being 42% of the students but about 100,000 more in the general populace age 15 to 24 ( and 400,000 more ages 20 to 24 (2000 census)) based on college population (even though men outnumber women in the general population) according to prong 1 there should be more female student athletes. ( No talk of how we bring the male student population equal to the general population, huh?)

Men generally have had more student athletes than women, but to comply with prong 1 we must either find a way to increase the womens teams or reduce the mens teams (even while there is male interest in these teams) to comply. This is what most schools do.

Prong 2. Having been to a Big Ten school, my school supports 11 womens teams and only 10 mens teams. (In reverse of the numbers there are more opportunities for women to play college athletics than men). The Big Ten conference supports more womens "championships" than mens championships.
But if you consider women to be the underrepresented sex they are compliant

Prong 3. Prove that the underrepresented sex isn't interested. This is the whole,"if you build it they will come argument". Women insist that the only reason that there isn't more interest in women's sports because they haven't had the same opportunities as men. 35 years after Title IX was enacted there are still not enough women to fill all the open spots (and scholarships) that are available to them ( I know this for a fact at the school I went to) even though we are now going on the second generation of women to have grown up under Title IX there still are not enough women to fill all the opportunities that are available to them. Yet still a small minority of women complain they are discriminated against.

Lacrosse is the fastest growing sport in the nation in the nation up to the high school level: http://www.laxpower.com/common/ParticipationRates2006.php

Alright second fastest after bowling ( yet do any of us really consider bowling a sport?) Yet, there is simply no room for growth on the scholarship level for this sport for boys (only 56 universities in the country play this on the DI level (and only 49 offer scholarships (Ivy league doesn't offer scol.) because of Title IX.

Let's leave DI football out of this, this is the golden goose that allows the non-revenue sports to survive. (No one is going to pack 80,000 paying customers into a stadium to watch soccer, field hockey, lacrosse (regular season) track and field or ice hockey or on a regular basis)

Why is it that when local sports facilities, such as the ones in my area, open and start providing sports programs, they start men's leagues but fail to start women's leagues? This has happened with roller hockey and basketball just to name two. When I called one facility a few months ago that put in a bunch of new basketball courts to join a women's basketball league, the answer I got was that they are starting men's leagues but not women's leagues. They said if I wanted to play, I'd have to play in the men's leagues. I'm sure there are plenty of women in the area who'd love to play in a rec. women's basketball league, but this facility isn't providing one to them.

The same is true of the roller hockey leagues in the area. I enjoy playing both coed and women's roller hockey, but leagues for women don't exist, despite the fact that plenty of girls and women play and want to play roller hockey. Detroit area high schools and colleges have started men's roller hockey teams, but I have yet to find any girls' and women's roller hockey teams in high schools and colleges. AND it has NOTHING to do with not enough women wanting to play. A lot of people who play ice hockey also play roller hockey, including women. There are women's ice hockey leagues at all levels except for the pro level. Why wouldn't there be women's roller hockey leagues as well?

Why is it, that when I was on a youth baseball steering comittee with the Detroit Tigers and local youth groups, that the Tigers point blank stated they were working on creating opportunities for boys and they weren't interested at the time to create any opportunities for girls? These are just a few personal examples, and I know I can come up with oodles more.

This is what has affected women's sports and the fact that there are still less female athletes right now than male athletes, but the numbers are changing and growing. When something has been tradition and a discriminatory practice for many, many years, it takes time for things to change, especially when the party that has been discriminated against has to continue fighting to do what they want to do.

[NotAboutEgo]

Why is it that, when I recently played roller hockey in a league in Monroe, some of the guys on my team had a problem with me playing? One even point black stated he should have more playing time than me. I left the league, because I don't have time for a bunch of whiney, insecure, immature men who can't handle women playing amongst them.

The attitidues against women playing are still there and still are rampant.

[dw8man]

I read this article yesterday in USA Today and wanted to link it but didn't know where. Today is my lucky day cause now I have a place to link it!

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/other/2007-04-19-title-ix-jmu-cover_N.htm?csp=34

[NotAboutEgo]

Why is it, that when I was in high school, the baseball teams got the prime time to practice in the gym before it was warm enough to go outside, why did they have more and better equipment than the softball teams did, why did they have more coaches than we did, and why did they get more gym space than we did?

[NotAboutEgo]

I read this article yesterday in USA Today and wanted to link it but didn't know where. Today is my lucky day cause now I have a place to link it!

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/other/2007-04-19-title-ix-jmu-cover_N.htm?csp=34

This article relates to the link:

Dropping Men's Sports - Expanding Opportunities for Girls and Women in Sport without Eliminating Men's Sports: The Foundation Position
Sun 23-Jul-2000

The Women's Sports Foundation is often asked whether it has a position on the elimination of sports opportunities for men as a method of complying with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs or activities at schools and colleges that receive federal funds. This question usually stems from situations in which schools cite insufficient finances to add more sports opportunities for women, cut a men's non-revenue sport and use these funds to start a new women's team. When alumni and students complain about the decision, the institution blames the law (Title IX requires no such reduction in opportunities for men) and female athletes. The Foundation is not in favor of reducing athletic opportunities for men as the preferred method of achieving Title IX compliance.

The real problem can be simply described. Your first two children are boys. You give them everything. Their rooms are palaces of athletics privilege - full of every sport gift imaginable - gloves, balls, bats, hockey sticks, football helmuts, etc. They go to two or three sport camps every summer. They play Little League Baseball, soccer and Pop Warner football. One becomes an outstanding football player and the other excels in tennis. Then, you have another child, a girl, and your income doesn't change. She comes to you one day and says, "Mom, Dad -- I want to play sports." What are your options?
Option A: Tell your last born son (i.e., drop the men's tennis team) he can't play sports any more so you still have only two children to provide for.

Option B: Tell your daughter she can't have the same privileges as her brothers. If she want a glove she has to go to work and save up to buy it. Tell her she can't go to a summer sports camp unless she earns her own money and pays for it herself. Suggest that she sell cookies or get together with her girlfriends to have a bake sale (this is the way it was before Title IX) to scrape up enough money for equipment to play.

Option C: You gather the family around the kitchen table and explain to your children that your daughter is just as important as your sons and you don't have the dollars to do provide the same privileges for your daughter as you did for your sons...but that you are going to try your best to give all of your children every opportunity to participate in sports. You tell your sons that it is important to share their equipment and all you have provided for them. You probably come up with a system where each child gets to choose one summer sports camp instead of each attending several. The family gives up spring vacation in Disney World and tightens its belt. Everyone sacrifices and each child makes do with a smaller piece of the pie because now there are three (the Title IX situation).

The solution is Option C. Institutions that are dropping men's teams are choosing Option A not because of Title IX, but because they are being terrible parents (educational leaders). The answer to Title IX is very simple: If revenues don't increase, then everyone must make do with a smaller piece of the budget pie. The NCAA and its athletic conferences are simply refusing to legislate lower costs and a lower standard of living for men's sports in order to free up money for new women's teams.

Men's revenue sports are issuing threats regarding their own demise if their budgets are reduced in any way. First, tightening a sport's budget will not cause this sport business to fail. Commercial entities initiate such cost cuts every day to eliminate fat, increase profit margins and satisfy stock holders.

Second, and more important, there can never be an economic justification for discrimination. No one should ever be permitted to say that I can't comply with the law because I can't afford it. It is the same as saying, "I should be allowed to practice racism (or sexism) if I can't afford to initiate a change in the way I live or do business."

Using an employment discrimination example, the analogy would be that reducing the salaries of all employees is the preferred method of generating funds in an effort to increase salaries for the group that has historically experienced discrimination. This never happens. Rather, the salaries of the disadvantaged gender or individuals are always raised to the level of the advantaged group. As in the area of salary discrimination, the goal should be to bring the treatment of the group experiencing discrimination up to the level of the group that has received fair treatment, not to bring male athletes in minor sports down to the level of female athletes who simply were not provided with opportunities to play.

Even worse, when an institution eliminates a men's team in the name of Title IX, such action usually results in the development of destructive acrimony, pitting the men's non-revenue sports against women's sports. Alumni of the dropped men's sport get upset. An unnecessary domino effect results in the development of attitudes antithetical to solving discrimination in the long run. Gains for the underrepresented group come grudgingly and at a high cost to the previously advantaged group.

The last alternative should be cutting opportunities for students to participate in an educational activity. Other solutions, in order of preference, that should be considered are:

1. Raising new revenues. Gender equity can be used as an opportunity to raise new funds in much the same way as the need for a new building is used to initiate a capital campaign. However, it is essential that there be a positive spin on alumni solicitations for this purpose like adding one or two dollars to the current price of all sport tickets "so our daughters will have an equal chance to play" and other similarly creative revenue solutions. "Providing an equal opportunity for women to participate in varsity athletics" is also an excellent theme for an annual giving campaign targeted to female alumnae and supporters.

The demographic shift in higher education toward increasing percentages of women in undergraduate and graduate schools must also be noted. These are future generations of alumnae. Any position which antagonizes a group of future donors to the institution is short-sighted.

Presidential or school principal leadership is essential. The institution has the choice of "taking the high ground" and calling upon alumni and supporters of men's sports to "dig deeper" so our daughters are given the same chances to play as our sons, or pitting the have-nots against the have-nots by cutting men's sports teams. At many institutions, the resentment against Title IX has prevented athletic directors from "seeing the forest for the trees." The result has been the adoption of less than exemplary solutions to a very difficult problem.

2. Reducing excess expenditures on the most expensive men's sports and using the savings to expand opportunities and treatment for the underrepresented gender. There are many expenditures in the budgets of well-funded sports which can be eliminated without having a negative impact on either competitiveness vis-a-vis other institutions or the quality of the athletics experience. Such reductions include: provision of hotel rooms the night before home contests, ordering new uniforms less frequently, reducing the distance traveled for non-conference competition by selecting others as competitive opponents in closer geographic proximity, etc.

3. Athletic Conference Cost-Saving. The conference can adopt across-the-board mandated cost reductions that will assist all schools in saving funds while ensuring that the competitive playing field remains level (i.e., travel squad limits, adding the same sports for the underrepresented gender at the same time in order to ensure competition within a reasonable geographic area, etc.).

4. Internal Across-the-Board Budget Reductions. All sports can be asked to cut their budgets by a fixed percentage, thereby allowing each sport to chose the way it might least be affected, to free up funds for expanded opportunities for women. This method is preferred in that it does not have a disproportionate impact on low-budget sports.

5. Moving to a Lower Competitive Division. At the colllege level, Division I programs can move to Division IAA or Division II competition, thereby reducing scholarship and other expenses.

6. Using Tuition Waiver Savings to Fund Gender Equity. States can initiate legislation which provides for waiver of higher education tuition for athletic scholarships to members of the underrepresented gender, similar to the law adopted by the State of Washington. This legislation mandates the use of these scholarship savings to expand opportunities for the underrepresented gender. Such initiatives recognize that correcting gender inequities is an institutional obligation, not just an athletic department issue. There are other precedents for states to enact laws which confer financial relief in an effort to remedy widespread discrimination. The states of Washington, Florida and Minnesota have all enacted state laws to provide funding to achieve gender equity in athletics.

Unfortunately, at most institutions, it is easier for a college president to cut wrestling or men's gymnastics than to deal with the politics of reducing the football or men's basketball budgets. Simply put, educational leaders need to demonstrate better leadership and do the right thing.

Founded in 1974 by Billie Jean King, the Women's Sports

Gender Equity in Athletics - Higher Education
STATE LEGISLATION TEMPLATE

Complying with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 should not result in the reduction of opportunities for male athletes to participate in varsity athletics. Unfortunately, at most institutions, there is no incentive system in place to encourage maintaining sports opportunities for men. It is easier to cut wrestling or men's gymnastics and use these funds to provide opportunities for women to play than to deal with the politics of reducing the football or men's basketball team's budget. That is why the Foundation is in favor of the following legislative initiative to assist colleges and universities in achieving Title IX compliance. There is precedent for states to enact laws which confer financial relief in an effort to remedy widespread discrimination. The states of Washington, Florida and Minnesota have all enacted state laws to provide funding to achieve gender equity in athletics.

The following legislative initiative enables state legislators to strongly state their commitments to (1) gender equity, (2) maintainance of sports opportunities for all male and female athletes and (3) the creation of environments that encourage and financially support expansion of opportunities for previously disadvantaged populations in athletics. The Foundation urges all institutions of higher education to consider proposing this or similar legislative solutions to assist in the achievement of gender equity in intercollegiate athletics.

A Commitment to Opportunities for Male and Female Athletes via Tuition Waivers for the Historically Underrepresented Gender

PREFACE

Over the past fifteen years, many institutions nationwide have eliminated or downgraded to "club" status men's varsity intercollegiate sports or placed squad size limits on men's teams. Most schools cite, as the reason for their decision, the need to reduce expenditures on men's sports in order to provide opportunities for women. In fact, during the 1980s, when few schools were attempting to expand their women's sports programs, men's non-revenue sports programs were being dropped because of the budget increases given to men's football and basketball. Over the last five years, according to the 1997 NCAA Gender Equity Study, football budgets have increased 139% while the entire women's athletics budget increases have totaled 79%. Causative factors aside, the dropping of men's sports programs with the blame being placed on the growth of women's sports opportunities had created an acrimonious environment at many schools. Men's non-revenue sports are being unfairly pitted against women's sports - the disadvantaged vs. the disadvantaged.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 does not require that men's sports opportunities be reduced in order to achieve equity. All sports can be asked to cut their budgets to free up funds for expanded opportunities for women. Or, Division I programs can move to Division II competition (or Division II to Division III), thereby reducing scholarship and other expenses. The last alternative should be cutting opportunities for students to participate in the educational activity.
Unfortunately, there is no incentive system in place to encourage maintaining sports opportunities for men. It is easier to cut wrestling or men's gymnastics than to deal with the politics of reducing the football team's budget. The following legislative initiative enables state legislators to strongly state their commitment to (1) gender equity, (2) maintaining sports opportunities for all male and female athletes, and (3) creating environments that encourage and financially support expansion of opportunities for previously disadvantaged populations in athletics.

Executive Summary

The proposed legislation permits a waiver of the tuition portion of an athletic scholarship for members of the historically underrepresented gender at public institutions of higher education conditioned on the institution complying with the following requirements:
1. The institution must submit an athletics gender equity compliance plan in year one which shows the steps to be taken over no more than five years to achieve equitable opportunities to participate and comparable benefits of participation in intercollegiate athletics for male and female students.
2. The athletic department must use the funds saved through tuition waivers to expand opportunities or benefits for the underrepresented gender.
3. There must be no reduction of sports opportunities for male athletes.

Legislation Template

AN ACT Relating to gender equity in higher education; amending (cite state higher education section dealing with tuition waivers); providing an effective date; and declaring an emergency.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF _____________________:


Sec. 1. Institutions of higher education shall accomplish the following goals by June 30, 2002;

(1) Provide the following benefits and services equitably to male and female athletes participating in intercollegiate athletic programs: Equipment and supplies; medical services; services and insurance; transportation and per diem allowances; opportunities to receive coaching and instruction; scholarships and other forms of financial aid; conditioning programs; laundry services; assignment of game officials; opportunities for competition, publicity, and awards; and scheduling of games and practice times, including use of courts, gymnasia and pools. Each institution which provides showers, toilets, lockers or training room facilities for athletic purposes shall provide access to comparable facilities for both males and females.

(2) Provide equitable intercollegiate athletic opportunities for male and female students including opportunities to participate and to receive the benefits of the services listed in subsection (1) of this section without decreasing current levels of participation for the overrepresented gender.

(3) Provide participants with female and male coaches and administrators to act as role models.

Sec. 2.


(1) An institution of higher education shall not grant any waivers for the purpose of achieving gender equity until the 1997-98 academic year, and may grant waivers for the purpose of achieving gender equity in intercollegiate athletic programs as authorized in (cite higher education section dealing with tuition waivers). For the 1997-98 academic year only if the institution's governing board has adopted a plan for complying with the provisions of subsection (1) of Sec. 1 of (reference citation of all sections) and submitted the plan to the higher education coordinating board.
(2)
(a) Beginning in the 1998-99 academic year, an institution of higher education shall not grant any waiver for the purpose of achieving gender equity in intercollegiate athletic programs as authorized in (reference citation of all sections) unless the institution's plan has been approved by the higher education coordinating board.
(b) Beginning in the 1999-2000 academic year, an institution that did not provide, by June 30, 2000, athletic opportunities for an historically underrepresented gender class at a rate that meets or exceeds the current rate at which that class participates in high school athletics in (name of state) state shall have a new institutional plan approved by the higher education coordinating board before granting further waivers.
(c) Beginning in the 2002 academic year, an institution of higher education that was not within five percent of the ratio of undergraduates described in Sec. 4 (2) of (reference citation of all sections) by June 30, 2002, shall have a new plan for achieving gender equity in intercollegiate athletic programs approved by the higher education coordinating board before granting further waivers.


(3) The plan shall include, but not be limited to :
(a) For any institution with an historically underrepresented gender class described in subsection (2)(b) of this section, provisions that ensure that by July 1, 2000, the institution shall provide athletic opportunities for the underrepresented gender class at a rate that meets or exceeds the current rate at which that class participates in high school interscholastic athletics in (name of state) state not to exceed the point at which the underrepresented gender class is no longer underrepresented;
(b) For any institution with an underrepresented gender class described in subsection (2) (c) of this section, provisions that ensure that by July 1, 2002, the institution will have reached substantial proportionality in its athletic programs;
(c) Activities to be undertaken by the institution to increase participation rates of any underrepresented gender class in interscholastic and intercollegiate athletics. These activities may include, but are not limited to: Adding teams, sponsoring equity conferences, coaches clinics and sports clinics; and taking a leadership role in working with athletic conferences to reduce barriers to participation by those gender classes in interscholastic and intercollegiate athletics;
(d) An identification of barriers to achieving and maintaining equitable intercollegiate athletic opportunities for men and women; and
(e) Measures to achieve institutional compliance with the provisions of (reference citation of all sections)

Sec. 3
(1) The higher education coordinating board shall report every two years, beginning December 1998, to the governor and the house of representatives and senate committees on higher education, on institutional efforts to comply with the requirements of (reference citation of all sections). Each report shall include recommendations on measures taken to assist institutions with compliance efforts.
(2) Before the board makes its report in December 2000, the board shall assess the extent of institutional compliance with the requirements of (reference citation of all sections).

