SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP Best Player In The State

If you talk of the professional ranks I agree. But college? I'd say the opposite. There are more, good boy players chasing fewer scholarships. It is easier for a girl soccer player to get athletic scholarship money than it is boys.

Title 9 gives teeth to it....

Maybe narrowly with soccer programs—but I doubt the "easier" part. But I was really talking BIG picture and all sports. So I did wander. Females do not anything like college football, however.

Title IX is bureaucracy—reality is a little different. Many things look even on paper.

And I should add—I have NOT seen a son go through this process; so take my view for what it is worth.

There are infinetely more boys playing AAU basketball than girls.....and yet just as many girls get scholarships to play basketball as boys, right? So I would say its less competitive for a girl to earn a bball scholarship than a boy, just as it is with soccer.

Go watch a middle school basketball game and watch the boys games versus the girls games. There is nowhere near the depth of talent on the girls end of things.....

No doubt football makes dollar for dollar spending impossible. But it would be interesting.....fascinating even (with apologies to Chico) to compare average spending in the ACC if you threw out the top sport for both boys and girls.

My guess is without football......I would be shocked to see equal spending. My guess is it would be weighted towards the girls.

In 2001:

• 41.5% of all high school athletes were female.
  
• 42% of all college athletes were female.
  
• 32% of recruitment funds were spent on females.
  
• Over 56% of college students are female.
  

I've heard those that make the argument that it's easier to get an athletic scholarship if you're female. I've also heard those that make the argument that male soccer players in the United States aren't our best male athletes because the best male athletes play football and basketball.

It has always seemed to me that the following was true

• [Micro-View] On average it's easier for a United States female soccer player to get a soccer-related athletic scholarship than a male soccer player.
  
• [Macro-View] The average United States female soccer player ranks higher in terms of same-gender athleticism than the average male soccer player.
  

Chico,

Again, I wonder how much of the statistics are skewed by football. So again, take 1 school....Clemson or USC and determine their athletic budget. Subtract football....then determine average amount per athlete based on gender.

Microview: agreed.
Macroview a: regarding best athletes playing sports other than soccer I agree in general. However, I would disagree at the highest levels. I would not say that Claudio Reyna is less athletic than....Raymond Felton.
Macroview b: agree in principle. woman soccer players in general rank higher in the hierarchy of female athletes than men do in the hierarchy of male athletics.

I've always felt the easiest team sport for a female athlete, with "above average" (I didn't say "great") athleticism, to get an athletic scholarship to a D1 school is field hockey.

Chico, if you could pull the facts I'd love to see them. Looking for the number of HS girls playing field hockey in the US and the number of Division 1 colleges offering the sport.

It is so much easier to get a ride in field hockey than it is in soccer.

I would have said Crew/Rowing.

/my two cents

OK—if anyone on the message board wants to argue that we have somehow started treating females equally with males—go ahead—it doesn't happen. Maybe we can make ourselves feel better with numbers and such, but life is still sexist.

Now, are there more males attempting sports than females? Yes! What I think is interesting and worth considering is how much BIOLOGY and ENVIRONMENT are involved in this.

Do boys NATURALLY aspire to be athletic or are they socialized to do so? And are girls NATURALLY less likely to want to pursue sports?

Even though this discussion is in Club Soccer, let me offer a high school example.

When I started coaching high school soccer, I started a girls program. We had NINE girls that first season. The boys team had some success in my first years—14-5 one season, 15-4 the next. The boys interest soared.

Now at the same school, the girls program has been highly ranked and successful for the past three years while the boys program has floundered some. In this town, girls are playing soccer like mad. Numbers for girls are UP.

OK—I would argue that sports is naturally more "male," but when females see a REASON to participate, things even out some. At the college and pro levels, the REASON has not caught up for females; males see a reason to be athletic in college and pros daily.

Socially, females are not rewarded or encouraged for athleticism as males are.

>>[purpleandyellow] OK—if anyone on the message board wants to argue that we have somehow started treating females equally with males—go ahead—it doesn't happen. Maybe we can make ourselves feel better with numbers and such, but life is still sexist.<<

Okay...perhaps a bit more explanation of what these numbers mean is in order...

• 41.5% of all high school athletes were female.
  
  Although more than half of high school students are female, only 41.5% of high school athletes are female.
  
  
• 42% of all college athletes were female.
  
  Although 56%+ of college undergraduates are female, only 42% of college athletes are female.
  
  
• 32% of recruitment funds were spent on females.
  
  Although 42% of all college athletes are female, only 32% of the money being spent on recruiting is spent on females. Morever, although 56% of college undergraduates are female, only 32% of the money being spent on recruiting is spent on females.
  
  
• Over 56% of college students are female.
  

There are other "numbers" often bandied about -- for example, the fact that it is estimated by some partisan groups that over 80% of all colleges are substantially out of compliance with Title IX -- but the simple facts above pretty much state the case.

Respectfully, it's difficult to make a case based on anecdotal evidence alone -- after all, someone somewhere always has a case in which they can "prove" whatever the heck they want to prove. Thus, sometimes it's nice to spend ten minutes getting some background data and facts to buttress an argument.

Big Daddy: As an intellectual undertaking, I understand the desire to separate football and evaluate numbers. I don't know how to do it -- and regardless of the fact that 80%+ of college football programs lose money I think you'll come back to the "status" argument made earlier.

But as a practical exercise, removing football from a debate concerning athletic spending seems akin to removing the meat from one of those huge fast food burgers and doing a nutrition analysis -- sure, you can do it -- but in the end it doesn't matter because the cholesterol and saturated fats laden slab of meat is pretty integral to most folks concept of what a "burger" is -- and football spending is pretty integral to most people's concept of what "athletic spending" is.