Title IX defended on the hive (LINK)
- Thread starter law_bee
- Start date
I might as well let the ship hit the fan in my first statement. "A Democrat or Liberal is someone who wants to spend someone else's money; A Republican is someone who wants to spend his own money".
Every thing should stand or fall on its own merit. If a product or service comes on the market, it should thrive or fail on its own merits. Many times the government props up poor products, plans, or services with tax money when it would fail on its own merit. The government is very abusive in this tactic.
If a University, College, or Insititute is getting tax money, money donated to the institution for general purposes, or other moneys not earned specifically by a given sport, that money should be divided up among the various sports for both men and women equitably.
Any money earned by football should go to support the football program. Any money earned by the men's basketball program should go to that sport. Any money earned by the women's basketball program should go to support that sport. The same goes for all revenue earning sports.
If a given sport takes in more money than it needs to support it, the school should have the authority to spend the excess money for sports in a manner that it deems best for the school. It could be any sport that enhances the reputation of the school and makes it more attractive to lure students to its campus.
Title IX is a liberal gimmick to further destroy the family unit by forcing women's sports into equality with men's sports. It can never be accomplished. Even most women had rather watch men's sports than women's sports, because most women like men better anyway.
There is nothing wrong with having intramural sports for women or any league sports for women as long as it is paid for out of the general fund or can sustain itself with a paying fan base.
It is unreal and ignorant for Title IX to force a person to give donations to a sport against his will. A wealthy alumna donating a large gift to the football program may withdraw his donations when he sees it being used for other programs and the sport he likes (football) is sufering because of the money drained from that program.
As soon as the money dries up from the revenue producing sports because of the siphoning off of monies for other sports, the revenue producing sport will be dropped. After the revenue producing sport is dropped, the other sports will fall like dominoes.
Those that wish to uphold the Title IX law are destroying both the revenue collecting and non-revenue collecting sports. Those wanting to uphold the Title IX law, as it now stands, are either dumb, selfish, or aware of the destruction of its effect on major sports and their goal is the total destruction of revenue sports.
They are enemies of the total sports programs of the institutes.
Every thing should stand or fall on its own merit. If a product or service comes on the market, it should thrive or fail on its own merits. Many times the government props up poor products, plans, or services with tax money when it would fail on its own merit. The government is very abusive in this tactic.
If a University, College, or Insititute is getting tax money, money donated to the institution for general purposes, or other moneys not earned specifically by a given sport, that money should be divided up among the various sports for both men and women equitably.
Any money earned by football should go to support the football program. Any money earned by the men's basketball program should go to that sport. Any money earned by the women's basketball program should go to support that sport. The same goes for all revenue earning sports.
If a given sport takes in more money than it needs to support it, the school should have the authority to spend the excess money for sports in a manner that it deems best for the school. It could be any sport that enhances the reputation of the school and makes it more attractive to lure students to its campus.
Title IX is a liberal gimmick to further destroy the family unit by forcing women's sports into equality with men's sports. It can never be accomplished. Even most women had rather watch men's sports than women's sports, because most women like men better anyway.
There is nothing wrong with having intramural sports for women or any league sports for women as long as it is paid for out of the general fund or can sustain itself with a paying fan base.
It is unreal and ignorant for Title IX to force a person to give donations to a sport against his will. A wealthy alumna donating a large gift to the football program may withdraw his donations when he sees it being used for other programs and the sport he likes (football) is sufering because of the money drained from that program.
As soon as the money dries up from the revenue producing sports because of the siphoning off of monies for other sports, the revenue producing sport will be dropped. After the revenue producing sport is dropped, the other sports will fall like dominoes.
Those that wish to uphold the Title IX law are destroying both the revenue collecting and non-revenue collecting sports. Those wanting to uphold the Title IX law, as it now stands, are either dumb, selfish, or aware of the destruction of its effect on major sports and their goal is the total destruction of revenue sports.
They are enemies of the total sports programs of the institutes.
ahso,
I see you are still spewing your right wing gibberish.
So I guess that makes Ronald Reagan the biggest liberal in history, because he spent more of others money, and ran up the highest deficits in history. And all the while he could have vetoed any spending he didn't want.
But it is ok because he calls himself a republican and you one world government right wingers would rather ignore his record deficits.