Sec. 4
(1) As used in and for the limited purposes of Sec. 1 through Sec. 5 (reference citation of all sections) "underrepresented gender class" means female students or male students, where the ratio of participation of female or male students who are seventeen to twenty-four year old undergraduates enrolled full-time on the main campus, respectively, in intercollegiate athletics has historically been less than approximately the ratio of female to male students or male to female students, respectively, enrolled as undergraduates at an institution.
(2) As used in and for the limited purpose of Section 2-(3)-(a) of (reference citation of all sections), an "underrepresented gender class" in interscholastic athletics means female students or male students, where the ratio of participation of female or male students, respectively, in K-12 interscholastic athletics has historically been less than approximately their ratio of female to male students or male to female students, respectively, enrolled in K-12 public schools in (name of state)
(3) As used in and for the limited purposes (reference citation of all sections), "equitable' means that the ratio of female and male students participating in intercollegiate athletics is substantially proportionate to the percentages of female and male students who are seventeen to twenty-four year old undergraduates enrolled full-time on the main campus.

Sec. 5
The executive director of the higher education coordinating board (or other appropriate title), in consultation with the council of presidents (or other appropriate entity) and the state board for community and technical colleges (or other appropriate entity), shall monitor the compliance by institutions of higher education with this chapter.

(1) The board shall establish a timetable and guidelines for compliance with this chapter.
(2) The board shall report every two years, beginning December 31, 1998, to the governor and the higher education committees of the house of representatives and the senate on institutional efforts to comply with this chapter. The report shall include recommendations on measures to assist institutions with compliance.
(3) The board may delegate to the state board for community and technical colleges any or all responsibility for community college compliance with the provisions of this chapter.

Sec. 6
This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety or support of the state governing and its existing public institutions and takes effect July 1, 1997.

There are several examples of legislative initiatives made by states in order to comply with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Click below to read State Title IX Laws.

Editor's Note The Foundation believes that both males and females deserve the opportunity to play a sport they love. By donating to the Women's Sports Foundation today, you will be providing the funding necessary to ensure the success of our Participation, Education, Advocacy, Research and Leadership programs, which keep girls playing sports on all levels. Please Make a donation to the Women's Sports Foundation today.

http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgi-bin/iowa/issues/rights/article.html?record=84

[NotAboutEgo]

Why do a lot of guys think they should have the opportunities but women shouldn't?

The last time I checked, people go to college for education, NOT to make money on sports. And, the football and basketball teams DON'T financially support the the rest of the school's sports. I went to Wayne State University in Detroit. To think that Wayne's football team and men's basketball team bring in enough revenue to support the rest of the school's sports is the most absurd thing I've ever heard!

[NotAboutEgo]

The LPGA Hall of Fame, located in Daytona Beach, Fla., is one of only two major all-women's halls of fame dedicated to a single sport in the United States. The other is the Women's Basketball Hall of Fame in Knoxville, Tenn.

[NotAboutEgo]

Why is it that ONLY ONE woman had been inducted into the Michigan Sports Hall of Fame before 2002? It looks like the MSHOF has been around since 1955. It took almost 50 years before a woman got inducted!

Also, the majority of the athletes that get inducted each year continue to be men.

http://www.michigansportshof.org/

[NotAboutEgo]

Potted History

Some early history about women and the Olympics
Married women were barred from the Ancient Olympic Games, but prostitutes or virgins were allowed to spectate.

Kallipateria was the first female Olympic boxing coach in 440 BC.

The first female Olympic champion was a Spartan princess called Kynisca, in 392 BC. She was also the first woman to become a champion horse trainer when her horses and chariot competed and won in the Ancient Olympic Games.

Women had their own athletic games of Hera from about 1000 BC.

Pomegranites, symbols of fertiltiy, were prizes at the women’s games, along with olive wreaths and a slice of a sacrificial cow.

Women were originally the prizes in mens Ancient Olympic chariot races.

In the first modern Olympics of 1896, women were not allowed to compete, but there was an unofficial competitor in the marathon, a poor Greek woman who became known as 'Melpomene'. Melpomene’s real name was Stamati Revithi. She was not allowed to compete in the mens race, but ran by herself the next day. The final lap was completed outside the stadium as she was refused entry to the stadium. After her marathon run, athletics officials couldn’t remember her name so they labelled her 'Melpomene', who is the Greek muse of Tragedy. Looking at Stamata Revithi, they could see only tragedy, not her extraordinary feat.

Ballooning, croquet and golf (1900) were once Olympic events in which women competed. Please see Statistics for more information.

1900 was the year the World Exhibition was scheduled to take place in Paris, with celebrations and events akin to our own Millennium celebrations. The Olympic Games were taking place at the same time, from 14th May to 28th October and were considered by many to be part of the World Exhibition. Some of the competitors did not know if they were in the Olympic Games or the World Fair. Happily for the women athletes of the time, the all male International Olympic Committee, who were very against women taking parts in sports, had little influence in Paris.

The organisers of the World Exhibition seemed unconcerned about the rights and wrongs of women competing, so their presence was not an issue. To this day there is still confusion as to which events were Olympic and which were World Fair events. So, who were the first female Olympic competitors and champion? For a sport to be Olympic in 1900 it had to be an open sport, amateur and international, not handicapped and not motorised. The long-held view was that women took part in just two Olympic sports in 1900 - tennis and golf. Sports historians now accept that women were involved in the yachting. Old programmes of the Paris Exposition show that women also participated in ballooning, croquet, equestrianism, golf, tennis and yachting. Bearing this in mind, we take the view that all women who took part in these sports were Olympians.

Our view is that the first women competitors in the Modern Olympic Games of 1900 in chronological order were: Helen de Pourtales, Switzerland (Yachting), Elvira Guerra, France (Equestrianism), Mme Ohnier and Madame Depres, France (Croquet), Charlotte Cooper, Great Britain (Tennis), Margaret Abbott, USA (Golf), Madame Maison, France (Ballooning).

The first gold medalists were: Helen de Pourtales (mixed event) and Charlotte Cooper (individual women’s event). The first team medal was won by Great Britain in 1912, in the 4 x 100 metres freestyle relay.

Women’s boxing was included in the 1904 Olympic Games in St. Louis, USA, as a demonstration or exhibition sport. Archery also made its first appearance as an Olympic sport for women.

In 1906, in the interim Games in Greece, Danish women took part in a gymnastics demonstration but women had to wait until 1928 before gymnastics became an official Olympic event. The team gymnastic event continued until 1952 when an individual women’s gymnastics event was introduced. In the 1952 and 1956 Olympic Games there was also a women’s team portable apparatus event which was then discontinued.

Tennis was the only sport in the interim Games for women but only Greek and French women took part.

In 1912 a fifteen year old British schoolgirl entered the modern pentathlon event in the Stockholm Olympic Games, but her entry was rejected. The modern pentathlon for women is to be contested for the first time in the Olympic Games in Sydney 2000.

Two swimming events and highboard diving for women were included in the Olympic Games of 1912.

Fencing for women arrived in 1924. There was one event, the individual foil.

Athletics provided the biggest hurdle of all for women to be accepted into Olympic competition. Women even set up their own Olympic Games during the early 1920s because they were so frustrated at the lack of acceptance. Eventually in 1928 in Amsterdam, the first women competed in 5 athletic events. The successful women’s athletic team from Great Britain chose to boycott the Olympics because they believed women should have been allowed to compete in more events.

The first track and field gold medalist was sixteen year old Betty Robinson (USA) who won the 100 metres. Sadly, Betty died in May 1999.

There were no women members of the International Olympic Committee from 1896 until 1981!

[MSUlaxer27]

Data means nothing. OK. So in other words there is nothing I can say that can ever prove my points? I tried to find a respected source to back up my position.

Still you didn't answer my question. If you chose to accept the data( I know you say it doesn't matter). 42% of college students nationally are men, while they are greater than 50% of the general population at the traditional college age level. Let's look past the fact that the mens level of college athlete's are dropping, while women athletes are increasing... the general student population (the very thing that allows one to enter higher paying careers) of males is dropping in relation to to their percentage of society (Over 50% in the general population very 42% of the university population). How do we rectify this fact?

And even though women college athletes are over represented from there percentage of the general population, this is still not enough? When will it be enough?

You know what instead of whining about it, if you want to get leagues in these sports prove the numbers. An indoor gym and/or rink opens up and 500 guys will automatically try and join a league vs. what 30 women (I'll give you the benefit of doubt - 100 women) If I ran the rink, and was trying to make money I would make sure the lights were always on. I would apportion my leagues accordingly. They know the men will play, you must prove the women will. In the age of the internet you can put out an ad to ask enough women to fill a rec ice hockey, basketball and roller hockey league. Bring the numbers to the manager of the facility and prove there is a need. Numbers don't lie.

I know for a fact having lived in Michigan that it took a while for boy's lacrosse to become a state sanctioned sport. The "schools" didn't say, "we need to start a lax program (especially since there were only 2 colleges in Michigan who had NCAA lax programs, both of which were cut before HS lax was sanctioned)...the boys took it upon themselves to form clubs (initially) and seek out coaches. The same is true with roller hockey for boys (or girls). If there truly are enough who want to play they will find a way.

It is the 35th Anniversary of Title IX and the 25th of womens NCAA championships, there women out who have had positive experiences under both these programs who could encourage their daughters to play (if the girls wanted to.) Don't get angry at the boys because try to play the sports they want.

I went to a High school that had no air conditioning yet in the late spring and early sumer when the temperature would get into the high 70's girls were allowed to wear skirts but boys couldn't wear shorts. Who cares. It's not the 60's anymore. Did you have to fight to wear jeans to school? How much has school changed since we graduated almost 20 years ago?

It also seems with the sports that you bring up (baseball and hockey) that you're looking for a reason to put a chip on your shoulder. "I want to play these sports, so must every other girl, the man is just keeping us down!" Don't make the assumption that everyone wants the same things you do.

When I was in school, boys couldn't take home economics (which has probably been disbanded due to political correctness and that fact that in this day's economy who can afford to stay home), they had to take shop. There were 2 guys who fought the ban and took home ec. good for them, didn't open the flood gates, most guys I knew wanted to take shop.

Is it possible that most women (as are most men) are happy with there sports opportunities?, what numbers will you find acceptable, to say that all the women who want to play sports are playing?

Again these are not rhetorical questions...what will make you happy? What is your solution to the fact that men are grossly underrepresented in the college ranks?

[MSUlaxer27]

Why do a lot of guys think they should have the opportunities but women shouldn't?

The last time I checked, people go to college for education, NOT to make money on sports. And, the football and basketball teams DON'T financially support the the rest of the school's sports. I went to Wayne State University in Detroit. To think that Wayne's football team and men's basketball team bring in enough revenue to support the rest of the school's sports is the most absurd thing I've ever heard!

Is Wayne State DI in football? (maybe in hockey?) DI revenue sports do support the other teams. (The athletic department is separate from the University). Revenues from the fans bring in the money to provide for the budgets of the non-revenue sports. I used to attend women's volleyball matches and men's baseball at my school, they were free, but if you asked me to pay I wouldn't have gone. I am free to spend my money as I wish and it simply wouldn't have been worth my money to watch those sports for pay. Even at Wayne State how many people watched men's basketball and football? How many watched women's basketball, soccer etc? Fans bring in the revenue (even at DII and DIII). I don't believe no matter how long we push the issue that women's sports will be viewed on the same level as mens.

[NotAboutEgo]

Data means nothing. OK. So in other words there is nothing I can say that can ever prove my points? I tried to find a respected source to back up my position.

Still you didn't answer my question. If you chose to accept the data( I know you say it doesn't matter). 42% of college students nationally are men, while they are greater than 50% of the general population at the traditional college age level. Let's look past the fact that the mens level of college athlete's are dropping, while women athletes are increasing... the general student population (the very thing that allows one to enter higher paying careers) of males is dropping in relation to to their percentage of society (Over 50% in the general population very 42% of the university population). How do we rectify this fact?

Are less men going to college nowdays because of discrimination? If it's because less choose to go to college than before, that's their choice. Is it because women are telling men they can't go to college and have to stop going and women are keeping them from going?

And even though women college athletes are over represented from there percentage of the general population, this is still not enough? When will it be enough?

You know what instead of whining about it, if you want to get leagues in these sports prove the numbers. An indoor gym and/or rink opens up and 500 guys will automatically try and join a league vs. what 30 women (I'll give you the benefit of doubt - 100 women) If I ran the rink, and was trying to make money I would make sure the lights were always on. I would apportion my leagues accordingly. They know the men will play, you must prove the women will. In the age of the internet you can put out an ad to ask enough women to fill a rec ice hockey, basketball and roller hockey league. Bring the numbers to the manager of the facility and prove there is a need. Numbers don't lie.

Really? Maybe you should read this:

2007 Statistics - Gender Equity in High School and College Athletics: Most Recent Participation & Budget Statistics*

OVERVIEW
Good News:
Since Title IX was enacted 34 years ago, female high school athletic participation has increased by 904% and female college athletic participation has increased by 456%.

Bad News:
High school female athletes receive only 41% of participation opportunities, which is 1.25 million fewer than their male counterparts.

Even though female students comprise 57% of their college student populations, female athletes received only 43% of participation opportunities which is 56,110 fewer participation opportunities than their male counterparts.

Female college athletes receive only:

38% of sports operating dollars, which is $1.17 billion less than male college athletes.

45% of college athletic scholarship dollars, which is $148 million fewer scholarship dollars than male college athletes, and

33% of athletic team recruitment spending, which is $43 million less recruiting female athletes than male athletes


HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS PARTICIPATION DATA

Girls comprise 49% of the high school population (NCES, 2003-2004) but only receive 41% of all athletic participation opportunities.1

High school female athletes received only 41% of participation opportunities, which is 1.25 million fewer participation opportunities than male high school athletes.2

Participation numbers for both boys and girls increased over the previous year.3

Girls’ athletics experienced a smaller increase of 44,965 participants compared to a 96,230 increase for boys.4

The boys’ participation rate of 4,206,549 is the second-highest yearly participation overall.5

The girls’ participation rate of 2,953,355 set an all-time high for female participation.6


COLLEGE SPORTS PARTICIPATION DATA– NCAA

Females comprise 57% of the college student population (NCES, Fall 2003) but only receive 43% of all college athletic participation opportunities.7

Female college athletes receive 56,110 fewer college athletic participation opportunities than male college athletes.8

Between 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, the participation of female college athletes at NCAA institutions increased by 3,976 while men’s participation increased by 5,529.9

Contrary to some media reports, male athletes have not lost opportunities as a result of Title IX.


From 1988-1989 to 2003-2004, NCAA member institutions have added 2,346 sports for men while dropping 2,276 men’s sports during that same period for a net gain of 70, while adding for women 3,592 sports and dropping 1,490 sports for a net gain of 2,102.10

NCAA male sports participation has increased from 169,800 in 1981-1982 to 222,838 in 2004-2005.

It appears that NCAA Division I institutions are dropping men’s sports teams in order to put more resources into men’s football and basketball.

From 1988-1989 to 2004-2005, NCAA Division I schools suffered a net loss of 239 men’s teams while Divisions II (+44) and III (+265) enjoyed net gains.11

In a study of both NCAA and NAIA schools, from 1981-1982 to 1998-1999, the net outcome of added and discontinued teams was +36 for men and +3,784 for females. Division II and III schools were found more likely to add teams and less likely to drop teams compared to Division I schools.12

COLLEGE SPORTS BUDGET DATA– NCAA

Female college athletes receive only 45% of college athletic scholarship dollars, which is $148 million fewer scholarship dollars than male college athletes.13

Female college athletes receive only 38% of sports operating dollars, which is $1.17 billion less than male college athletes.14

NCAA colleges spend 33% of recruitment money on women, which is $43 million less recruiting female athletes than male athletes.15
__________________________________________________ _________

1National Federation of State High School Associations, 2005-2006

2Ibid

3Ibid

4Ibid

5Ibid

6Ibid

7National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2004-2005

8Ibid

9NCAA Sports Sponsorship, 2004-2005

10Ibid

11Ibid

12Government Accountability Office Report, 2001

13NCAA Gender Equity Report, 2003-2004

14Ibid

15Ibid


* 2005-2006 represents the latest high school (National Federation of State High School Athletic Associations -NFHS) and college (National Collegiate Athletic Association-NCAA) athletic participation data. 2003-2004 represents the latest high school and college general student body statistics (National Center for Education Statistics-NCES). 2003-2004 represents the latest college budget data (National Collegiate Athletic Association-NCAA).

Contact the Women's Sports Foundation Advocacy Department at 1-800-227-3988.

Why are female athletes receiving LESS athletic opportunities as men are in high schools and colleges, if collegiate female athletes are over represented in comparison to the population? You can't just look at the numbers of participants, either. You also have to look at the opportunities provided, the dollars spent, the condition of the facilities, the amount and condition of equipment, etc.

I'm not talking just about college athletics, either... which is all you seem to focus on. I'm talking about athletics in general, and discrimination has more to do than with just numbers... something you seem to ignore. Plenty of women around want to play sports but they don't always get the chance because, as history tells us, men have always dominated and still are dominating. If there were enough women playing roller hockey where I used to play to have a women's league, why did it never happen? There were plenty of women playing in the coed league... coming from all over the place. I've experienced the numbers. I don't sit around guessing about it.

I know for a fact having lived in Michigan that it took a while for boy's lacrosse to become a state sanctioned sport. The "schools" didn't say, "we need to start a lax program (especially since there were only 2 colleges in Michigan who had NCAA lax programs, both of which were cut before HS lax was sanctioned)...the boys took it upon themselves to form clubs (initially) and seek out coaches. The same is true with roller hockey for boys (or girls). If there truly are enough who want to play they will find a way.

I agree that it's a good idea to start a club sport, but you can't do that in a sports facility that is owned and run by someone. When a facility, school, recreational program, or whatever is oening up for the first time and starts providing programs for boys but not for girls, that is discrimination.

It is the 35th Anniversary of Title IX and the 25th of womens NCAA championships, there women out who have had positive experiences under both these programs who could encourage their daughters to play (if the girls wanted to.) Don't get angry at the boys because try to play the sports they want.

I went to a High school that had no air conditioning yet in the late spring and early sumer when the temperature would get into the high 70's girls were allowed to wear skirts but boys couldn't wear shorts. Who cares. It's not the 60's anymore. Did you have to fight to wear jeans to school? How much has school changed since we graduated almost 20 years ago?

It also seems with the sports that you bring up (baseball and hockey) that you're looking for a reason to put a chip on your shoulder. "I want to play these sports, so must every other girl, the man is just keeping us down!" Don't make the assumption that everyone wants the same things you do.

I was using those as examples of the BS I have to put up with just to be able to play sports I love. I never, ever said every girl must play the sports I play. Where did you ever get that idea? You don't even understand the context of what's written. I stated experiences I have had where guys have attitudes about women playing amongst them. Other women and I have been called names, just because we're women and we're playing "men's" sports, and I've been punched in the chest for no reason at all... when, after the whistle has blown and I'm skating past some guy, he reaches out and punches me in the chest, just because I'm a woman playing HIS sport. These are examples of the **** that we put up with all the time, because men like you can't handle it. These kinds of attitudes are what causes all the problems.

