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

>>[Big Daddy] Why in America.....should higher education subsidize athletics at all?<<

That's a great question. I personally think that we should take all sports out of public education spending and go to a club model.

[Preface: Great debate! I've tried to address what appears to be the factual basis in this debate. I understand that substituting sexism for racism is wrought with emotional overtones for many -- but the fact is that both arise from the same basic human traits and both in my opinion are wrong.]

>>[Big Daddy] Our debate wasn't about college athletics in general, or funding in particular. Its about soccer, and college scholarships. Period. And the facts.....are that girls have appreciably more opportunity than boys to get college scholarships. And the reason for this.....is an
attempt on the part of society to engineer a solution, a remedy as it were, for past wrongs.<<

What I don't accept is your fundamental premise that you can discuss soccer with respect to college scholarships outside of college scholarships for all sports. It seems to me to be a fundamentally silly point of view that you can somehow separate different sports and ask for "fairness" or "equality" and disregard everything else going on within the athletic department of a college.

>>If fairness is the question, is this fair?<<

Of course it is, because you fundamentally can't attempt to redefine the problem of "fairness" to a single sport while ignoring the spending of the athletic program of a college overall. To do so is absurd and self-serving...surely you see that?

>>The fact that America spends a fortune on football shouldn't be the justfication for unfairly treating male soccer players.<<

Of course it should given that "America" in this defintion are state and federal governments that fund a portion of these "academic" institutions. Trying to somehow eliminate "football" (or basketball, or baseball, etc.) from the equation means that you inherently make the decision that some types of "unfairness" or "inequality" are okay.

>>The fact that woman HAVE been artifically limited over the last 100 years.....cannot be undone by giving out 3-4 additional soccer scholarships per year.<<

Let's see -- since Title IX was passed female participation in sports at the high school level has gone from 1 in 27 in 1972 to 1 in 2.5 in 2002. It would appear to me that there have been some fundamental changes wrought by trying to increase the gender equity with respect to athletic spending in our universities.

>>We cannot compare football and soccer. We can only compare soccer to soccer.<<

Fundamentally untrue, as much of this thread demonstrates. We can compare anything to anything. Of course, the question is whether the comparison has merit. You are attempting to make the argument that we should eliminate certain male-only sports-related spending and take into account only inter-gender spending within one or more sports. While I certainly understand the basis of your argument, I don't and can't agree with it.

If you want to advance the argument that the NCAA should have rules that allow universities more flexibility in terms of individual programs, I have no issue with that. If you want to advance the argument that universities should give out the same number of scholarships for men's and women's soccer, I have no issue with that. If you want to advance the argument that public education spending shouldn't be spent on sports, I have no issue with that. However, I do have an issue with the argument that we should exempt certain male-dominated sports spending from the overall drive toward increasing equity within college athletic departments in some type of "college athletic spending apartheid" theory.

Fundamentally, here's what my definition of "fairness" is. I think in our system today that our best athletes should have a proportionally equal chance to participate and receive proportionally equal money for participating at government-subsidized institutions. Thus, if a young Terrell Owens or Randy Moss want to play football or soccer, they should have an equal chance to participate and receive funding regardless of the sport they choose as does a young Cheryl Miller or Mia Hamm. Anything else would appear to me to be fundamentally unfair.

Since there is a much greater demand for the product of college football in this country than for other college sports, doesn't it make sense that there would be more opportunities in college football? It seems to me that this is a matter of supply meeting demand, not a matter of fairness. Is it unfair that there are more job opportunities in industries where there is greater market demand?

So shouldn't the question be about equal opportunity regardless of gender in all sports? Should women be given equal opportunity in the high demand sports such as football? I think the problem here is that the public is gender specific in their demand for sports products. For example, men's professional and college basketball are in much higher demand than are the female versions. For this to change, the public's perceptions and spending habits will have to change. There is no doubt that this has happened to a great degree since Title IX. There are many more college and professional sports opportunities for women than there were 34 years ago. But there is still not equal opportunity in terms of financial benefit.

Coach P,

My fairness issue is strictly within the sport. If you have a mens team and a womans team....they should be equally funded.

Football and soccer are different animals.

"What I don't accept is your fundamental premise that you can discuss soccer with respect to college scholarships outside of college scholarships for all sports. It seems to me to be a fundamentally silly point of view that you can somehow separate different sports and ask for "fairness" or "equality" and disregard everything else going on within the athletic department of a college."

Chico, you are thinking too narrowly, if you want to use this line of logic. You want to compare gender based spending in sports and not look at it on a sport by sport basis. Then I ask......why would you separate sports based scholarships from academic or needs based scholarships?

These are colleges and universities, right? The objective of scholarships is to provide access to an education. Therefore, evaluating the awarding of scholarships based on gender.....solely on the basics of athletics is silly. If girls makeup 52% of the college population and receive 52% of total scholarship dollars, isn't that at a top level what fairness is?

If it isn't reasonable to look at a soccer to soccer comparison...then lets look at the student population as a whole as it relates to scholarships.

I'm also going to ask you to watch your language. You have used words like misogynist, racist, sexist, apartheid...and to a far lesser degree used insulting language like calling something silly, simply because they have a different perspective than you do.

I can use words too........how about arrogant, hypocritical, narrowminded, intolerant and intellectually reckless.