And besides...it is ok because he doesn't remember doing it anyway.
I see you are still spewing your right wing gibberish.
So I guess that makes Ronald Reagan the biggest liberal in history, because he spent more of others money, and ran up the highest deficits in history. And all the while he could have vetoed any spending he didn't want.
But it is ok because he calls himself a republican and you one world government right wingers would rather ignore his record deficits.
And besides...it is ok because he doesn't remember doing it anyway.
getwrecked
Flats Noob
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2001
- Messages
- 765
ahso,
I consider myself pretty conservative, but I must say you are to the right of me.
I think you may have over-generalized your description of Dems and Repubs a bit to make a point. The truth is (I hate to agree with Beeware) that "politicians" (of whatever ilk) like to spend other people's money. The Republicans just do it less (or TRY to do it less - or when they do it, it bothers them more) than the Democrats - but they still do it. Republicans and Democrats agree on the principle -that there are some areas where the government should not tread. They just disagree where the line is. Politicians survive by confiscating resources from mostly the middle class and redistributing those resources to buy aquiesence from the populace at large. This from a 21 year veteran of the United States Armed Forces who has been in harm's way.
As far as "everything should stand on it's own merit", I generally agree. I don't necessarily agree, however, that "merit" is only measured in dollars and cents. Your plan to distribute tax monies equally but let football keep all the football $$, etc, etc sounds good on the surface, but has some flaws.
First, as you rightly pointed out football funds most "olympic" sports also. Where would they be if football kept all of it's own money? There would not only be no women's sports but also no men's "olympic" sports.
Second, How much money does the English department bring in? If the engineering school is bringing in lots of grants and a little more $$ goes to the English department, is not the engineering school subsidizing the English department, in effect?
Third, this discussion gets into what I consider to be the single biggest problem facing college athletics - and it's been the same problem for years but everyone ignores it. That problem is one of identity. Is college athletics a business or is it part of a public enterprise? Is it important that the athletic department make $10 million a year or is it more important to have a well rounded program? Is it more important to have a 10,000 square foot football training facility, or is it more important to have "olympic sports for both genders. Should the men's basketball coach get more money because men's basketball generates more money; or should the men and women's coaches be paid the same because they both provide the same basic instruction, guidance and teaching to their students - much liike two english professors. Of course the argument can be made that professors get more money if they generate more grants and write more books and are well respected in their field - much like a coach can generate money and also become respected in his/her field. But the issue gets right at the point of what is the purpose of college athletics and, by extension, colleges in general.
Ironically, if college athletics were to be run like the universities, we would see the large public schools (like UT, UGA, LSU, etc) being run like a public institution where it is more important to provide for the general population because it is their tax money that is the foundation of the public school's budget. (I have actually been in discussions at a large land-grant university where several professors argued AGAINST raising the admittance standards. Why? Because as a land-grant university it was their responsibility to be available to most of the residents of that state.) Conversely, we would see private schools (like Duke, Vandy, etc) being run as private enterprises, where the bottom line is money. In reality it appears to be just the opposite.
Sorry it's so long - JMHO.
I consider myself pretty conservative, but I must say you are to the right of me.
I think you may have over-generalized your description of Dems and Repubs a bit to make a point. The truth is (I hate to agree with Beeware) that "politicians" (of whatever ilk) like to spend other people's money. The Republicans just do it less (or TRY to do it less - or when they do it, it bothers them more) than the Democrats - but they still do it. Republicans and Democrats agree on the principle -that there are some areas where the government should not tread. They just disagree where the line is. Politicians survive by confiscating resources from mostly the middle class and redistributing those resources to buy aquiesence from the populace at large. This from a 21 year veteran of the United States Armed Forces who has been in harm's way.
As far as "everything should stand on it's own merit", I generally agree. I don't necessarily agree, however, that "merit" is only measured in dollars and cents. Your plan to distribute tax monies equally but let football keep all the football $$, etc, etc sounds good on the surface, but has some flaws.
First, as you rightly pointed out football funds most "olympic" sports also. Where would they be if football kept all of it's own money? There would not only be no women's sports but also no men's "olympic" sports.
Second, How much money does the English department bring in? If the engineering school is bringing in lots of grants and a little more $$ goes to the English department, is not the engineering school subsidizing the English department, in effect?