When I was in school, boys couldn't take home economics (which has probably been disbanded due to political correctness and that fact that in this day's economy who can afford to stay home), they had to take shop. There were 2 guys who fought the ban and took home ec. good for them, didn't open the flood gates, most guys I knew wanted to take shop.

Is it possible that most women (as are most men) are happy with there sports opportunities?, what numbers will you find acceptable, to say that all the women who want to play sports are playing?

Again these are not rhetorical questions...what will make you happy? What is your solution to the fact that men are grossly underrepresented in the college ranks?

We're talking about girls being told they CAN'T play a sport simply because they're a female, and that happens all the time. Have you missed the point of these threads and posts? Saying that not enough girls are saying they want to play sports because of an article someone wrote has nothing to do with girls who want to try out for a sport that is not available to them in the way of a girls' team and being told they can't play on the boys' team simply because they are a girl.

It happens all the time... it's happened to me and plenty of other girls and women over and over again with many sports... not just with baseball. The reason I use my experiences as examples is because I've lived them and don't have to have the info passed down to me to tell it. It's happened to most women who play on my women's baseball team. Not everyone has the time, the means, whatever to start and support a team and/or league. Girls and women shouldn't have to face controversy and chaos most everytime they want to play a sport, but that's usually how it ends up. Based on all of your posts in this section of the forum, it's obvious how you think.

[NotAboutEgo]

Welcome to It Takes a Team!

Did you know that some girls don't play sports because they are afraid someone will call them a lesbian or they are afraid one of their teammates or a coach might be a lesbian?

Did you know that lesbian and bisexual women in sport are discriminated against based on stereotypes and homophobia?

Did you know that gay boys and men in sport keep their identities secret out of fear of harassment from teammates and coaches?

http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgi-bin/iowa/issues/itat/index.html

This is just one example of societal issues that affect whether one plays a sport or not. Numbers don't tell the whole story.

[digglahhh]

Are less men going to college nowdays because of discrimination? If it's because less choose to go to college than before, that's their choice. Is it because women are telling men they can't go to college and have to stop going and women are keeping them from going?


No, quite the opposite actually. Male college enrollment is decreasing because discrimination is becoming less prevalent and they have to compete with females (who, on average, get better grades) for spots in colleges.

But, I do have to agree with MSU in terms of powerhouse Division I men's major sports programs being a huge revenue stream. If the female tennis team at Duke is getting angry about the disparity of scholarship or resources they may be right on an intellectual level, but they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Ideology and pragmatics have to seek a balance in these situations.

Of course, many of these big time athletic programs create all sorts of conflict with the primary purpose of a university, education. Academic standards are often bent.

I'll tell ya this, you know when major DI athletic powerhouses "need" those female athletes? When they have to present a recruit's concerned parents some skewed statistics to convince them that their son will actually end his collegiate experience with a degree! Who knows what UNLV's athlete grad rate would look like if it wasn't for things like women's fencing?... We already know that the roster of the undefeated regular season team that lost to Duke in the finals can boast more Final Four Appearances than degrees!!

[dw8man]

No, quite the opposite actually. Male college enrollment is decreasing because discrimination is becoming less prevalent and they have to compete with females (who, on average, get better grades) for spots in colleges.


I have to agree with part of what you said here. Females are scoring better but why? There is some research that has been done in the past few years that is pointing to the fact that our school systems are focusing so much on the females that the males are being left out/behind. I will try to provide a link or documentation if anyone is interested. Could it be a case of not less discrimination but a case of it just shifting?

Okay, I found some articles:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965522/site/newsweek/

http://www.cherokeesentinel.com/news/2006/0222/Front_Page/005.html

Here is an article that counters the above:

http://www.educationsector.org/analysis/analysis_show.htm?doc_id=378705

[NotAboutEgo]

No, quite the opposite actually. Male college enrollment is decreasing because discrimination is becoming less prevalent and they have to compete with females (who, on average, get better grades) for spots in colleges.

But, I do have to agree with MSU in terms of powerhouse Division I men's major sports programs being a huge revenue stream. If the female tennis team at Duke is getting angry about the disparity of scholarship or resources they may be right on an intellectual level, but they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Ideology and pragmatics have to seek a balance in these situations.

Of course, many of these big time athletic programs create all sorts of conflict with the primary purpose of a university, education. Academic standards are often bent.

I'll tell ya this, you know when major DI athletic powerhouses "need" those female athletes? When they have to present a recruit's concerned parents some skewed statistics to convince them that their son will actually end his collegiate experience with a degree! Who knows what UNLV's athlete grad rate would look like if it wasn't for things like women's fencing?... We already know that the roster of the undefeated regular season team that lost to Duke in the finals can boast more Final Four Appearances than degrees!!

Exactly! The purpose of going to college is to get an education. If someone is gifted enough and is in the right place at the right time to get an athletic scholarship to college... terrific. If they then have a chance to play a sport professionally after college... terrific. I have no problem with that. But the purpose of going to college is to get an education, not to see what sports can make the most money. DI football and basketball have almost become "mini" pro sports because of all the hype from the media and the focus on the revenue it brings in and all that. At University of Michigan football stadium, they added sky boxes about a year ago. Talk about ridiculous.

The focus of high school sports, at least in the schools I'm familair with, have the same focus... on men's football and basketball. So, that's what is promoted.

So, if there are less guys in college now than before, it's only the fault of men that is creating it. If some guys are focusing more on whether they'll make the football or basketball team in high school or college, it's their problem if they fail with their academics and lag behind women in that category.

How many times have there been stories in the news about college football and basketball teams, coaches, and players being busted for giving players things like cars, housing, food, and even money? Jeez, it seems to happen at the University of Michigan quite a lot... one of the big powers in D1 football and basketball.

How many players are on a collegiate men's football, and how many of those actually ever play in a game and sit the bench instead? It's ludicrous how many are on a team. Money could be saved by having the actual amount of players on a team that it really needs.

I guess I can say I'm proud of my school for focusing more on academics than on athletics. Wayne State focuses more on academics and thus gives out numerous academic scholarships each year. That's a big reason why most of its sports are not D1.

[NotAboutEgo]

I have to agree with part of what you said here. Females are scoring better but why? There is some research that has been done in the past few years that is pointing to the fact that our school systems are focusing so much on the females that the males are being left out/behind. I will try to provide a link or documentation if anyone is interested. It isn't a case of less discrimination but a case of it just shifting.......

How are males being left out academically?

[dw8man]

How are males being left out academically?

I added some articles to my last post. I even found a counter article for everyone to read. I also changed the last line from:

It isn't a case of less discrimination but a case of it just shifting.......

to a question:

Could it be a case of not less discrimination but a case of it just shifting?


I personally have experienced problems with my son and his schooling. Last year one teacher moved all the boys to the back of the class and all the girls up front because she said that none of the boys wanted to learn anyway! We complained and the principal (female) said the teacher could set up her class the way she wanted too! That is just one small example.

For those that do not like to go back....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965522/site/newsweek/

http://www.cherokeesentinel.com/news/2006/0222/Front_Page/005.html

Here is an article that counters the above:

http://www.educationsector.org/analysis/analysis_show.htm?doc_id=378705

[dw8man]

Exactly! The purpose of going to college is to get an education.

Not for everyone..... For a small few, it is to make a ton of money playing a professoinal sport.

[NotAboutEgo]

I added some articles to my last post. I even found a counter article for everyone to read. I also changed the last line from:

It isn't a case of less discrimination but a case of it just shifting.......

to a question:

Could it be a case of not less discrimination but a case of it just shifting?


I personally have experienced problems with my son and his schooling. Last year one teacher moved all the boys to the back of the class and all the girls up front because she said that none of the boys wanted to learn anyway! We complained and the principal (female) said the teacher could set up her class the way she wanted too! That is just one small example.

For those that do not like to go back....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965522/site/newsweek/

http://www.cherokeesentinel.com/news/2006/0222/Front_Page/005.html

Here is an article that counters the above:

http://www.educationsector.org/analysis/analysis_show.htm?doc_id=378705

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the teacher's method, but if certain students are goofing off and aren't paying attention in class, it's their problem and they need to learn to take responsibility for their actions... and therefore, they should have to deal with the consequences that come out of it... when they are appropriate, of course. If it was a case where all of the boys were acting up, then so be it... they should have been sent to the back so the girls weren't interrupted from learning. I have a hard time believing all the boys in the class were acting up... but who knows. Sometimes things can start with one person and spread to others. What did your son say about the situation? Was he trying to learn but got lumped in with the other boys?

My point is, whoever acts up, whether it be boys or girls, they need to learn to pay the consequences of their actions. If they don't like them, they need to adjust their behavior while in class.

Also, I hardly believe that being moved to the back of the class is going to affect the grades of the students. When I was able to pick my seat in class, I always went to the back because I didn't like being in the front. I was the salutatorian of my class.

If teachers are tutoring and/or helping girls over boys to help them achieve academic success, then there'd be a problem. I hardly think this would happen.

If a student acts up and doesn't do their work and gets bad grades and the teacher moves them to a different spot or whatever, it's not the teacher's fault that they failed. Maybe the teacher's action wasn't the wisest, but I don't see how that would affect whether someone completes their homework on time and does a good job in school. I see it as an excuse.

Obviously, there could be individual cases of harassment, stereotyping, etc. that can affect students. If that happens to either gender, something needs to be done about it.

[Utility07]

All I have to say is, hooray for prong 3. You gals love to talk in ideals, but alot of women arent doing anything. If they dont like it, they need to complain. Most schools are only compliant because of prong 3. This proves women arent doing anything legally about these inequalities. All it takes is a lawsuit to notify the NCAA, which then must cater to the women complaining, or face probation.

Oh, and its ironic that this is a baseball forum, because alot of the time, the first spring season victim after lacrosse is baseball, as it often has upwards of 30 kids.

[dw8man]

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the teacher's method, but if certain students are goofing off and aren't paying attention in class, it's their problem and they need to learn to take responsibility for their actions... and therefore, they should have to deal with the consequences that come out of it... when they are appropriate, of course. If it was a case where all of the boys were acting up, then so be it... they should have been sent to the back so the girls weren't interrupted from learning. I have a hard time believing all the boys in the class were acting up... but who knows. Sometimes things can start with one person and spread to others. What did your son say about the situation? Was he trying to learn but got lumped in with the other boys?

My point is, whoever acts up, whether it be boys or girls, they need to learn to pay the consequences of their actions. If they don't like them, they need to adjust their behavior while in class.

Also, I hardly believe that being moved to the back of the class is going to affect the grades of the students. When I was able to pick my seat in class, I always went to the back because I didn't like being in the front. I was the salutatorian of my class.

If teachers are tutoring and/or helping girls over boys to help them achieve academic success, then there'd be a problem. I hardly think this would happen.

If a student acts up and doesn't do their work and gets bad grades and the teacher moves them to a different spot or whatever, it's not the teacher's fault that they failed. Maybe the teacher's action wasn't the wisest, but I don't see how that would affect whether someone completes their homework on time and does a good job in school. I see it as an excuse.


I do agree about the kids being disciplined but she didn't move them because they were acting up. She put them there the first day of class and told the boys why they were put back there. To me that just tells the boys that they are going to be problem, so I don't want to deal with you. Now my son is very quit (most of the time) and has problems with focus when there are distractions. If you read the Newsweek article, it talks about boys learning issues during their Middle School years. My son is just like the kids in the article. His 6th and 7th grade years were very hard as he started into puberty but he is now getting better at the focus stuff. But to be honest, those two years were just about a waste of time school wise.

Also, I am not fussing about a boy sitting in the back. I am fussing about my son being told he doesn't want to learn and that only girls do! I know that is one teacher and one small example, but read the articles (if you haven't had a chance) and let me know what you think.

[digglahhh]

I have to agree with part of what you said here. Females are scoring better but why? There is some research that has been done in the past few years that is pointing to the fact that our school systems are focusing so much on the females that the males are being left out/behind. I will try to provide a link or documentation if anyone is interested. Could it be a case of not less discrimination but a case of it just shifting?

Okay, I found some articles:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965522/site/newsweek/

http://www.cherokeesentinel.com/news/2006/0222/Front_Page/005.html

Here is an article that counters the above:

http://www.educationsector.org/analysis/analysis_show.htm?doc_id=378705

This is a little different than the articles you've posted, but I've read research that states, too, that many teachers just have a higher opinion of female students and they are also more wary of criticizing them. Since many of the behavior problems involve younger boys, teachers often assume that's a function of intelligence and that the girls are "better" students in the academic sense. The bias begins to swing back the other way at the high-end universities and postgraduate programs, especially in the "hard sciences."

There will always be questions about the tools we use to measure performance (check out the Stats Forum). There have been allegations of standardized tests being culturally and economically biased for using analogies like aria is to opera...

[NotAboutEgo]

I do agree about the kids being disciplined but she didn't move them because they were acting up. She put them there the first day of class and told the boys why they were put back there. To me that just tells the boys that they are going to be problem, so I don't want to deal with you. Now my son is very quit (most of the time) and has problems with focus when there are distractions. If you read the Newsweek article, it talks about boys learning issues during their Middle School years. My son is just like the kids in the article. His 6th and 7th grade years were very hard as he started into puberty but he is now getting better at the focus stuff. But to be honest, those two years were just about a waste of time school wise.

Also, I am not fussing about a boy sitting in the back. I am fussing about my son being told he doesn't want to learn and that only girls do! I know that is one teacher and one small example, but read the articles (if you haven't had a chance) and let me know what you think.

Well, you left out the details in your first post about it being the first day of class and that it wasn't a reaction to the boys' actions. That makes a huge difference. I highly disagree with this teacher's position. You can't judge one person by what another person has done.

Then again, I don't have much faith in the structure of the schools (schools in general... I know there are exceptions) in the U.S. I think they need to be completely restructured, and I think a lot of teachers are at fault for creating stereotypes, by being biased, favoring certain kids or groups of kids over others, being very critical, hurting kids emotionally, etc.

I remember when I was in high school... some teachers had their pets... the "popular" kids... and always favored them and talked to them while basically ignoring the rest of the class at times. I was so much happier when I went to college!

[NotAboutEgo]

"Freedom Writers" is a great movie that many need to see. It's a true story and is similar to other true stories about students that have been made into movies. The one that Antonio Banderas is in about dancing is along the same lines (I forget the name). Neither are about gender discrimination, but they are about kids, who come from backgrounds of lower economic levels than others, can be misguided and affected from their situations and environments. With guidance from someone who cares, these kids were taught how to care for themselves and be successful in school and in dance. I guess my point in posting this is that I can see how someone who is treated wrongly in school could be affected by it and not be academically successful.

[captlid]

I live in a city with a population of 8 million people. Assume half of them are female. Our league has about a 100 people on its mailing list. About 45 of them have shown up to practices so far.

We have marketed the league through craigslist, google, leaving flyers everywhere, and talking to current softball players. We still have only managed about a 100 folks. There have even been articles in various newspapers about us.

Someone in another thread wrote that when the national team held its tryouts that each location had about a 100 girls show up. That's 300 people in the whole country! Thats it. I wonder who's fault is it? The lack of marketing or the lack of interest.

If there was huge interest in my area I could have just raided my local women's softball league and found 12 teams worth of players. Didn't work. Another poster mentioned something similar, that his co-ed softball league has a hard time fielding female players in our same city.

2 years ago, our league did a two week baseball camp for 7-8 year olds during the summer in the park. Only 25% were girls.
You would think that is the age where they dont really have conceptions of whats "supposedly appropriate" for guys or girls to do. And they mostly dont, but I dont see the huge interest amongst the girls.

The other weird thing is why the heck did Little League make a softball division when they dont even know anything about the sport? :rofl: Maybe there is actually more demand for softball than baseball?

When I played roller hockey, I was one of two girls (we were teenagers at the time.) in all of Brooklyn playing. I never saw a girl playing either in one of two leagues in the borough or just pickup with the guys. Maybe there are more now, but I just dont see it.

Demographics also have to be considered. I live a few minutes walk from a place that used to have at least 10-12 baseball fields. When the parks department renovated the whole area, due to the new population in and around the area they put down turf for everything except the one regulation baseball field left. Now that area has only two regulation fields one of which is grass and the rest of the area is a combo football/soccer field, two regular soccer fields, two little league fields and a volleyball court and one basketball court. There is still more demand for soccer fields.

[NotAboutEgo]

I live in a city with a population of 8 million people. Assume half of them are female. Our league has about a 100 people on its mailing list. About 45 of them have shown up to practices so far.

We have marketed the league through craigslist, google, leaving flyers everywhere, and talking to current softball players. We still have only managed about a 100 folks. There have even been articles in various newspapers about us.

Someone in another thread wrote that when the national team held its tryouts that each location had about a 100 girls show up. That's 300 people in the whole country! Thats it. I wonder who's fault is it? The lack of marketing or the lack of interest.

If there was huge interest in my area I could have just raided my local women's softball league and found 12 teams worth of players. Didn't work. Another poster mentioned something similar, that his co-ed softball league has a hard time fielding female players in our same city.

2 years ago, our league did a two week baseball camp for 7-8 year olds during the summer in the park. Only 25% were girls.
You would think that is the age where they dont really have conceptions of whats "supposedly appropriate" for guys or girls to do. And they mostly dont, but I dont see the huge interest amongst the girls.

The other weird thing is why the heck did Little League make a softball division when they dont even know anything about the sport? :rofl: Maybe there is actually more demand for softball than baseball?

When I played roller hockey, I was one of two girls (we were teenagers at the time.) in all of Brooklyn playing. I never saw a girl playing either in one of two leagues in the borough or just pickup with the guys. Maybe there are more now, but I just dont see it.

I think a lot of it is a lack of marketing and a lack of finding the right techniques to successfully build a league. Also, the stigma of women not playing baseball and other sports still lingers, even though it's not as strong now. Is it any different than guys being told they are gay and being made fun of when they enjoy things such as cooking, gardening, artsy type things, wearing jewelry, having long hair, etc.? It's not. Traditions die hard and slowly, unfortunately.

Why are women's teams and leagues more successful in some areas but not in others? Why are men's baseball leagues more successful in some areas over others? Tradition has a lot to do with it.

In Chicago, they just started a 4-team women's baseball league. They have about 12 players on each team, but of course, they prefer to have more. In time, I can see this league becoming bigger.

A bunch of us are starting a women's and a girls' league in Metro Detroit. I have a strong feeling it will be successful, because many people are involved and are helping to get it going.

I'm sure there are a lot of factors that affect whether a women's baseball team or league survives in certain areas. A lack of interest could be part of it, but it's not the only reason. Since women have been pushed into softball since the early 1900's, most young girls nowdays probably don't think about the possibility of playing baseball. It's so engrained into society that women play softball that it affects how a lot of people think.

As far as the young kids go, most young kids don't have preset perceptions. Rather, their parents do, and since they need to get permission and the support from their parents to play, it could keep them from playing. Perhaps a lot of young girls want to play baseball, but their parents have closed minds and don't think they should.