>>[Coach P] Since there is a much greater demand for the product of college football in this country than for other college sports, doesn't it make sense that there would be more opportunities in college football? It seems to me that this is a matter of supply meeting demand, not a matter of fairness. Is it unfair that there are more job opportunities in industries where there is greater market demand?<<

If we were talking about professional sports, or even private corporate sports (e.g., clubs), then I of course totally agree that supply and demand dictate the opportunity, i.e., the supply of athletes has to be proportional to the demand for market-based revenue.

But of course we're not talking about professional sports; we're talking about academic institutions that receive federal and state funding. We're talking about institutions that by mandate are open to all and offer opportunities to all in multiple arenas.

>>So shouldn't the question be about equal opportunity regardless of gender in all sports? Should women be given equal opportunity in the high demand sports such as football? I think the problem here is that the public is gender specific in their demand for sports products. For example, men's professional and college basketball are in much higher demand than are the female versions. For this to change, the public's perceptions and spending habits will have to change. There is no doubt that this has happened to a great degree since Title IX. There are many more college and professional sports opportunities for women than there were 34 years ago. But there is still not equal opportunity in terms of financial benefit.<<

Again, if you want to spin off certain programs from universities and make those private profit and loss entities, then I'm all for it and believe that any such entity should operate based on the laws of supply and demand. Of course, the vast majority of athletic departments run deficits -- so this is only going to work for a few big programs.

But here's where I see a fundamental fairness issue lurking. If we're awarding scholarships to help student-athletes get an education, then it would seem to me that those scholarships should be apportioned based on the percentage of the student body of the university.

The theory of trying to erect a wall of "sports-apartheid" between some programs within an athletic department was proposed and went no where -- because it's quite apparent to a majority of people in this country that you shouldn't discriminate against your mother, sister, and/or daughter.

To put this as simply as possible: if a male athlete is in the top 1% (or whatever) of all male athletes, and a female athlete is in the top 1% (or whatever) of all female athletes, then their ability to get financial aid to become a student-athlete at a college should be the same. Giving a group of people who choose a relatively unpopular sport (e.g., soccer versus football) an advantage over athletes in more popular sports, male or female, seems like the wrong thing to do and the wrong message to send in our institutions of higher learning.

>>[Big Daddy] "What I don't accept is your fundamental premise that you can discuss soccer with respect to college scholarships outside of college scholarships for all sports. It seems to me to be a fundamentally silly point of view that you can somehow separate different sports and ask for "fairness" or "equality" and disregard everything else going on within the athletic department of a college."

Chico, you are thinking too narrowly, if you want to use this line of logic. You want to compare gender based spending in sports and not look at it on a sport by sport basis. Then I ask......why would you separate sports based scholarships from academic or needs based scholarships?<<

Not a bad point at all. The issue that I see is that you have three categories of aid: merit-based academic, merit-based athletic, and needs-based academic. Lumping all three together somewhat obviates the motivation behind each, e.g., if you have a tremendous number of minority males getting merit-based academic aid then you've wiped out your male athletic and needs-based stuff.

>>These are colleges and universities, right? The objective of scholarships is to provide access to an education. Therefore, evaluating the awarding of scholarships based on gender.....solely on the basics of athletics is silly. If girls makeup 52% of the college population and receive 52% of total scholarship dollars, isn't that at a top level what fairness is?<<

Yes; if your objective is to treat all aid equally. In other words, if you don't wish to distinguish among academic, athletic, and needs-based programs then using a single measure would seem to be fundamentally fair.

The issue as I see it is that there is a strong desire to distinguish among academic, athletic, and needs-based programs. For example, I'd gladly vote to keep needs-based programs if we could only have one.

>>If it isn't reasonable to look at a soccer to soccer comparison...then lets look at the student population as a whole as it relates to scholarships. <<

The latest numbers then show that we should be awarding 56%+ of all scholarship dollars to females, since that is the average percentage of females in the undergraduate student population. It is estimated that this will increase to 61%+ in the next two years.

Again, the proposal makes some amount of sense if you're willing to do away with various programs with various motivations. Honestly, I could care less what such a proposal would do athletically -- since acting as a feeder system to professional leagues doesn't really seem to be an original mandate of higher learning -- but I would tend to be concerned about the impact on needs-based programs in terms of what it would do to what is rapidly becoming an increasing minority -- the male college student.

>>[Big Daddy] I'm also going to ask you to watch your language. You have used words like misogynist, racist, sexist, apartheid...and to a far lesser degree used insulting language like calling something silly, simply because they have a different perspective than you do.

I can use words too........how about arrogant, hypocritical, narrowminded, intolerant and intellectually reckless.<<

I am pleased you can use these words and I honestly don't mind your using them in describing my posts. However, in order to make your point, you might actually want to explain specifically what it is that I am writing that exhibits these characteristics.

"Fundamentally, here's what my definition of "fairness" is. I think in our system today that our best athletes should have a proportionally equal chance to participate and receive proportionally equal money for participating at government-subsidized institutions. Thus, if a young Terrell Owens or Randy Moss want to play football or soccer, they should have an equal chance to participate and receive funding regardless of the sport they choose as does a young Cheryl Miller or Mia Hamm. Anything else would appear to me to be fundamentally unfair. "

Not a bad idea......but how do you divvy it up? On what basis would a young Mia Hamm get a scholarship over a young Cheryl Miller? Or more importantly, when would a young soccer player get a scholarship over a 3rd string offensive linemen.