Third, this discussion gets into what I consider to be the single biggest problem facing college athletics - and it's been the same problem for years but everyone ignores it. That problem is one of identity. Is college athletics a business or is it part of a public enterprise? Is it important that the athletic department make $10 million a year or is it more important to have a well rounded program? Is it more important to have a 10,000 square foot football training facility, or is it more important to have "olympic sports for both genders. Should the men's basketball coach get more money because men's basketball generates more money; or should the men and women's coaches be paid the same because they both provide the same basic instruction, guidance and teaching to their students - much liike two english professors. Of course the argument can be made that professors get more money if they generate more grants and write more books and are well respected in their field - much like a coach can generate money and also become respected in his/her field. But the issue gets right at the point of what is the purpose of college athletics and, by extension, colleges in general.
Ironically, if college athletics were to be run like the universities, we would see the large public schools (like UT, UGA, LSU, etc) being run like a public institution where it is more important to provide for the general population because it is their tax money that is the foundation of the public school's budget. (I have actually been in discussions at a large land-grant university where several professors argued AGAINST raising the admittance standards. Why? Because as a land-grant university it was their responsibility to be available to most of the residents of that state.) Conversely, we would see private schools (like Duke, Vandy, etc) being run as private enterprises, where the bottom line is money. In reality it appears to be just the opposite.
Sorry it's so long - JMHO.
GetWrecked, go back and read my post again and note some of the remarks I made about those that donate monies and what happens to all sports when the source dries up.
By the way, the Democratic and Republican statement is a generalization and has been around for years. I am not the originator of that statement, but it has a lot of truth in it.
In an ideal situation where money is not a factor, some of your suppositions are true. When you are depending on others for the donations and the support for the finances, you have no other choice than to give the paying customer what he wants or you don't get his money, clear and simple.
When that happens, the rest makes no difference, because the sports are gone and the argument is superflous.
I had also stated the institution should have the right to use any excess monies any way the board chose to do so. That would include the funding of Olympic sports or any other sport the school deemed necessary to its existence.
The government should not decide which areas the school should funnel the remaining monies from the revenue producing sports. It should be left up to each individual institution.
Your argument regarding the different departments in the school, English, History, etc. does not apply to this situation. Those monies are received from the State and students for a general education.
In the case of football, basketball, baseball, etc., the customers are donating money and buying tickets for specific events to be enjoyed by the paying customer. They will withdraw their monies and support if their monies do not have their intended effect.
Arguments by some that the coach of each sport should be paid the same is also superflous when the supporters withdraw their monies. None of them will be paid high salaries. They will all receive the standard salary a regular teacher makes. The system will become as the Ivy League schools.
That also means many football, basketball, baseball players from high school would lose their ability to get an education because of the loss of scholarships. It will eventually become as described in my original post, "the dominoes will begin to fall".
By the way, the Democratic and Republican statement is a generalization and has been around for years. I am not the originator of that statement, but it has a lot of truth in it.
In an ideal situation where money is not a factor, some of your suppositions are true. When you are depending on others for the donations and the support for the finances, you have no other choice than to give the paying customer what he wants or you don't get his money, clear and simple.
When that happens, the rest makes no difference, because the sports are gone and the argument is superflous.
I had also stated the institution should have the right to use any excess monies any way the board chose to do so. That would include the funding of Olympic sports or any other sport the school deemed necessary to its existence.
The government should not decide which areas the school should funnel the remaining monies from the revenue producing sports. It should be left up to each individual institution.
Your argument regarding the different departments in the school, English, History, etc. does not apply to this situation. Those monies are received from the State and students for a general education.
In the case of football, basketball, baseball, etc., the customers are donating money and buying tickets for specific events to be enjoyed by the paying customer. They will withdraw their monies and support if their monies do not have their intended effect.
Arguments by some that the coach of each sport should be paid the same is also superflous when the supporters withdraw their monies. None of them will be paid high salaries. They will all receive the standard salary a regular teacher makes. The system will become as the Ivy League schools.
That also means many football, basketball, baseball players from high school would lose their ability to get an education because of the loss of scholarships. It will eventually become as described in my original post, "the dominoes will begin to fall".