My women's team has rented a booth at TigerFest a few years in a row. We had fliers and all kinds of stuff about women's baseball for people to see. There was a young girl, about 12 or 13 years old, who walked by and read our banner and said, "Look, dad, women's baseball!" She seemed to be interested in playing. Her dad just snubbed his nose in the air and walked away. The girl walked behind him without protest.

How can the attitude of society as a whole change when we still have adults with those kinds of attitudes?

Yesterday, I talked to a guy I know from a coed baseball group that he and I play with in the summer. Last summer he mentioned that his daughter (12 year old) would want to play in the girls' youth baseball league we're creating in Metro Detroit. So, I calle dhim yesterday to see if she's still interested. He talked about how she's playing fast pitch softball and is getting all kinds of opportunities from local colleges to take lessons and go to camps and all that and said that fast pitch is flourishing right now. He's not a guy who thinks women can't play baseball, because he has seen plenty of us play who are just as good as the guys. His perception was that his daughter should continue playing softball, because that's where the opportunities lie. I explained that the girls' baseball league would run after softball ends, and that girls can play both if they want to. I also explained that girls' and women's baseball is in development, and opportunities are beginning to happen and they will continue to grow.

After that, he changed his position and said he would talk to his daughter to see what she thought of it and if she wants to play. A big problem is, a lot of parents see softball as a meal ticket for their daughters to be able to "pay" for their college education... unfortunately. That is almost what this guy sounded like he was saying, even though he didn't say it directly. Parents should be thinking about more than how to finance their kids' education when they have opportunities to do something.

I talked to another guy the other day. He mentioned that his 12 year old daughter plays fast pitch and is very good, but her team is lousy. I mentioned the girls' baseball league, and he immediately gave similar feedback that most people give... "Oh, she's a very good softball player, and she may want to play in college when she gets there." I proceeded to explain that girls can play both softball and baseball, and in fact, playing baseball would enhance her softball game. I told him when the season would run, about opportunities that are happening, etc. His eyes then lit up and he was very interested in it. He said he would tell her about it and she would most likely want to play.

A lot of it is how people are approached with the idea, how it is presented, etc. For some reason, people usually think our goal is to compete with softball, but it's not. Our goal is to give girls the opportunity to play baseball if they choose to. Once we explain that we want girls to be able to play baseball with or instead of softball if they choose to play it, they always say, "Oh, I see." They then open up to the idea.

Other reasons for the numbers not happening, like with the USA Baseball women's team tryouts, are the amount of time a player is expected to miss work if they make the team, not having enough money or time to get to a tryout, having to fund the trip yourself and not having the money, etc. I was going to try out for Team USA in 2006, but after I read how much time I would have to take off work... if I made the team... I decided not to. It would be hard to take a month straight off from most any job these days. I know I wouldn't have been able to. Also, a lot of people aren't salaried, so taking that much time off would inhibit them from paying their bills.

[NotAboutEgo]

I started playing organized roller hockey about 6 years ago at drop-in sessions. I was the only female there for a while. Then, the organizer of the men's league said I should start playing in the league because he said I'm a good player. I then joined the league, and soon after (not saying they joined because of me) other women joined. There were a lot of women in the league after that. Unfortunately, the facility stopped offering roller hockey and took the rink out and replaced it with basketball courts.

[NotAboutEgo]

This morning I heard, on the radio, that in Michigan, a bill will be passed to ensure that women make the same pay as men for doing the same job. According to a study, women on average are making only $.77 to every dollar a man makes.

This relates to the inequalities that women still put up with in baseball and in other sports, because when there is a big inequality like women making less money than men make for the same job, it's a statement as to where our society is in terms of inequality issues. When certain things start to change, others should follow.

[digglahhh]

After that, he changed his position and said he would talk to his daughter to see what she thought of it and if she wants to play. A big problem is, a lot of parents see softball as a meal ticket for their daughters to be able to "pay" for their college education... unfortunately. That is almost what this guy sounded like he was saying, even though he didn't say it directly. Parents should be thinking about more than how to finance their kids' education when they have opportunities to do something.

I agree in principle, but the cost of a college education is a huge burden to most families nowadays.

I had a similar conversation with a friend this weekend who just started trying to have children. He was saying that his parents pushed him to swim competitively because he was very good at it. He did and he got money to go to school and swam on his collegiate swim team. But he said that he was very good at hockey too, and really enjoyed playing soccer and basketball as well. He said that he regretted the time that was taken away from those sports in favor of swimming. He said that he wouldn't want to do that to his child.

Getting a free college education is, itself, a rather lofty expectation for your child. If you think that your child has that opportunity and skill level, it is difficult not to urge that child to seek the path of least resistance.

Asking parents to encourage their collegiate scholarship bound softball playing daughters to split their focus onto playing baseball is, in a sense, to ask them to risk tens of thousands of dollars on a social cause. That is probably an overly idealistic request (and this is coming from the guy who is constantly labeled as overly idealistic).

As you seem to understand you are not going to win if you attempt to "compete" against softball, nor is that even your goal. Your best bet is the course that you've chosen to pursue, to give young girls and option independent of softball that does not force an ultimatum on them. Best of luck, NAE.

[NotAboutEgo]

I agree in principle, but the cost of a college education is a huge burden to most families nowadays.

I had a similar conversation with a friend this weekend who just started trying to have children. He was saying that his parents pushed him to swim competitively because he was very good at it. He did and he got money to go to school and swam on his collegiate swim team. But he said that he was very good at hockey too, and really enjoyed playing soccer and basketball as well. He said that he regretted the time that was taken away from those sports in favor of swimming. He said that he wouldn't want to do that to his child.

Getting a free college education is, itself, a rather lofty expectation for your child. If you think that your child has that opportunity and skill level, it is difficult not to urge that child to seek the path of least resistance.

Asking parents to encourage their collegiate scholarship bound softball playing daughters to split their focus onto playing baseball is, in a sense, to ask them to risk tens of thousands of dollars on a social cause. That is probably an overly idealistic request (and this is coming from the guy who is constantly labeled as overly idealistic).

As you seem to understand you are not going to win if you attempt to "compete" against softball, nor is that even your goal. Your best bet is the course that you've chosen to pursue, to give young girls and option independent of softball that does not force an ultimatum on them. Best of luck, NAE.

If a girl is on the verge of getting a softball scholarship, I don't blame the parents for encouraging her to stay focused on softball; although, playing baseball will enhance your softball game, and if you're a good enough athlete, you can handle playing both at the same time. If the girl chooses to do something to help the movement, she can always play baseball once she's done with college.

Also, once baseball becomes more established for women, there will be baseball scholarships available to them. A girl should go for it if she has the chance to get a softball scholarship, and if she has a chance to get a baseball scholarship to either play on a women's team or a men's team, those are options as well.

We've had a few girls on my women's hardball team that were in high school and who had really good chances of getting softball scholarships. They played baseball with us in the summer, and it enhanced their softball games. They became better hitters from practicing the correct mechanics while playing baseball. As I said, if they are really good athletes, playing baseball isn't going to hurt their softball, and in fact, it will help it.

A lot of people get scared and think playing baseball when one is playing softball in high school or in college will be a disaster. If one isn't that good of an athlete to begin with, it could be too much. I have seen girls like that. Actually, the slow pitch softball is what ruins their baseball game because it's so different. If a girl is good enough to be in the midst of getting a softball scholarship, playing baseball isn't going to hurt her. And when a girl is just 12 years old, I think it's a bit early to be pushing her to be focused on getting a collegiate softball scholarship. She could be focused on honing her skills and constantly improving, and if she does a really good job of it, later she may be considered for a scholarship. I don't think it's something that should be focused on at 12 years old.

[dw8man]

Found this article today:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16893758/

Looks like some woman are doing very well getting some woman football leagues going! What I think is very interesting is that they are generally doing it with out the backing of the NFL (some teams are helping but no offical support).

For those that are interested in getting woman more oppurtunities in Baseball, what is being done in woman football might be a good guide?

[NotAboutEgo]

Found this article today:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16893758/

Looks like some woman are doing very well getting some woman football leagues going! What I think is very interesting is that they are generally doing it with out the backing of the NFL (some teams are helping but no offical support).

For those that are interested in getting woman more oppurtunities in Baseball, what is being done in woman football might be a good guide?

Thanks for the info, DW. Actually, the North American Women's Baseball League is doing something similar http://www.nawbl.com Also, some of us are trying to get similar connections with investors so our teams can become more pro-like. The biggest challenge is finding people who are interested in financially supporting teams and leagues.

The Detroit Demolition, a women's football team, is similar to the one mentioned in the article. I don't think they players get paid at all, but their expenses are financed by the owner/owners, and I think they still have to pay a fee to play. I heard a while back that the team might fold due to the owner not being able to fund it anymore, despite the fact that the Demolition has consistently won several championships.

My women's team is currently working on getting financial support from former pro athletes in the Detroit area. Right now, we are just asking to help pay expenses.

A lot of whether a team gets funded by investors or not has to do with advertising (or lack there of because of major companies not recognizing and supporting women's sports) and whether people/companies are interested in helping. Most of it boils down to finding the right people who want to help financially. It's a lot easier said than done. Most people/companies are going to ask, "What's in it for us?"

It is a great idea, however, and hopefully it will start to happen more often. Let's keep our fingers :crossfingers: !

[MSUlaxer27]

I live in a city with a population of 8 million people. Assume half of them are female.

Actually, our fine city is over half female. It's been a buyers market out there for single guys for some time. :clapping

[MSUlaxer27]

If a girl is on the verge of getting a softball scholarship, I don't blame the parents for encouraging her to stay focused on softball; although, playing baseball will enhance your softball game, and if you're a good enough athlete, you can handle playing both at the same time. If the girl chooses to do something to help the movement, she can always play baseball once she's done with college.

A girl should go for it if she has the chance to get a softball scholarship, and if she has a chance to get a baseball scholarship to either play on a women's team or a men's team, those are options as well.


OK, it is very difficult to have a discussion with someone who belongs to a "movement" and has an "agenda" because facts, figures or statistics that do not agree with the agenda are refuted, discarded or ignored.

The facts posted earlier about a womens league in NYC and the women's national team tryouts showed that in this two instances less than one tenth of a percent of the available population expressed interest in the women's baseball opportunity. (Two instances should never be taken to represent the population as a whole) To get my percentages above I used (100/4,000,000)*100)for NYC and (300/144,000,000*100) the US try out. In all fairness not all 4,000,000 or 144,000,000 (womens non institutionalized population in 2002 according to www.census.gov) of the total population is eligible (elderly, children, infirm etc.). I am certain that there are more than 100 males playing in men's baseball leagues in NYC and more than 300 males would show up to an open tryout for the the national team. The point is not about mens vs. womens interest since we know that historically men are interested in baseball. Women have not (for whatever among the myriad reasons) yet shown this same level of interest.

It would make a very interesting study to find out in those areas where women's baseball is offered, what percent of the available female population is involved with the sport.

Of course that would mean the study might be published and I suspect if the numbers did not support your argument that it would be either played down or suppressed. You could at least then have a baseline to compare to over time (if it is correct that the only reason women's baseball is unpopular is because of a lack of marketing - as your group and the WSF work their marketing magic the numbers should be expected to increase).

Worth looking into.

To my knowledge there have been 4 collegiate woman who played baseball and all on the Division III level. DIII doesn't offer scholarships. I don't think there are any DI coaches beating the bushes out there looking for women to give scholarships to, for a couple reasons:

1. Because it is a complete waste of resources. You should always be able to find a male player who would make a better DI baseball player than a female player. Although there are some DIII ball players who could play DI, all DI players could play DIII. They are not comparable in terms of talent. Offering a woman a DI scholarship puts your team at a competitive disadvantage. Potential players may think you are not serious about winning, and you are guaranteeing you have the worst player in DI baseball on your roster.

2. Recruiting a woman for gender integration is a highly politized concept. Not sure an AD would want his baseball coach making that decision alone.

We have already established that you and I have differing opinions on the issue of women's sports. I don't share the passion that you do about women's sports, you probably don't share the passion I do for butter pecan ice cream. That's OK, we live in America and are allowed to disagree. There is certainly inequality and injustice in the world, I think there are other areas that I should be concerned about rather than if a small percentage of the population isn't playing a sport they want to.

[NotAboutEgo]

OK, it is very difficult to have a discussion with someone who belongs to a "movement" and has an "agenda" because facts, figures or statistics that do not agree with the agenda are refuted, discarded or ignored.

The facts posted earlier about a womens league in NYC and the women's national team tryouts showed that in this two instances less than one tenth of a percent of the available population expressed interest in the women's baseball opportunity. (Two instances should never be taken to represent the population as a whole) To get my percentages above I used (100/4,000,000)*100)for NYC and (300/144,000,000*100) the US try out. In all fairness not all 4,000,000 or 144,000,000 (womens non institutionalized population in 2002 according to www.census.gov) of the total population is eligible (elderly, children, infirm etc.). I am certain that there are more than 100 males playing in men's baseball leagues in NYC and more than 300 males would show up to an open tryout for the the national team. The point is not about mens vs. womens interest since we know that historically men are interested in baseball. Women have not (for whatever among the myriad reasons) yet shown this same level of interest.

It would make a very interesting study to find out in those areas where women's baseball is offered, what percent of the available female population is involved with the sport.

Of course that would mean the study might be published and I suspect if the numbers did not support your argument that it would be either played down or suppressed. You could at least then have a baseline to compare to over time (if it is correct that the only reason women's baseball is unpopular is because of a lack of marketing - as your group and the WSF work their marketing magic the numbers should be expected to increase).

Worth looking into.

To my knowledge there have been 4 collegiate woman who played baseball and all on the Division III level. DIII doesn't offer scholarships. I don't think there are any DI coaches beating the bushes out there looking for women to give scholarships to, for a couple reasons:

1. Because it is a complete waste of resources. You should always be able to find a male player who would make a better DI baseball player than a female player. Although there are some DIII ball players who could play DI, all DI players could play DIII. They are not comparable in terms of talent. Offering a woman a DI scholarship puts your team at a competitive disadvantage. Potential players may think you are not serious about winning, and you are guaranteeing you have the worst player in DI baseball on your roster.

2. Recruiting a woman for gender integration is a highly politized concept. Not sure an AD would want his baseball coach making that decision alone.

We have already established that you and I have differing opinions on the issue of women's sports. I don't share the passion that you do about women's sports, you probably don't share the passion I do for butter pecan ice cream. That's OK, we live in America and are allowed to disagree. There is certainly inequality and injustice in the world, I think there are other areas that I should be concerned about rather than if a small percentage of the population isn't playing a sport they want to.

Your points are vaild. While at the same time, one can't go on numbers alone. How long have men's leagues been around? How long have women's leagues been around? A lot of the lesser numbers of women playing baseball has to do with the fact that women's baseball is IN DEVELOPMENT... meaning, it's not totally established yet and is growing. How long has men's baseball been established without interference?

Statistics can give you a lot of info, but statistics don't tell the whole story. You need to have the reasons along with the stats. What happens if a study is done in an impoverished area, where one has tried to start a women's baseball league? Wonder if a certain percentage of the women in that area (let's say enough women to form a league) wanted to play baseball but half couldn't play because they couldn't afford to. Do statistics always show things like that? A lot of studies don't give reasons.

Like I stated before, when they hold tryouts to select a women's national team and tell you that you need to expect to take a month off from work to play on the team if you make it, how many women do you think would say they can't take a month at a time off from work? That's the reason I didn't go to any of the tryouts. Perhaps college-age women could do it more easily, but a lot of them can't afford to take work off for that long. Many of us have jobs that wouldn't allow us to be gone for that long. Does that state that not enough women are interested in playing baseball on the women's national team?

If you aren't involved with building teams and leagues, you have no idea for the reasons behind why a woman would or wouldn't play. We've had several who are terrific ballplayers stop playing, JUST because they can't afford to play. There are two main reasons why women who like baseball end up not playing, when they express interest in playing, and the reasons are that they are too busy already and can't adjust their schedules at the time, and they simply can't afford it.

If you don't care about women's sports and would never support them, and if you think there are more important things you should be concerned with, why are you in this forum at all? No one is holding a gun to your head stating you must be here, are they? I don't get it. If you don't have interest in something and you think it's unimportant, why do you bother wasting your time? It must be important in some way to you since you are constantly stating how you think females are inferior to men in sports.

Is it that you must boast about your male superiority?

[NotAboutEgo]

I never said marketing, or a lack of, is the only reason for there being less women than men playing baseball. I said it's one of the reasons and is one of the main reasons.

[NotAboutEgo]

OK, it is very difficult to have a discussion with someone who belongs to a "movement" and has an "agenda" because facts, figures or statistics that do not agree with the agenda are refuted, discarded or ignored.

The facts posted earlier about a womens league in NYC and the women's national team tryouts showed that in this two instances less than one tenth of a percent of the available population expressed interest in the women's baseball opportunity. (Two instances should never be taken to represent the population as a whole) To get my percentages above I used (100/4,000,000)*100)for NYC and (300/144,000,000*100) the US try out. In all fairness not all 4,000,000 or 144,000,000 (womens non institutionalized population in 2002 according to www.census.gov) of the total population is eligible (elderly, children, infirm etc.). I am certain that there are more than 100 males playing in men's baseball leagues in NYC and more than 300 males would show up to an open tryout for the the national team. The point is not about mens vs. womens interest since we know that historically men are interested in baseball. Women have not (for whatever among the myriad reasons) yet shown this same level of interest.

It would make a very interesting study to find out in those areas where women's baseball is offered, what percent of the available female population is involved with the sport.

Of course that would mean the study might be published and I suspect if the numbers did not support your argument that it would be either played down or suppressed. You could at least then have a baseline to compare to over time (if it is correct that the only reason women's baseball is unpopular is because of a lack of marketing - as your group and the WSF work their marketing magic the numbers should be expected to increase).

Worth looking into.

To my knowledge there have been 4 collegiate woman who played baseball and all on the Division III level. DIII doesn't offer scholarships. I don't think there are any DI coaches beating the bushes out there looking for women to give scholarships to, for a couple reasons:

1. Because it is a complete waste of resources. You should always be able to find a male player who would make a better DI baseball player than a female player. Although there are some DIII ball players who could play DI, all DI players could play DIII. They are not comparable in terms of talent. Offering a woman a DI scholarship puts your team at a competitive disadvantage. Potential players may think you are not serious about winning, and you are guaranteeing you have the worst player in DI baseball on your roster.

2. Recruiting a woman for gender integration is a highly politized concept. Not sure an AD would want his baseball coach making that decision alone.

We have already established that you and I have differing opinions on the issue of women's sports. I don't share the passion that you do about women's sports, you probably don't share the passion I do for butter pecan ice cream. That's OK, we live in America and are allowed to disagree. There is certainly inequality and injustice in the world, I think there are other areas that I should be concerned about rather than if a small percentage of the population isn't playing a sport they want to.

You're trying to say that the only reason a ton of women aren't playing baseball is because women simply aren't interested in playing baseball and also because they are so inferior to men when it comes to playing baseball. I guess your perception can also be applied to lacrosse. Since "no one" in the U.S. is interested in watching or playing lacrosse, why should there be youth leagues, high school leagues, or college leagues. Why don't most people know about/pay attention to Major League Lacrosse? Why should amateur lacrosse be subsidized? From your eprception, no sport should be subsidized, so lacrosse should be included in that, since it doesn't support itself at the high school and collegiate level? All lacrosse teams and leagues should be stopped since they can't financially support themselves.

How many people across the U.S. are playing lacrosse?

[digglahhh]

If you don't care about women's sports and would never support them, and if you think there are more important things you should be concerned with, why are you in this forum at all? No one is holding a gun to your head stating you must be here, are they? I don't get it. If you don't have interest in something and you think it's unimportant, why do you bother wasting your time? It must be important in some way to you since you are constantly stating how you think females are inferior to men in sports.

Is it that you must boast about your male superiority?

That's a little harsh, NAE. And, I hate to break it to you, but you are just as reactionary as anybody involved in any of these discussions.

1. Because it is a complete waste of resources. You should always be able to find a male player who would make a better DI baseball player than a female player. Although there are some DIII ball players who could play DI, all DI players could play DIII. They are not comparable in terms of talent. Offering a woman a DI scholarship puts your team at a competitive disadvantage. Potential players may think you are not serious about winning, and you are guaranteeing you have the worst player in DI baseball on your roster.

This is the only part of MSU's post that was even borderline boasting male superiority. I mean if an athlete is deserving, the athlete is deserving. On the basis of level of play it is not sexist to claim that the vast majority of those most capable of playing baseball at that level are males. You wouldn't deny that. It is only sexist to assume that no woman can ever reach that level or to stipulate that women shouldn't be allowed to.

And MSU did not say that he didn't care at all about women's sports. He implied that in the grand scheme of things (presumably including, if not specifically referring to discrimination in general) women's collegiate sports is not atop the list of what he feels should be prioritized. Considering the scope and extent of discrimination in our society, most people would be hard pressed to disagree. That, however, does not mean that people shouldn't work hard in this area or that this area is unimportant. Women makes 77 cents on the dollar that men do, that means they are at a 23% disadvantage when it comes to having the luxury of paying to play recreational baseball! It is all related!

[NotAboutEgo]

That's a little harsh, NAE. And, I hate to break it to you, but you are just as reactionary as anybody involved in any of these discussions.



This is the only part of MSU's post that was even borderline boasting male superiority. I mean if an athlete is deserving, the athlete is deserving. On the basis of level of play it is not sexist to claim that the vast majority of those most capable of playing baseball at that level are males. You wouldn't deny that. It is only sexist to assume that no woman can ever reach that level or to stipulate that women shouldn't be allowed to.

And MSU did not say that he didn't care at all about women's sports. He implied that in the grand scheme of things (presumably including, if not specifically referring to discrimination in general) women's collegiate sports is not atop the list of what he feels should be prioritized. Considering the scope and extent of discrimination in our society, most people would be hard pressed to disagree. That, however, does not mean that people shouldn't work hard in this area or that this area is unimportant. Women makes 77 cents on the dollar that men do, that means they are at a 23% disadvantage when it comes to having the luxury of paying to play recreational baseball! It is all related!

I don't think it's harsh. If one isn't interested in a topic and constantly puts that topic down and along with any progression that is made in relation to that topic, why should one continue making comments? If one states they have more important things to be concerned about, then why are they in the women's section of a baseball forum, if it's not important to them and they have better things to worry about? Afterall, isn't the women's baseball forum for the purpose of discussing women's baseball? It's as if he's saying there's no need for it since there are more important things to think about and deal with.

MSU has made SEVERAL comments on how "women are inferior to men" in realtion to baseball and other sports... over and over again. MSU's last post isn't the ONLY one that has stated that.

"And MSU did not say that he didn't care at all about women's sports." Yes he has. He flat out said that in a previous post/posts. It had something to do with the fact that he wouldn't watch women sports if they were free and especially if he had to pay to watch them, and he also stated he has no interest in women's sports. I think that flat out says everything right there.

The points I'm trying to get across are that women's baseball is still in development, there are several reasons for the numbers of women playing baseball today (the numbers are growing, by the way... not just in the U.S. but also in other countries), the past and the way women have been treated throughout time and how they are still treated today influences women's baseball and its progression, progress is being made at different levels of girls' and women's baseball (any progress is good progress, regardless of what the numbers say), women who want to play baseball on men's teams are STILL discriminated against... maybe not in every area but in many areas, it takes time to grow anything including women's baseball, opportunities are being created all over, etc.

Some people come on here putting women's baseball down in every way possible because of their biased opinions based on how they view women as being inferior to men. They love to be negative and focus on that rather than focusing on progress. I haven't ever disagreed with someone saying there are more men that are capable of playing baseball on men's teams than there are capable women, and I haven't ever said that a woman should make any sports team, whether it be on a men's team or a women's team, just because she's a woman but doesn't possess the skills and talent to be on that team. I've been saying that women should be given the same opportunities, and when they ARE good enough and DO possess the talent and skills required to make a team, they should be allowed to play on that team and shouldn't be told they can't just because they're women.

Furthermore, when someone is NOT involved with women's baseball at any level, they have no clue as to what's going on with it. Just looking at numbers doesn't tell the whole story and doesn't give you the inside scoop. One either has to become invovled with it on some kind of level, or they have to research it to really know what's happening.

One of my questions is, if one states that they have more important things to worry about and think about than women's baseball, what purpose does it serve continuing to post in a women's baseball forum, especially when one states they aren't interested in women's sports in the least? The dots don't connect, to me, and it seems to be hypocritical and contradicting and serves no purpose. If one is being objective and states the pro's and con's, then it can serve a purpose. MSU hasn't stated any pro's that I can cite. He only states what he sees as PROVING women aren't interested in playing baseball and that they will never be as good as men.

I like to look at the positives of any situation and use that towards progression. Obviously, there's still a lot of work to do in regards to girls' and women's baseball, but the work is being done by certain people in certain areas. It will take time to develop girls' and women's baseball to the level we'd like it to be at (in terms of numbers, level of play, opportunities, etc.), but we will get there. If we sat around seeing things from a negative standpoint, nothing would ever happen.

Also, I never stated anywhere that I'm not reactionary. I know I am in regards to this topic, and for a lot of it, there's a reason behind it.

[NotAboutEgo]

Also, MSU has stated things like, "Why should women have their own pro baseball league," "No one is interested in it," etc. Just because he is interested in it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist, and it doesn't meant the whole world sees things the way he does.

Why should Major League Lacrosse exist since "no one" is interested in it?

[digglahhh]

If one states they have more important things to be concerned about, then why are they in the women's section of a baseball forum, if it's not important to them and they have better things to worry about? Afterall, isn't the women's baseball forum for the purpose of discussing women's baseball? It's as if he's saying there's no need for it since there are more important things to think about and deal with.

That seems like a misinterpretation to me. I wouldn't place women's baseball at the forefront of what I feel is wrong with society. It is an individual symptom of a whole lot of larger diseases. These are issues that would heal themselves if an ideological shift in society would occur. Again, I do not belittle any efforts made here.

"And MSU did not say that he didn't care at all about women's sports." Yes he has. He flat out said that in a previous post/posts. It had something to do with the fact that he wouldn't watch women sports if they were free and especially if he had to pay to watch them, and he also stated he has no interest in women's sports. I think that flat out says everything right there.

That doesn't necessarily mean that he thinks that women should be denied the opportunity to play

The points I'm trying to get across are that women's baseball is still in development, there are several reasons for the numbers of women playing baseball today (the numbers are growing, by the way... not just in the U.S. but also in other countries), the past and the way women have been treated throughout time and how they are still treated today influences women's baseball and its progression, progress is being made at different levels of girls' and women's baseball (any progress is good progress, regardless of what the numbers say), women who want to play baseball on men's teams are STILL discriminated against... maybe not in every area but in many areas, it takes time to grow anything including women's baseball, opportunities are being created all over, etc.

I agree. In order for these outlets to grow and develop at impressive rates, ideological and sociological changes have to take place too. That's why I state that all these things are related and you can work towards many goals at a time, so one need not devote their time specifically to women's baseball to promote and contribute to the cause.

Some people come on here putting women's baseball down in every way possible because of their biased opinions based on how they view women as being inferior to men. They love to be negative and focus on that rather than focusing on progress. I haven't ever disagreed with someone saying there are more men that are capable of playing baseball on men's teams than there are capable women, and I haven't ever said that a woman should make any sports team, whether it be on a men's team or a women's team, just because she's a woman but doesn't possess the skills and talent to be on that team. I've been saying that women should be given the same opportunities, and when they ARE good enough and DO possess the talent and skills required to make a team, they should be allowed to play on that team and shouldn't be told they can't just because they're women.

I agree once again. This has been the gist of most of my arguments as well.



One of my questions is, if one states that they have more important things to worry about and think about than women's baseball, what purpose does it serve continuing to post in a women's baseball forum, especially when one states they aren't interested in women's sports in the least? The dots don't connect, to me, and it seems to be hypocritical and contradicting and serves no purpose. If one is being objective and states the pro's and con's, then it can serve a purpose. MSU hasn't stated any pro's that I can cite. He only states what he sees as PROVING women aren't interested in playing baseball and that they will never be as good as men.

I like to look at the positives of any situation and use that towards progression. Obviously, there's still a lot of work to do in regards to girls' and women's baseball, but the work is being done by certain people in certain areas. It will take time to develop girls' and women's baseball to the level we'd like it to be at (in terms of numbers, level of play, opportunities, etc.), but we will get there. If we sat around seeing things from a negative standpoint, nothing would ever happen.

One could make the counter argument that it doesn't do much good preaching to the choir and that the naysayers represent those whom you will have to convince to get your projects off of the ground. Perhaps, this is an exercise.

Also, I never stated anywhere that I'm not reactionary. I know I am in regards to this topic, and for a lot of it, there's a reason behind it.

I'm sure there is; I'm pretty reactionary too when it comes to these types of discussions. Sometimes it is hard to balance your passion with what is the most productive path.

[NotAboutEgo]

That seems like a misinterpretation to me. I wouldn't place women's baseball at the forefront of what I feel is wrong with society. It is an individual symptom of a whole lot of larger diseases. These are issues that would heal themselves if an ideological shift in society would occur. Again, I do not belittle any efforts made here.

I agree that women's baseball isn't at the forefront of what's wrong with society... rather, it's an (meaning just one) effect of what's wrong. And since this is the women's baseball section of a baseball forum, one should expect things like societal issues and how they connect with women's baseball to be discussed here.

That's why I've been continually saying that history, in terms of the way women have been treated, has a LOT of influence on where women's baseball is at now, where it was in the past, and where it will go in the future... the numbers of participants, teams, leagues, the level of play, opportunities, audience, funding, etc., etc., etc. Some people like to deny the fact that the position of women in society throughout history has anything to do with all those things at all, and that the only reason(s) there are less women playing baseball now and historically, compared to men, is simply because women aren't interested in playing it, no one is interested in watching it and/or supporting it in some way, women will never be as good as men, etc. When the historical position of women in society is mentioned as the major influence, the conversation usually always goes back to, "Women aren't as good as men," and "Not enough people care about women's baseball." Ironically, it's those same limiting attitudes that influence women's baseball... either positively, negatively, or both. And most everything else can be linked to those pervasive attitudes.


That doesn't necessarily mean that he thinks that women should be denied the opportunity to play

I agree. In order for these outlets to grow and develop at impressive rates, ideological and sociological changes have to take place too. That's why I state that all these things are related and you can work towards many goals at a time, so one need not devote their time specifically to women's baseball to promote and contribute to the cause.

I agree once again. This has been the gist of most of my arguments as well..

A lot of his posts point to that conclusion. I'm not saying that's how he feels, but it seems the only things he posts are negatives and things saying how women's baseball and women's sports are inferior to men's baseball and men's sports and we shouldn't have our own pro league if it can't support itself on its own without subsidies/sponsorship/financial backing.


One could make the counter argument that it doesn't do much good preaching to the choir and that the naysayers represent those whom you will have to convince to get your projects off of the ground. Perhaps, this is an exercise...

Perhaps I am preaching to the choir with most of my posts and since most people in this part of the forum are not negative towards women's baseball, but perhaps it's worth the battle to do so if it changes just one mind (a mind that is closed to the possibilities). It HAS happened before. Afterall, changing minds (I don't mean forcing them to change; rather, I mean minds changing because they want to) is what causes a societal shift.

Perhaps I don't always present my case in the best way, but then, I'm not perfect.

[digglahhh]

Perhaps I am preaching to the choir with most of my posts and since most people in this part of the forum are not negative towards women's baseball, but perhaps it's worth the battle to do so if it changes just one mind (a mind that is closed to the possibilities). It HAS happened before. Afterall, changing minds (I don't mean forcing them to change; rather, I mean minds changing because they want to) is what causes a societal shift.

I agree. That is why, as a general rule, I try to be cautious about how frequently I write people off as lost causes. At some point you have to, but working hard to open somebody up to a new way of looking at things is worth a whole lot more than getting e-props from our like-minded supporters.

[MSUlaxer27]

I don't think it's harsh. If one isn't interested in a topic and constantly puts that topic down and along with any progression that is made in relation to that topic, why should one continue making comments? If one states they have more important things to be concerned about, then why are they in the women's section of a baseball forum, if it's not important to them and they have better things to worry about? Afterall, isn't the women's baseball forum for the purpose of discussing women's baseball? It's as if he's saying there's no need for it since there are more important things to think about and deal with.

MSU has made SEVERAL comments on how "women are inferior to men" in realtion to baseball and other sports... over and over again. MSU's last post
isn't the ONLY one that has stated that.

"And MSU did not say that he didn't care at all about women's sports." Yes he has. He flat out said that in a previous post/posts. It had something to do with the fact that he wouldn't watch women sports if they were free and especially if he had to pay to watch them, and he also stated he has no interest in women's sports. I think that flat out says everything right there.

The points I'm trying to get across are that women's baseball is still in development, there are several reasons for the numbers of women playing baseball today (the numbers are growing, by the way... not just in the U.S. but also in other countries), the past and the way women have been treated throughout time and how they are still treated today influences women's baseball and its progression, progress is being made at different levels of girls' and women's baseball (any progress is good progress, regardless of what the numbers say), women who want to play baseball on men's teams are STILL discriminated against... maybe not in every area but in many areas, it takes time to grow anything including women's baseball, opportunities are being created all over, etc.

Some people come on here putting women's baseball down in every way possible because of their biased opinions based on how they view women as being inferior to men. They love to be negative and focus on that rather than focusing on progress. I haven't ever disagreed with someone saying there are more men that are capable of playing baseball on men's teams than there are capable women, and I haven't ever said that a woman should make any sports team, whether it be on a men's team or a women's team, just because she's a woman but doesn't possess the skills and talent to be on that team. I've been saying that women should be given the same opportunities, and when they ARE good enough and DO possess the talent and skills required to make a team, they should be allowed to play on that team and shouldn't be told they can't just because they're women.

Furthermore, when someone is NOT involved with women's baseball at any level, they have no clue as to what's going on with it. Just looking at numbers doesn't tell the whole story and doesn't give you the inside scoop. One either has to become invovled with it on some kind of level, or they have to research it to really know what's happening.


You know your post #46 started out so civil, you actually complimented me on raising valid points but then....

So in defense:

1. I thought this was an open forum where I could voice my opinion even if others didn't agree with it as long I expressed that opinion in a way that wasn't derogatory to others on the forum. You have an opinion, I have an opinion. Your opinion isn't any more valuable than mine. You express your opinion, I express mine. I have never used any derogatory or demeaning language to anyone in these threads.

2. I have never said I don't support that women should have sports opportunities, I may not want to pay to watch womens sports but I've never said I don't think women should be allowed to play. In a related note I'm not a fan of college hockey, so I don't watch...doesn't mean I don't support their right to play.

3. I have never stated that women are inferior to men...ever. I have said that I do not think that women and men are not athletic equals...I believe my exact comment was men are generally, bigger, stronger and faster than women, I then added and bolded that this did not mean that I thought men were better. Men would generally win any head to head sports competition that was based on those 3 factors. I have tried to show with facts (such as 100M dash times,mile times, swimming where there are comparable rules) that men are generally stronger athletes. Again this does not make men better or superior, just stronger athletically. I have never said this means that women shouldn't or can't play, but I why I don't support gender integration in pro and college sports leagues. Again not that women shouldn't play in their own leagues but why they probably are not as qualified athletically to expect to play in MLB or DI .

4. Here is a link to the fact that Lacrosse in general (girls in particular) is the fastest growing sport in the US at the high school level.
http://www.laxpower.com/common/ParticipationRates2006.php

It does come from a lacrosse website but there is a link on the page to National Federation of State High School Associations were it came from.
It does say actually bowling is the fastest growing sport but I hope we can agree that bowling is not a sport in the same sense that baseball, soccer, football, etc, are sports.

This is only information for the high school level. Lacrosse is a sport like womens baseball that is in development, much of the rapid rate of growth is attributable to the fact that lacrosse is spreading nationwide from it's historic base in the Northeast and Mid Atlantic. As of 2006 117,000 HS boys and girls (65K boys 52K girls) play sanctioned lacrosse. This doesn't include youth leagues and collegiate and post collegiate club teams.

When I spoke of subsidies I was referring specifically to having another established league pay all or part of your operating expenses. If your league receives corporate dollars from sponsorship arrangements this is not an example of subsidies. The WNBA is subsidized. MLL (Major League Lacrosse) is not. The MLL must pay it's own costs for advertising, field and practice space rental etc. The WNBA has been heavily subsidized by the NBA since it's inception. WNBA teams have not had to pay rent for their court time practice space, they run cross promotions in marketing etc, and a national TV contract based on their association with the NBA. The MLL has survived 7 years as a pro league the WNBA just passed the 10 year mark. The MLL has experienced some franchise shifts (Bridgeport moved to Philly and Baltimore moved to DC) but no contraction. The WNBA has experienced both franchise shifts and contraction. Both leagues have expanded. That being said the average attendance at a MLL game is 4,500 WBNA is 7,700 not a great difference. Which league is truly succeeding?

High School sports leagues, youth leagues, post scholastic leagues aren't to my knowledge ,subsidized in any sport for either gender, you pay (or in HS leagues your parents property taxes do) the league dues required to participate.

Also there are (191/200) colleges in the US that have (mens/womens) club lacrosse teams that willingly follow NCAA DI eligibility rules (it is a requirement to be in the league and teams that fail are sanctioned), most play a regional schedule, some play a national schedule, and they are all almost 100% self supporting. I say almost 100% because some teams receive a small amount from their university club (or rec sports) budgets generally no more than 3K . That to me is real proof of interest in a sport. Nobody has had an agenda that lacrosse should be expanded. People have individually decided that it is a sport that want to play or watch. They don't need to be told "how much" they are missing.

So in summary:

I do agree that women should have opportunities to play any sport they choose.

I don't think that sports leagues should be subsidized.

I do not support gender integrated pro and college sports.

I do think that baseball and softball a very comparable as sports.

I think that men are interested in playing and watching sports then women are.

My opinions.

Thank you.

[NotAboutEgo]

You know your post #46 started out so civil, you actually complimented me on raising valid points but then....

So in defense:

1. I thought this was an open forum where I could voice my opinion even if others didn't agree with it as long I expressed that opinion in a way that wasn't derogatory to others on the forum. You have an opinion, I have an opinion. Your opinion isn't any more valuable than mine. You express your opinion, I express mine. I have never used any derogatory or demeaning language to anyone in these threads.

2. I have never said I don't support that women should have sports opportunities, I may not want to pay to watch womens sports but I've never said I don't think women should be allowed to play. In a related note I'm not a fan of college hockey, so I don't watch...doesn't mean I don't support their right to play.

3. I have never stated that women are inferior to men...ever. I have said that I do not think that women and men are not athletic equals...I believe my exact comment was men are generally, bigger, stronger and faster than women, I then added and bolded that this did not mean that I thought men were better. Men would generally win any head to head sports competition that was based on those 3 factors. I have tried to show with facts (such as 100M dash times,mile times, swimming where there are comparable rules) that men are generally stronger athletes. Again this does not make men better or superior, just stronger athletically. I have never said this means that women shouldn't or can't play, but I why I don't support gender integration in pro and college sports leagues. Again not that women shouldn't play in their own leagues but why they probably are not as qualified athletically to expect to play in MLB or DI .

4. Here is a link to the fact that Lacrosse in general (girls in particular) is the fastest growing sport in the US at the high school level.
http://www.laxpower.com/common/ParticipationRates2006.php

It does come from a lacrosse website but there is a link on the page to National Federation of State High School Associations were it came from.
It does say actually bowling is the fastest growing sport but I hope we can agree that bowling is not a sport in the same sense that baseball, soccer, football, etc, are sports.

This is only information for the high school level. Lacrosse is a sport like womens baseball that is in development, much of the rapid rate of growth is attributable to the fact that lacrosse is spreading nationwide from it's historic base in the Northeast and Mid Atlantic. As of 2006 117,000 HS boys and girls (65K boys 52K girls) play sanctioned lacrosse. This doesn't include youth leagues and collegiate and post collegiate club teams.

When I spoke of subsidies I was referring specifically to having another established league pay all or part of your operating expenses. If your league receives corporate dollars from sponsorship arrangements this is not an example of subsidies. The WNBA is subsidized. MLL (Major League Lacrosse) is not. The MLL must pay it's own costs for advertising, field and practice space rental etc. The WNBA has been heavily subsidized by the NBA since it's inception. WNBA teams have not had to pay rent for their court time practice space, they run cross promotions in marketing etc, and a national TV contract based on their association with the NBA. The MLL has survived 7 years as a pro league the WNBA just passed the 10 year mark. The MLL has experienced some franchise shifts (Bridgeport moved to Philly and Baltimore moved to DC) but no contraction. The WNBA has experienced both franchise shifts and contraction. Both leagues have expanded. That being said the average attendance at a MLL game is 4,500 WBNA is 7,700 not a great difference. Which league is truly succeeding?

High School sports leagues, youth leagues, post scholastic leagues aren't to my knowledge ,subsidized in any sport for either gender, you pay (or in HS leagues your parents property taxes do) the league dues required to participate.

Also there are (191/200) colleges in the US that have (mens/womens) club lacrosse teams that willingly follow NCAA DI eligibility rules (it is a requirement to be in the league and teams that fail are sanctioned), most play a regional schedule, some play a national schedule, and they are all almost 100% self supporting. I say almost 100% because some teams receive a small amount from their university club (or rec sports) budgets generally no more than 3K . That to me is real proof of interest in a sport. Nobody has had an agenda that lacrosse should be expanded. People have individually decided that it is a sport that want to play or watch. They don't need to be told "how much" they are missing.

So in summary:

I do agree that women should have opportunities to play any sport they choose.

I don't think that sports leagues should be subsidized.

I do not support gender integrated pro and college sports.

I do think that baseball and softball a very comparable as sports.

I think that men are interested in playing and watching sports then women are.

My opinions.

Thank you.

You are entitled to your opinions, and therefore, they are valid points. In my opinion, companies giving sponsorships to teams or leagues IS a form of subsidization... regardless of where it comes from. A subsidy is getting help by means other than supporting oneself... one party giving financial help to another party. It could even be a person who is supporting another person financially.

For further clairification of my point, here is the definition from Dictionary.com:

__________________________________________________ _______________
7 results for: subsidy

[ Nearby Entries ] subsidise
subsidised
subsidiser
subsidizable
subsidization
subsidize
subsidized
subsidizer
subsidizes
subsidizing
subsidy Subsign
Subsigned
Subsigning
Subsilicate
Subsinnation
SUBSIS
subsist
subsist in
subsisted
subsistence
View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | All Reference | the Web

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
sub·si·dy /ˈsʌbsɪdi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[suhb-si-dee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -dies. 1. a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
2. a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
3. a grant or contribution of money.
4. money formerly granted by the English Parliament to the crown for special needs.


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

[Origin: 1325–75; ME subsidie < AF < L subsidium auxiliary force, reserve, help, equiv. to sub- sub- + sid-, comb. form of sedére to sit1 + -ium -ium]


—Synonyms 1. Subsidy, subvention are both grants of money, especially governmental, to aid private undertakings. A subsidy is usually given to promote commercial enterprise: a subsidy to manufacturers during a war. A subvention is usually a grant to stimulate enterprises connected with science and the arts: a subvention to a research chemist by a major company.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source sub·si·dy (sŭb'sĭ-dē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. sub·si·dies

Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest.
Financial assistance given by one person or government to another.
Money formerly granted to the British Crown by Parliament.


[Middle English subsidie, from Anglo-Norman, from Latin subsidium, support : sub-, behind, beneath; see sub- + sedēre, to sit; see sed- in Indo-European roots.]


(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
subsidy

c.1380, from Anglo-Fr. subsidie, from O.Fr. subside "help, aid, contribution," from L. subsidium "help, aid, assistance, (military) reinforcements," from sub "behind, near" + sedere "to sit" (see sedentary). Subsidize is from 1795. Originally of nations, "to buy neutrality or alliance." Meaning "to support by grants of money" is from 1828.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source subsidy

noun
a grant paid by a government to an enterprise that benefits the public; "a subsidy for research in artificial intelligence"

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source
subsidy [ˈsabsidi] noun — plural ˈsubsidies

(a sum of) money paid by a government etc to an industry etc that needs help, or to farmers etc to keep the price of their products low
Arabic: إعانَه مالِيَّه
Chinese (Simplified): 政府津贴
Chinese (Traditional): 政府津貼
Czech: subvence
Danish: statsstøtte
Dutch: subsidie
Estonian: riigitoetus, abiraha
Finnish: tuki, valtionapu
French: subvention
German: die Subvention
Greek: επιδότηση, επιχορήγηση
Hungarian: szubvenció
Icelandic: obinber fjárstyrkur
Indonesian: subsidi
Italian: sussidio, sovvenzione
Japanese: 助成金
Latvian: subsīdija, dotācija
Lithuanian: subsidija, dotacija
Norwegian: statsstøtte, subsidier
Polish: subwencja, dotacja
Portuguese (Brazil): subsídio
Portuguese (Portugal): subsídio
Romanian: sub*venţie
Russian: субсидия
Slovak: subvencia
Slovenian: subvencija
Spanish: subsidio, subvención
Swedish: subvention, bidrag
Turkish: tahsisat



See also: subsidize, subsidise

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version), © 2000-2006 K Dictionaries Ltd.
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source
subsidy


A grant made by a government to some individual or business in order to maintain an acceptable standard of living or to stimulate economic growth.


[Chapter:] Business and Economics


The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Investopedia - Cite This Source
Subsidy

A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.

Politics play an important part in subsidization. In general, the left is more in favor of having subsidized industries, while the right feels that industry should stand on its own without public funds.

Investopedia Commentary

There are many forms of subsidies given out by the government, including welfare payments, housing loans, student loans and farm subsidies. For example, if a domestic industry, like farming, is struggling to survive in a highly competitive international industry with low prices, a government may give cash subsidies to farms so that they can sell at the low market price but still achieve financial gain.

If a subsidy is given out, the government is said to subsidize that group/industry.

Related Links

Macroeconomic Analysis
What Is Fiscal Policy?


See also: Fiscal Policy, Social Security, Taxes, Transfer Payment

Also spelled: Subsidization, Subsidize, Subsidized

Investopedia.com. Copyright © 1999-2005 - All rights reserved. Owned and Operated by Investopedia Inc.
__________________________________________________ _______________

I think a lot of programs, whether they be sports-related or not, would cease to exist if it weren't for the subsidies they receive from different sources.

If a women's pro league was formed, similar to the WNBA, and over time its fan base grew and warranted its continued existence, even if it still was subsidized by MLB and/or other companies/organizations/people, would you have a problem with that subsidization... and if so, why?

Advertisements, as in companies advertising at sporting events, are examples of subsidies. Many newspapers and magazines wouldn't be able to exist without subsidies in the form of advertisements. Yes, companies are getting something out of it, such as people seeing them in these newspapers and magazines, but the sales of many newspapers and magazines alone don't support them enough to keep them in existence. In fact, most of the money does come from advertisements.

I also have a right to my opinions. If I disagree with something you say, it doesn't mean I shouldn't say it. And when I do disagree with you or anyone else and state my opinions and talk about historical societal attitudes and actions that have influenced women's baseball throughout history and to this day, I'm not whining... as you once told me I am. It seems that a lot of guys love to tell women that they are whining and complaining about something if they are talking about it, espeically when it has to do with gender and discrimination, and disagreeing with them (not saying you in particular love to do that, but you did tell me to stop whining in one of your posts).

I have the opinion that it's completely fine to have integrated pro sports in terms of gender, as long as the players have the skills and talents to be able to compete at those levels, AND I highly believe there are women who have the necessary talent and skills to compete with men in MLB, and they would be able to do it provided they receive the same training opportunities at ALL the SAME levels from youth leagues all the way up to the pro's.

Also, the historical treatment of women in society has a heavy affect on the development and success of women's baseball and other sports today and has had heavy affects on women's baseball and sports in the past and will affect those in the future. The lack of advertising for women's baseball and other sports has a direct link to this, and that lack of advertising affects how the public views women's baseball and other women's sports... from a fan-base perspective and from a participation perspective.

There were very few female sports announcers/commentators on TV or anywhere in the past, but the numbers of them are growing now. What do you see as the reason(s) for this? Do you think it's because women didn't possess the skills to be professional announcers/commentators in the past, or do you see other things as the cause of that?

To draw an anaology... and to state another effect of a cause... women HAVEN'T been able to legally vote in the U.S. during the majority of the country's existence. The U.S. is soon to be 231 years old, yet women have been able to legally vote for ONLY 87 years of that!

—1920 The Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified. It declares: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”— http://www.legacy98.org/timeline.html

[NotAboutEgo]

Oh, also... my comments and questions about MLL were sarcastic. I like lacrosse a lot, as I like most any sport. I went to a pro game back in the 90's to see the Detroit team play, and I enjoyed it very much.

Perhaps sports like soccer, lacrosse, and whatever would be more popular in this country if baseball, basketball, football, and hockey didn't dominate the tube. Advertising and politics are most likely the biggest causes of the domination of these sports. Like I've stated before, most people eat what they are fed most of the time... for the most part. That is also my position for the "lack" of support for women's baseball and other women's sports. However, the popularity of some women's sports is growing because of the increased exposure to them through the tube and other areas of the media.

I love wathcing the Olympics and the X-Games, because it's one of the few times I get to see a variety of sports that I enjoy watching that otherwise wouldn't be shown on TV.

[MSUlaxer27]

Oh, also... my comments and questions about MLL were sarcastic. I like lacrosse a lot, as I like most any sport. I went to a pro game back in the 90's to see the Detroit team play, and I enjoyed it very much.



Not to nitpick, but the Detroit Turbos were an NLL team (indoor) MLL is outdoor. Not a big fan of indoor lax, so I don't go watch it. Surprise, I know. Most of the pro lacrosse players play both in the NLL and MLL; the double salary guarantees they can survive being just lax players.


Subsidies (or grants) are given without the expectation of anything in return they are "charitable" and as such corporations are only allowed to give 10% of their income to this in a given year. Advertisements (ads in newspapers), signage in an arena and sponsorships are a business expense and are allowed to the the extent occurred. Loans are not subsidies either if there is an expectation that they will be repaid.

I don't recall ever calling you a whiner. If I did I apologize.

[NotAboutEgo]

Not to nitpick, but the Detroit Turbos were an NLL team (indoor) MLL is outdoor. Not a big fan of indoor lax, so I don't go watch it. Surprise, I know. Most of the pro lacrosse players play both in the NLL and MLL; the double salary guarantees they can survive being just lax players.


Subsidies (or grants) are given without the expectation of anything in return they are "charitable" and as such corporations are only allowed to give 10% of their income to this in a given year. Advertisements (ads in newspapers), signage in an arena and sponsorships are a business expense and are allowed to the the extent occurred. Loans are not subsidies either if there is an expectation that they will be repaid.

I don't recall ever calling you a whiner. If I did I apologize.

I've never seen pro outdoor lacrosse. I'm sure I would enjoy it, too.

To me, it doesn't matter how much a corporation is allowed to give to charities. It still qualifies as a subsidy. Also, individuals are not bound by those same laws, and as far as I know, organizations such as foundations and not-for-profit groups aren't, either.

To me, taxes are a form of a subsidy, even if they are required by law. Public schools that don't charge tuition operate from taxes. They have no other way of operating, unless people and companies and organizations give them money... which are subsidies, too. A portion of the taxes collected goes towards the school's sports.

Different subsidies may be different in terms of degree (whether grantors have limits how much/what they can subsidize), but they are still subsidies. I highly doubt that many things could fund themselves by mere sales of thier products alone.

[captlid]

It would make a very interesting study to find out in those areas where women's baseball is offered, what percent of the available female population is involved with the sport.

Of course that would mean the study might be published and I suspect if the numbers did not support your argument that it would be either played down or suppressed. You could at least then have a baseline to compare to over time (if it is correct that the only reason women's baseball is unpopular is because of a lack of marketing - as your group and the WSF work their marketing magic the numbers should be expected to increase).


I just got an email from Little League. I asked them how many females are playing at all levels of little league. The nice person who answered my email within a day of sending it told me that they don't keep track of gender at all. They only keep track of the number of baseball players versus softball players. So the logical conclusion is that they dont care about those numbers and frankly I agree with them. It really should not be an issue.

Now changing certain social conventions and views would be nice, but it will take a while.

Getting that kind of information would be hard. If little league, which is the largest league in the world does not keep track of these stats, I doubt other baseball organizations would. A researcher would have to go to the regional coordinators of each affiliate and ask them to go through all the registered players they have.

I don't think this should be turned into a gender equity issue at all. As far as I know any girl that wants to play in any baseball league up to the age of 18 is allowed to as long as she has the skills.
Don't know much about the adult (which have practically all men) amateur leagues.

[NotAboutEgo]

I just got an email from Little League. I asked them how many females are playing at all levels of little league. The nice person who answered my email within a day of sending it told me that they don't keep track of gender at all. They only keep track of the number of baseball players versus softball players. So the logical conclusion is that they dont care about those numbers and frankly I agree with them. It really should not be an issue.

Now changing certain social conventions and views would be nice, but it will take a while.

Getting that kind of information would be hard. If little league, which is the largest league in the world does not keep track of these stats, I doubt other baseball organizations would. A researcher would have to go to the regional coordinators of each affiliate and ask them to go through all the registered players they have.

I don't think this should be turned into a gender equity issue at all. As far as I know any girl that wants to play in any baseball league up to the age of 18 is allowed to as long as she has the skills.
Don't know much about the adult (which have practically all men) amateur leagues.

It's interesting to know that Little League, Inc. has been approached by organizers of women's baseball about why it started a separate boys' softball division (that's perfectly fine if enough boys want to play softball) but yet hasn't started a separate girls' baseball division... even though MORE girls play baseball in the U.S. than boys play softball in the U.S. It's easy for Little League, Inc. to say it doesn't keep track of the numbers of players in its organization in terms of gender (which is a flat out lie) to avoid the fact that it's such a good old boys network... just like MLB.

I agree that it shouldn't matter what gender a player is as long as they can play and make the team. But, some people and organizations, like Little League, Inc., are good old boys networks and will lie to make it look like they support both genders. It's a flat out lie that Little League, Inc. doesnt' know how many boys and girls are playing baseball and softball in its organization. The women's baseball organizer who has approached Little League, Inc. was able to find specific numbers on this. It's not that Little League, Inc. doesn't care about what gender its players are; rather, it's hiding the fact that it doesn't want to provide baseball opportunities in the way of girls' leagues and teams to girls who choose to play with only girls. So, by saying it doesn't keep track of the numbers, it is avoiding the real issue.

It's not true that any girl up to 18 can play in any baseball league... at least... it's not what happens all the time. It's the law that females be given equal opportunities as males, but many schools and organizations don't allow females to play or to even try out. It takes someone to know what the law is and how to approach the situation correclty in order to bring the matter to the forefront to get it changed. My sister and I were told, point blank, when we were in high school and wanted to try out for the school's baseball team that, "Girls don't play baseball." If I would have known then what I know now, I would have fought it. This kind of thing still happens quite a lot today. A lot of the women who've played on my women's team were told the same kinds of things.

[captlid]

Why was little league approached about making a SEPERATE baseball division for girls? What would be the benefit of it? What's wrong with co-ed baseball?

Why does it even matter that little league started a softball division for boys? What relation does that have with baseball?

[NotAboutEgo]

Why was little league approached about making a SEPERATE baseball division for girls? What would be the benefit of it? What's wrong with co-ed baseball?

Why does it even matter that little league started a softball division for boys? What relation does that have with baseball?

Not all girls choose to play baseball with boys, and therefore, girls' leagues are starting, and a guy who is starting girls' programs approached Little League, Inc. to get their help and support but was denied help by Little League, Inc. Many girls who play baseball or who want to play baseball would like to play in their own division of Little League or whatever league, and Little League, Inc. has no desire to help out; while at the same time, Little League, Inc. has created a separate boys' softball division, despite the fact that far fewer boys play softball in the U.S. Point blank... it's gender discrimination. That's what's wrong with it.

People need to start thinking about the people involved... who the teams and leagues are for. We have parents of girls contacting us stating that their daughters want to play in all-girls' baseball leagues. Most girls will tell you themselves that they'd rather play with other girls. It's not about what adults want and think should happen based on their own egos and desires.

Let's face it, most girls would rather play sports amongst other girls. Why should they have to play with boys and get teased and ridiculed and harassed just to be able to play baseball? Maybe they aren't comfortable with playing in boys' leagues, so they shouldn't have to. Until things change and humans evolve to levels of not being so petty and cynical and condescending because of their egos, that's the way it is.

[digglahhh]

The practical considerations arise too, though.

Can one league/town/whatever sustain both girls baseball and softball division (and hopefully have some logical subdivisions for age)?

Even if you want 4 team leagues of both softball and baseball, you are talking over 100 girls within a specific age window. I don't think you want to force girls who want to play softball to play baseball either, especially since (as of now) that's the scholarship route.

[NotAboutEgo]

The practical considerations arise too, though.

Can one league/town/whatever sustain both girls baseball and softball division (and hopefully have some logical subdivisions for age)?

Even if you want 4 team leagues of both softball and baseball, you are talking over 100 girls within a specific age window. I don't think you want to force girls who want to play softball to play baseball either, especially since (as of now) that's the scholarship route.

True. Depends on the size of the town. Larger cities should be able to do it easily.

I'm not trying to take a shot at boys' softball here, but the same would hold true with having both boys' baseball and boys' softball leagues in the same town. Are there really enough boys out there playing softball right now? I know for a fact that there are more girls playing baseball.

It still doesn't justify Little League, Inc. creating boys' softball opportunities without creating girls' baseball opportunities. Both genders should be given the opportunity to play both.

[digglahhh]

Are there really enough boys out there playing softball right now?

Yeah, I don't see any of them around me.

And I don't condone children of any sex playing softball.

...Oh, wait, sorry, strike that- I've just been notified that drinking is not actually mandated by the rules.

My bad, carry on kids.

[TG Coach]

Why do many colleges remain resentful of Title IX?

They hate to wipe out good men's varsity sports for women's sports where they have to drag women off the campus to participate and be in compliance. This isn't all schools but it happens. We have a neighbor bragging her daughter is varsity crew as a freshman. The mother didn't realize it was so easy to play college sports. The girl never played a sport in high school. She got talked into being on a bad women's crew team.

Why do women lag well behind men in pay, facilities, and media coverage?

Because the general public interest doesn't exist. Without the public interest advertisers don't toss their dollars into the pot. The WNBA would fold in a day without the subsidy money provided by the NBA. Two other women's basketball leagues have folded. Two women's soccer leagues have folded. The women's fastpitch softball league doesn't draw. It's reorged twice in ten years. When the best female golfer can't make the cut in a men's event you can't compare sexes.

Why are negative perceptions about women athletes hard to change? Why does society still refer to women playing sports as women's sports?

Because it's not comparable to men's sports. Mia Hamm was asked if she considered playing in the MSL. She laughed. She explained the difference between men's and women's sports. She said her gold medal winning Team USA women's soccer team struggled against U19 state level boy's soccer teams in scrimmages.


Old Boy Network:
Male-dominated institutions or thought process that seeks to maintain the status quo - e.g. keeping big-budget football programs untouched and exempt from Title IX.

Those big budget football programs generate millions of dollars and support the non revenue generating sports.

[TG Coach]

DI football and basketball have almost become "mini" pro sports because of all the hype from the media and the focus on the revenue it brings in and all that. At University of Michigan football stadium, they added sky boxes about a year ago. Talk about ridiculous.

If you think big time college football and basketball are about education and not big business I have some swamp land for sale. If you have a gripe about the situation I suggest you contact all the university presidents who support this major revenue generating big business.

[TG Coach]

I talked to another guy the other day. He mentioned that his 12 year old daughter plays fast pitch and is very good, but her team is lousy. I mentioned the girls' baseball league, and he immediately gave similar feedback that most people give... "Oh, she's a very good softball player, and she may want to play in college when she gets there." I proceeded to explain that girls can play both softball and baseball, and in fact, playing baseball would enhance her softball game.

If the girl was that good she would join a travel softball team like all the good fastpitch players do. Baseball does not help softball. Softball is not baseball for girls. It's a different game. Girls can compete with boys in baseball until about age twelve. Girls develop sooner. Look at the back row in any sixth grade class picture. By fourteen they can't physically compete with the boys (please don't note the few exception of the millions).

[TG Coach]

........................

[TG Coach]

If you don't care about women's sports and would never support them, and if you think there are more important things you should be concerned with, why are you in this forum at all? No one is holding a gun to your head stating you must be here, are they? I don't get it. If you don't have interest in something and you think it's unimportant, why do you bother wasting your time? It must be important in some way to you since you are constantly stating how you think females are inferior to men in sports.

Is it that you must boast about your male superiority?

The bottom line is fans want to see the best athletes at whatever level it is. Women are physically inferior to men. Therefore they will not play the game better. The appealing woman's sports are ice skating and gymnastics because they are artistic.

[TG Coach]

Also, MSU has stated things like, "Why should women have their own pro baseball league," "No one is interested in it," etc. Just because he is interested in it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist, and it doesn't meant the whole world sees things the way he does.

Why should Major League Lacrosse exist since "no one" is interested in it?

Pro lacrosse exists because somebody is willing to risk their money as a potential investment. I have no idea how financially successful or unsuccessful the franchises are because it doesn't interest me. I do know salaries are very low. Salaries are usually the huge chunk of expenses.
Even if some businessmen are making money on pro lacrosse, it doesn't make it a mainstream sport.

No gender or sport has a right of entitlement to have a pro league. It's market driven. If someone believes there's money to be made they will invest. No one has made money investing in women's pro sports franchises.

[NotAboutEgo]

They hate to wipe out good men's varsity sports for women's sports where they have to drag women off the campus to participate and be in compliance. This isn't all schools but it happens. We have a neighbor bragging her daughter is varsity crew as a freshman. The mother didn't realize it was so easy to play college sports. The girl never played a sport in high school. She got talked into being on a bad women's crew team.



Because the general public interest doesn't exist. Without the public interest advertisers don't toss their dollars into the pot. The WNBA would fold in a day without the subsidy money provided by the NBA. Two other women's basketball leagues have folded. Two women's soccer leagues have folded. The women's fastpitch softball league doesn't draw. It's reorged twice in ten years. When the best female golfer can't make the cut in a men's event you can't compare sexes.



Because it's not comparable to men's sports. Mia Hamm was asked if she considered playing in the MSL. She laughed. She explained the difference between men's and women's sports. She said her gold medal winning Team USA women's soccer team struggled against U19 state level boy's soccer teams in scrimmages.



Those big budget football programs generate millions of dollars and support the non revenue generating sports.

Yep, it's all about the bottom line. Our priorities are where they should be. Isn't the U.S. great? And we wonder why things like wars exist.

[NotAboutEgo]

If the girl was that good she would join a travel softball team like all the good fastpitch players do. Baseball does not help softball. Softball is not baseball for girls. It's a different game. Girls can compete with boys in baseball until about age twelve. Girls develop sooner. Look at the back row in any sixth grade class picture. By fourteen they can't physically compete with the boys (please don't note the few exception of the millions).

Maybe her family can't afford to put her on a travel softball team, or maybe the family doesn't have that amount of time to allow her to be on one. Maybe it's for another reason. Not every great athlete out there plays on a travel team.

[NotAboutEgo]

Pro lacrosse exists because somebody is willing to risk their money as a potential investment. I have no idea how financially successful or unsuccessful the franchises are because it doesn't interest me. I do know salaries are very low. Salaries are usually the huge chunk of expenses.
Even if some businessmen are making money on pro lacrosse, it doesn't make it a mainstream sport.

No gender or sport has a right of entitlement to have a pro league. It's market driven. If someone believes there's money to be made they will invest. No one has made money investing in women's pro sports franchises.

They hate to wipe out good men's varsity sports for women's sports where they have to drag women off the campus to participate and be in compliance. This isn't all schools but it happens. We have a neighbor bragging her daughter is varsity crew as a freshman. The mother didn't realize it was so easy to play college sports. The girl never played a sport in high school. She got talked into being on a bad women's crew team.



Because the general public interest doesn't exist. Without the public interest advertisers don't toss their dollars into the pot. The WNBA would fold in a day without the subsidy money provided by the NBA. Two other women's basketball leagues have folded. Two women's soccer leagues have folded. The women's fastpitch softball league doesn't draw. It's reorged twice in ten years. When the best female golfer can't make the cut in a men's event you can't compare sexes.



Because it's not comparable to men's sports. Mia Hamm was asked if she considered playing in the MSL. She laughed. She explained the difference between men's and women's sports. She said her gold medal winning Team USA women's soccer team struggled against U19 state level boy's soccer teams in scrimmages.



Those big budget football programs generate millions of dollars and support the non revenue generating sports.

Yep, it's all about the bottom line. Our priorities are where they should be. Isn't the U.S. great? And we wonder why things like wars exist.

The gender inequalities in baseball and sports that are discussed relate to sports across the board... mainly from the Olympics on down to little league programs. Pro sports are another thing. Regardless of who boasts superiority over the other, both genders should have equal opportunities in amateur programs. College football and basketball may be about big business, but going to college isn't. That's one thing that's really messed up with our society. It's gotten out of hand, and because the media, DI colleges/universities, and companies that advertise during these events are cashing in, they take it to the extreme, and most people are buying it. How did collegiate sports survive without the financial support of DI basketball and football programs? Have DI football and basketball always been so lucrative (I'm asking because I don't know the history behind it)? How do sports survive at DII and DIII schools that don't have those big-time sports programs?

TV has a huge influence on what's popular and what's not. Most people eat what they're fed and are reactive. It's like a catch 22. If football, basketball, baseball, and hockey weren't on TV, would they be so popular? Would people pay much attention to them? Promoting sports on TV helps to make them popular and lucrative. Is it more about what people want to see or what people are fed so that's what they watch?

If one were to go to a women's baseball game for the first time, and it was a competitive game played with a lot of skill, great fundamentals, strategy, precision pitching, strong hitting, etc.... but the women weren't hitting 400 foot homeruns and throwing 95+ mph pitches, would that person find it exciting and fun to watch?

It's interesting... my women's team played in Chicago a couple of summers ago against the Chicago Gems women's team. The Gems were brand new and still in development, so its players were less experienced than ours; therefore, we were winning by a long shot. We played great... tons of hits, great pitching, great fielding, etc., but we weren't taking advantage of them with stealing or anything like that. We were helping them with advice on pitching mechanics and all that. We had worked out for 3 months 2 times a week honing our mechanics and fundamentals. We also had terrific athletes on the team, so we were very strong and skilled. We played in a park in proper Chicago on Lake Michigan. The park has a lot of traffic because of its facilities and location and running/walking trails. There were just a few people watching the game in the beginning, but not long after, a crowd of people stood around the field watching. In part, I'm sure it was due to the fact that they saw women playing hardball. But soon, people (men and women) were cheering for us... a team from Detroit with Detroit written across our jerseys... despite the fact that their "home team" was also playing. People were yelling things like, "Go, Detroit. You have skill!"

At the annual women's portion of the Roy Hobbs World Series in Ft. Myers, Florida, several people watch the women's championship game and other games in the minor league stadiums. The women's championship game is always very competitive and fun to watch. Once people see there is a lot of skill and talent on the field, they are consumed by it... regardless of their gender. Many of the men who are there competing sit in the stands watching the women play.

My point in telling all that is, if there's a good product on the field, people will be interested and will watch. Not everyone is interested in seeing just brute force in sports. People are equally, and maybe sometimes more, interested in seeing precision and skill.

Perhaps women's baseball is a slightly different flavor of baseball than men's baseball... in regards to homeruns being hit and the velocities of pitches... but it doesn't mean it's inferior and people aren't interested in watching it. I'll take a well-played competition in any sport... regardless of who's playing... because it's fun to watch, and I love the talent, precision and skill invovled. I love the competition as well... when it isn't all about brute force and smashing someone to the ground or into the boards to see how much and how hard one can do it.

[TG Coach]

If football, basketball, baseball, and hockey weren't on TV, would they be so popular? Would people pay much attention to them? Promoting sports on TV helps to make them popular and lucrative. Is it more about what people want to see or what people are fed so that's what they watch?

Marketing 101: These sports are on TV because they are popular and there's a demand for them. Then exposure can help drive demand. Hockey is on an obscure channel most of the time because the demand doesn't exist in enough markets.


If one were to go to a women's baseball game for the first time, and it was a competitive game played with a lot of skill, great fundamentals, strategy, precision pitching, strong hitting, etc.... but the women weren't hitting 400 foot homeruns and throwing 95+ mph pitches, would that person find it exciting and fun to watch?


I would get bored by the speed of the game compared to adult men playing the same kind of game. I love basketball. The only purpose I find in women's college basketball is to steal plays the kids on my team can run. They're structured, and slow enough for kids to run.



There were just a few people watching the game in the beginning, but not long after, a crowd of people stood around the field watching. In part, I'm sure it was due to the fact that they saw women playing hardball. But soon, people (men and women) were cheering for us... a team from Detroit with Detroit written across our jerseys... despite the fact that their "home team" was also playing. People were yelling things like, "Go, Detroit. You have skill!"


You had the cuiosity factor going for a while. I'll bet most of them never cared if they saw another game. I'll bet most didn't watch all of it. And what's a crowd? How many?

People are equally, and maybe sometimes more, interested in seeing precision and skill.

You mean like major league players? If you think men's baseball is all brute force you're misguided.

[/QUOTE] ... but it doesn't mean it's inferior [/QUOTE]

It is.



....and people aren't interested in watching it. I'll take a well-played competition in any sport... regardless of who's playing... because it's fun to watch, and I love the talent, precision and skill invovled.

We can catch these games in the park free all the time. Go play. Is there a long term successful market for it with ticket sales? No.

You seem to think everything is all about money. If you're right about the money, you must be wrong about the interest level in women's sports. Someone would have made a buck of it if the market existed.

[NotAboutEgo]

Marketing 101: These sports are on TV because they are popular and there's a demand for them. Then exposure can help drive demand. Hockey is on an obscure channel most of the time because the demand doesn't exist in enough markets.

I would get bored by the speed of the game compared to adult men playing the same kind of game. I love basketball. The only purpose I find in women's college basketball is to steal plays the kids on my team can run. They're structured, and slow enough for kids to run.

You had the cuiosity factor going for a while. I'll bet most of them never cared if they saw another game. I'll bet most didn't watch all of it. And what's a crowd? How many?

You mean like major league players? If you think men's baseball is all brute force you're misguided.
... but it doesn't mean it's inferior

It is.

We can catch these games in the park free all the time. Go play. Is there a long term successful market for it with ticket sales? No.

You seem to think everything is all about money. If you're right about the money, you must be wrong about the interest level in women's sports. Someone would have made a buck of it if the market existed.

Sports become WAY MORE popular when they are on TV and in other avenues of the media. The audience of sports would not be nearly as big if they weren't promoted on TV. Without TV, sports would still have some sort of audience, but it wouldn't be nearly what it is today with so much media coverage and hype. The exposure on TV DOES drive demand. Why are TV polls used to determine what people watch? Why do advertisers pay unseen amounts of money to be seen during primetime TV and sports events on TV?

You, yourself, stated that DI college basketball and football are about money and not about education; yet, you contradict yourself by saying, "You seem to think everything is all about money. If you're right about the money, you must be wrong about the interest level in women's sports. Someone would have made a buck of it if the market existed." It is all about the money, otherwise mass marketing, media hype, product/player endorsements, focus on attendance, promos at games, etc. wouldn't exist. Pro sports are about making money for the owners. They aren't providing sports for the honest betterment of society.

About women's baseball, referring to what I said, you stated, "We can catch these games in the park free all the time. Go play. Is there a long term successful market for it with ticket sales? No." So, it's not all about the money, eh? I think it's great that our games are free. That means, people can actually go out and watch baseball with their families without spending half of their paychecks to do so.

You also stated, "You had the curiosity factor going for a while. I'll bet most of them never cared if they saw another game. I'll bet most didn't watch all of it. And what's a crowd? How many?" Funny... most of the people stuck around for the whole game. Some were passing through to use the park and watched for a while. Kids were watching. People were cheering and enjoying it.

Does it really matter that we didn't have thousands of people at that game? What's important is, we were playing baseball and loving it, and there were people watching us play who enjoyed it.

MLB is not about brute force? Why are homeruns touted so much? Why is a 100 mph pitch more recognized than finesse pitching? Why are guys pumping steroids to become bigger so they can crush more homeruns? What happened to bunting in MLB? You rarely see it anymore. Most MLB players can't even bunt effectively. Luckily, we have a very smart manager here in Detroit who uses the bunt quite often, and more times than not, it works. What happened to all the little things in baseball? Why is a guy like Placido Polanco, one of the best players ever, underrated and overlooked by most? I'll give you a hint... he's a contact hitter, uses the whole field, doesn't hit a lot of homeruns, doesn't get caught up into the hype of the media and therefore isn't a fan magnate like Jeter, A-Rod, or whoever... but he rarely strikes out, he rarely fails to get on base, he's one of the best hitters out there, he makes exceptional plays in the field, he doesn't complain or whine, he plays for the team and goes out and does his job day in and day out without having a negative attitude... he's the kind of player every team should want.

Numbers... in terms of $$$ and people seem to be important to you. So, if it's not about the money to you, what is it about?

[NotAboutEgo]

Here's a link to an article about the effects of TV. It's one person's perspective.

http://melrosemirror.media.mit.edu/servlet/pluto?state=30303470616765303037576562506167653030 32696430303435333737


TV doesn't drive demand? These numbers say otherwise.

http://bss.sfsu.edu/tygiel/hist490/mlbattendance.htm


This page has a timeline for the invention of the TV. According to it, in 1936, there were only 200 TVs used worldwide (it doesn't say whether they are used in homes, in government, or wherever else).

"1948
Cable television is introduced in Pennsylvania as a means of bringing television to rural areas.
A patent was granted to Louis W. Parker for a low-cost television receiver.

One million homes in the United States have television sets."

http://inventors.about.com/od/tstartinventions/a/Television_Time_3.htm


If you look at the rise in the number of TVs in U.S. homes... 1 million homes had TV sets in the U.S. by 1948... and you look at when MLB attendance had a significant boom... MLB's average attendance at a game for 1945 was 8,814... in 1946 it almost doubled by jumping to 14,914. From 1901 to 1944, MLB games had similar attendance to what minor league games have today. The average game had the most attendance in 1945 (8,814) until it almost doubled in 1945. The cumulative MLB attendance rose some from 1901 to 1944 but stayed in the same general ballpark from 1920 to 1944/1945. In 1945, the cumulative MLB attendance hit over 10,000,000, and from there it started to rise steadily in the majority of the years after that. Attendance started increasing a lot more after 1945 than it ever had, and it especially started to rise from the late 70's on and continues to go up more now than ever.

http://blackfriarsinc.com/blog/2007/04/itunes-store-data-proves-its-growth-is This article on iPods states... "In 1945, there were 7,000 televisions in the US. By 1949, that number had grown to 1 million, and it hit 10 million just two years later in 1952." The numbers don't correlate with the timeline exactly, but they are close. If these numbers are even close to being accurate, perhaps it's the number 1 reason for MLB attendance steadily increasing at a rapid rate starting in 1945.

Do we see a correlation between the growing popularity of TV and increasing MLB attendance?

[digglahhh]

Of course it is always about the quality of the product and not about the marketing. Promotion, endorsement, advertising, money and image have nothing to do with it.

$250 for a puke brown Burberry scarf with some simple red and black plaid. What a steal!

Surely it is all about the product, and surely women ages 18-65 with self esteem issues just happen to have the same favorite plaid.

50 Cent sells more records in a week than Rakim did in years, yeah must be the merits of the product.

And to think, I thought George Orwell was a better writer than Dan Brown...

[TG Coach]

About women's baseball, referring to what I said, you stated, "We can catch these games in the park free all the time. Go play. Is there a long term successful market for it with ticket sales? No." So, it's not all about the money, eh? I think it's great that our games are free. That means, people can actually go out and watch baseball with their families without spending half of their paychecks to do so.

You also stated, "You had the curiosity factor going for a while. I'll bet most of them never cared if they saw another game. I'll bet most didn't watch all of it. And what's a crowd? How many?" Funny... most of the people stuck around for the whole game. Some were passing through to use the park and watched for a while. Kids were watching. People were cheering and enjoying it.

Does it really matter that we didn't have thousands of people at that game? What's important is, we were playing baseball and loving it, and there were people watching us play who enjoyed it.



You made such a big deal about women's pro sports and television you've contradicted yourself here. If you want to play in the park feel free to do so. We have 28+ men's leagues here. I wouldn't watch for more than a few minutes IF I happened to cross paths with the game. I don't care for the quality. After a few minutes the novelty wears out.



MLB is not about brute force? Why are homeruns touted so much?



I'm a fan. I don't see where homers are touted anymore than great fielding plays.



Why is a 100 mph pitch more recognized than finesse pitching?



I don't believe you're paying attention. Announcers often show the sequence of how a pitcher sets up the hitter. They often discuss the variance in speed between the fastball and the offspeed pitch. Very few pitchers can get just a fastball by a hitter on a consistant basis.



What happened to bunting in MLB? You rarely see it anymore. Most MLB players can't even bunt effectively.



You're not paying attention. Have you heard of Sabermetrics? It's Bill James intensive research on the game of MLB baseball that proves statistically, in the long run the bunt is not a good strategy because it gives away an out. Many MLB teams have adopted this philosophy.



Why is a guy like Placido Polanco, one of the best players ever, ...



You just lost any credibility with me on your knowledge of baseball. Polanco is a nice player. he's versatile. he can do a lot of things and play several positions. He isn't even one of the top players in the game now, much less ever. He's a good player. He helps the team win.

[TG Coach]

Here's a link to an article about the effects of TV. It's one person's perspective.

http://melrosemirror.media.mit.edu/servlet/pluto?state=30303470616765303037576562506167653030 32696430303435333737


TV doesn't drive demand? These numbers say otherwise.

http://bss.sfsu.edu/tygiel/hist490/mlbattendance.htm


This page has a timeline for the invention of the TV. According to it, in 1936, there were only 200 TVs used worldwide (it doesn't say whether they are used in homes, in government, or wherever else).

"1948
Cable television is introduced in Pennsylvania as a means of bringing television to rural areas.
A patent was granted to Louis W. Parker for a low-cost television receiver.

One million homes in the United States have television sets."

http://inventors.about.com/od/tstartinventions/a/Television_Time_3.htm


If you look at the rise in the number of TVs in U.S. homes... 1 million homes had TV sets in the U.S. by 1948... and you look at when MLB attendance had a significant boom... MLB's average attendance at a game for 1945 was 8,814... in 1946 it almost doubled by jumping to 14,914. From 1901 to 1944, MLB games had similar attendance to what minor league games have today. The average game had the most attendance in 1945 (8,814) until it almost doubled in 1945. The cumulative MLB attendance rose some from 1901 to 1944 but stayed in the same general ballpark from 1920 to 1944/1945. In 1945, the cumulative MLB attendance hit over 10,000,000, and from there it started to rise steadily in the majority of the years after that. Attendance started increasing a lot more after 1945 than it ever had, and it especially started to rise from the late 70's on and continues to go up more now than ever.

http://blackfriarsinc.com/blog/2007/04/itunes-store-data-proves-its-growth-is This article on iPods states... "In 1945, there were 7,000 televisions in the US. By 1949, that number had grown to 1 million, and it hit 10 million just two years later in 1952." The numbers don't correlate with the timeline exactly, but they are close. If these numbers are even close to being accurate, perhaps it's the number 1 reason for MLB attendance steadily increasing at a rapid rate starting in 1945.

Do we see a correlation between the growing popularity of TV and increasing MLB attendance?

I said popularity gets the sport on TV. THEN TV drives interest. If TV drove demand first the NHL would popular.

[NotAboutEgo]

You made such a big deal about women's pro sports and television you've contradicted yourself here. If you want to play in the park feel free to do so. We have 28+ men's leagues here. I wouldn't watch for more than a few minutes IF I happened to cross paths with the game. I don't care for the quality. After a few minutes the novelty wears out.



I'm a fan. I don't see where homers are touted anymore than great fielding plays.



I don't believe you're paying attention. Announcers often show the sequence of how a pitcher sets up the hitter. They often discuss the variance in speed between the fastball and the offspeed pitch. Very few pitchers can get just a fastball by a hitter on a consistant basis.



You're not paying attention. Have you heard of Sabermetrics? It's Bill James intensive research on the game of MLB baseball that proves statistically, in the long run the bunt is not a good strategy because it gives away an out. Many MLB teams have adopted this philosophy.



You just lost any credibility with me on your knowledge of baseball. Polanco is a nice player. he's versatile. he can do a lot of things and play several positions. He isn't even one of the top players in the game now, much less ever. He's a good player. He helps the team win.

Polanco is just a nice player... just a good player?

His current AVG is .363 (Jeter's is .340 and A-Rod's is .370). He has 113 AB's... the most for the Tigers, and more than A-Rod and Jeter (they each have 97). He has just 3 strikeouts... in 113 AB's... compared to Jeter's 11 K's and A-Rod's 23 K's. He has just 6 walks. He constantly puts the ball in play. He's 4th in the AL for batting average. He's a career .300 hitter.

If you watched this guy play day in and day out, you'd see how talented and good he is. He's amazing to watch.

Announcers may often show and talk about pitch sequence, but what gets the most attention... pitch sequence or velocity? Why is/was there so much focus on Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGuire when they were hitting so many homeruns? Why did so many guys start pumping steroids? It's not to get base hits and bunt and get sacrifice hits and 1 RBI at a time and all that. Why is the homerun derby so played up during the ALL-Star game?

[TG Coach]

Polanco is just a nice player... just a good player?

His current AVG is .363 (Jeter's is .340 and A-Rod's is .370). He has 113 AB's... the most for the Tigers, and more than A-Rod and Jeter (they each have 97). He has just 3 strikeouts... in 113 AB's... compared to Jeter's 11 K's and A-Rod's 23 K's. He has just 6 walks. He constantly puts the ball in play. He's 4th in the AL for batting average. He's a career .300 hitter.



The more you discuss baseball, the more you display your lack of knowledge of the game. It's too early in the season to get worked up about batting averages. At one hundred at-bats a hit is worth ten points. Players hit hot and cold. Do you think Manny Ramirez is going to bat .215? Do you think A-Rod is going to hit 80+ homers?

Polanco is not a great player. If he was he would have a position. He's a career utility player who's never played more than 109 games at any one position in a season. When you total his runs and rbi's it's nothing significant. For a non power hitter is OB% is average.


If you watched this guy play day in and day out, you'd see how talented and good he is. He's amazing to watch.


He played in a city I live. He's a nice player. He fills a role. He's steady. He's adequate in the field. He's a piece of the puzzle for the Tigers.



Announcers may often show and talk about pitch sequence, but what gets the most attention... pitch sequence or velocity? Why is/was there so much focus on Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGuire when they were hitting so many homeruns? Why did so many guys start pumping steroids? It's not to get base hits and bunt and get sacrifice hits and 1 RBI at a time and all that. Why is the homerun derby so played up during the ALL-Star game?


Pitch sequence except if a player is touching one hundred, because it's rare. Bonds, Sosa and McGuire received a lot of publicity because they were breaking records. There's a home run derby because a bunting between cones contest (we do this in practice) would be boring to the fans. As for steroids, you're missing the boat again. When the steroids story finally breaks open you're going to find just as many pitches involved.

[NotAboutEgo]

The more you discuss baseball, the more you display your lack of knowledge of the game. It's too early in the season to get worked up about batting averages. At one hundred at-bats a hit is worth ten points. Players hit hot and cold. Do you think Manny Ramirez is going to bat .215? Do you think A-Rod is going to hit 80+ homers?

Polanco is not a great player. If he was he would have a position. He's a career utility player who's never played more than 109 games at any one position in a season. When you total his runs and rbi's it's nothing significant. For a non power hitter is OB% is average.

Jeez... and all this time I've been watching someone play regularly at 2nd base for the Tigers... for going on 3 seasons... and I thought it was Polanco. I guess it's just another guy wearing his jersey! It must be Omar Infante disguised as Polanco making all those great plays and hitting like a bandit!

For someone who knows so much about baseball, I would have thought you would have noticed by now that Polanco has been the Tigers everyday 2nd baseman since he came to the team in 2005. So, I guess you can say he has a position. Oh... wait... I forgot... it's really Infante disguised as Polanco!

Did you miss the fact that I pointed out that Polanco has struck out only 3 times in 113 at bats? Seems to be pretty darned good to me... but what do I know.

EVERY player is a piece of the puzzle on ANY team... whatever that may be. That's sort of the concept of a TEAM. Polanco happens to be one of the best pieces of the Tigers puzzle... hands down. He sure does fill a role for the Tigers... a huge role.

You should check his stats again. Seems to me that he's played more than 109 games at any one position more than once. The only reason he didn't play more games last year was because he separated his shoulder, while making a terrific catch, and missed a good part of the season.

If he would have been given the chance to play regularly on his other teams, I'm sure he would have done as well as he's been doing with the Tigers.

He played in a city I live. He's a nice player. He fills a role. He's steady. He's adequate in the field. He's a piece of the puzzle for the Tigers.

Pitch sequence except if a player is touching one hundred, because it's rare. Bonds, Sosa and McGuire received a lot of publicity because they were breaking records. There's a home run derby because a bunting between cones contest (we do this in practice) would be boring to the fans. As for steroids, you're missing the boat again. When the steroids story finally breaks open you're going to find just as many pitches involved.

I don't care if one is talking hitting, pitching, or whatever. If someone is pumping up on 'roids, it's because they want to be bigger and have more power.

Just because Polanco isn't cracking homerun after homerun doesn't mean he's just only a good player.

From Wikipedia...
Handed the starting third base job in 2001, his low strikeouts-walks ratio over number of at bats and extra bases hits established himself as a contact hitter in the batting lineup. He finished the 2001 season with a .307 batting average, 12 stolen bases and smacked 173 hits, 26 doubles with only 43 strikeouts over 564 at bats.

Polanco finished the 2005 season batting .338 with the Tigers, and also having a career year with regards to OPS(.847). He led the majors in lowest strikeout percentage (5.0%).

Polanco is a .301 career hitter with 879 singles, 265 extra base hits, including 64 home runs and 387 RBIs in 1046 games.

Placido was a key part in the 2006 Division and Championship series for the Detroit Tigers. He was named Most Valuable Player of the 2006 American League Championship Series.

[digglahhh]

Polanco is not a great player. If he was he would have a position. He's a career utility player who's never played more than 109 games at any one position in a season. When you total his runs and rbi's it's nothing significant. For a non power hitter is OB% is average.

I'm not going to defend Polanco as some sort of legend of the game. But he is basically a regular. He's played many positions throughout his career and multiple positions in the same season because he is versatile (a trait you lauded a few posts ago, but then manipulated into a detriment here). He's a 500 AB a year guy, health permitting.

And, FWIW, he has displayed the ability to hit for average over an extended period of time. He's a career .300 hitter and he would have won the AL batting title in '05 if he has enough PAs to qualify. Overall, he hit .331, but did not have PAs to qualify in either league because of the midseason trade. Lee hit .335 to win the NL, Young paced the AL at .331.

[dl4060]

No, quite the opposite actually. Male college enrollment is decreasing because discrimination is becoming less prevalent and they have to compete with females (who, on average, get better grades) for spots in colleges.


I would much rather be a woman applying to MIT or Caltech than a man. I know fifteen years ago women were flown in for free for campus tours to MIT if they were accepted. Clearly a discriminatory situation, though one I would certainly have supported as a male MIT student. While women do get better grades, they do not get better standardized test scores, so the implication that they are academically superior is a dubious one at best. I really cannot see how the math section of the SAT's, which is not even remotely complex, discriminates against women.

I would like to see the equal rights crusaders support equality across the board, not just where it suits them. Why is it a man can be forced to financially support a child he does not want, but a woman cannot? I would like to see some strong, liberated, independent women show me they are not hypocrites and campaign for an end to paternity suits. If a woman can have an abortion, a man should be allowed to make a similar decision.

[TG Coach]

I'm not going to get hung up on Polanco. It's not what the thread is about. And the thread has pretty much hit the end of the road if it's become a discussion on Polanco.

[dl4060]

How many times have there been stories in the news about college football and basketball teams, coaches, and players being busted for giving players things like cars, housing, food, and even money? Jeez, it seems to happen at the University of Michigan quite a lot... one of the big powers in D1 football and basketball.




Which coaches or players are being busted for giving recruits cars? None that I have ever heard of. The people usually busted for doing this a boosters, graduates or fans with lots of money. The programs are certainly complicit with this, but it is not the actual coaches giving players cars.

How about we just have teams. You can go and try out regardless of what sex you are. If women really want to be judged on their skills it seems to me that this would be a wonderful solution, if the real issue is equality and being judged on one's merits.

"How many players are on a collegiate men's football, and how many of those actually ever play in a game and sit the bench instead? It's ludicrous how many are on a team. Money could be saved by having the actual amount of players on a team that it really needs."

You clearly don't know very much about football. I would stick to things you understand, it will make your arguments much stronger.

[digglahhh]

I would much rather be a woman applying to MIT or Caltech than a man. I know fifteen years ago women were flown in for free for campus tours to MIT if they were accepted. Clearly a discriminatory situation, though one I would certainly have supported as a male MIT student. While women do get better grades, they do not get better standardized test scores, so the implication that they are academically superior is a dubious one at best. I really cannot see how the math section of the SAT's, which is not even remotely complex, discriminates against women.

I would like to see the equal rights crusaders support equality across the board, not just where it suits them. Why is it a man can be forced to financially support a child he does not want, but a woman cannot? I would like to see some strong, liberated, independent women show me they are not hypocrites and campaign for an end to paternity suits. If a woman can have an abortion, a man should be allowed to make a similar decision.

This is probably not the place to continue such a discussion. I agree with many of your points. There is also a pretty big case a couple of years ago involving a man who wanted to prevent a woman whom he impregnated from having an abortion because he wanted to have his own child; he told the woman he was fine with her signing away her responsibility and him waiving his right to seek child support. These are tough issues, probably better served for PMs, which I am open to if you want to talk that way.

My only social insistence that I find important to repeat in this particular forum is that inequality of the past can't be fixed with the press of a button. You can't look at actions designed to benefit the historical victims of exclusion the same way you look at actions designed to benefit the historical beneficiaries thereof. Groups that have benefited from double standards in the past can just call for across the board equality and expect everything to begin from that point as even.

So, these are very complicated questions. It is almost like raising two children but one is born with a medical condition. You love your children equally, but due to circumstances beyond your control, buying the sick kid a toy and not buying one for the healthy kid is a little different than the other way around.

[MSUlaxer27]

No, quite the opposite actually. Male college enrollment is decreasing because discrimination is becoming less prevalent and they have to compete with females (who, on average, get better grades) for spots in colleges.



I might have to disagree but without proof, there are less men attending college even while there are more men in the general population than women. This has happened since Title IX was enacted. ( NOTE: I didn't say because Title IX was enacted) My problem with this is that a university education is the key to a strong future, so while men outnumber women in the population, their opportunities for college (vis a vis athletics and general academic scholarships) are decreasing. There is some thought that elementary and indeed secondary education is now geared toward girls toward the detriment of boys. So yes women are getting there much waited for and deserved sports opportunities. Good for you. But nobody talks about the percentage of the male population that is now missing their college opportunities. How do we fix this REAL problem. F^&k sports lets have equal numbers to the population in college.

I don't know, having served in the middle east and seen men who had no opportunities and what they do, do we really want 100,000 or more angry men with no opportunities (or reduced opportunities based on lack of education) hanging around our country?

[CuriousBoston]

I would much rather be a woman applying to MIT or Caltech than a man. I know fifteen years ago women were flown in for free for campus tours to MIT if they were accepted. Clearly a discriminatory situation, though one I would certainly have supported as a male MIT student. While women do get better grades, they do not get better standardized test scores, so the implication that they are academically superior is a dubious one at best. I really cannot see how the math section of the SAT's, which is not even remotely complex, discriminates against women.

I would like to see the equal rights crusaders support equality across the board, not just where it suits them. Why is it a man can be forced to financially support a child he does not want, but a woman cannot? I would like to see some strong, liberated, independent women show me they are not hypocrites and campaign for an end to paternity suits. If a woman can have an abortion, a man should be allowed to make a similar decision.

There are women who left their family paying child support. Rare, it does happen. When paying child support, I believe the majority of the cases are men that have left the family. It would be interesting to know the number of paternity cases vs the number of family breakup.

Birth control used by both partners is very effective. This is fact. My two cents: Paternity suits tend to be when both people are teenagers, have a limited knowledge of birth control, and limited control over themselves. My opinion is based on working in a hospital where abortions were performed, and paternity tests were done as a side business by a MD from the lab I worked in.

It is not hypocritical for women not to campaign for an end to paternity suits. That is my opinion. I believe they are not as common as people believe. The media gives them a lot of coverage.

There are men's groups working for more parental rights for men in broken families. If you feel strongly about it, you can join one of the groups.

Can you provide a link to the grades vs test scores? That would be interesting.