So tired of hearing "it's not fair" from other parents

[riseball]

From a pragmatic standpoint any school district would be hard pressed to justify the existing expenditures on sports programs were it not for the fact that school sports have existed for so long and are so much a part of our culture. However, given the narrow audience that school sports serve I have to wonder if it is only a matter of time before groups like the ACLU litigate them out of existence under the premise that they do not serve all students equally.

 

[marriard]

From a pragmatic standpoint any school district would be hard pressed to justify the existing expenditures on sports programs were it not for the fact that school sports have existed for so long and are so much a part of our culture. However, given the narrow audience that school sports serve I have to wonder if it is only a matter of time before groups like the ACLU litigate them out of existence under the premise that they do not serve all students equally.

Having grown up overseas in the 'sports club' system, the USA system of school sports take a lot of getting used to (even though I played and took advantage of it in college).

The most mind-boggling thing about it from coming from the outside is the limiting of the best coaches in the game having contact with the best upcoming talent in the game because of recruiting rules. So right in the middle of their teen years when they might need the best direction and coaching they really don't have access to it except under certain very limited conditions.

Second most mind-boggling is the system is set up to be cheated and played with academics. Which really doesn't have any direct real relationship to high level sports. The smartest on-court basketballer I played with to this day is one of the least capable learners off the court you will ever come across. I am shocked he knows how to tie his shoelaces and he might be the worst driver in Florida (which is a real achievement). On the court - an absolute genius. He has a degree from a large D1 school... no way he got it legitimately.

Third is the limitation of playing - I believe the school sports system hugely inhibits adult sports in this country. It is sad that when players finish the highest level they obtain, that there is limited places to go play - and I am not talking pro - just talking a nice adult league to play competitively in. End of high school, college or whatever should not be the end of the journey unless you want it to be. It shouldn't be forced on you which it basically is today in this country.

 

[JJsqueeze]

Title IX has its merits but like any legislation it is also a good example of the law of unintended consequences. Although it has significantly increased women’s participation in college sports, the percentage of female head coaches for women’s teams has fallen from 90% to about 40% since it was passed in 1972.

Are you saying that title IX caused a drop in the percentage of women coaches? How did it do this?

 

[sluggers]

Riseball is using an extremely deceptive statistic. Rather than actually arguing the point, he cites some meaningless statistics.

What Riseball is really saying: "There were 90 female head coaches and 10 male head coaches in 1972 for girls/women sports with 5000 girls/women playing sports. In 2014, there are 8000 female head coaches and 12000 head coaches, with 2,000,000 girls/women playing sports. Therefore, Title IX is a failure."

The statistic he cites compare women sports in 1972 with women sports in 2014. He says that the *PERCENTAGE* of female head coaches in 2014 is less than the *PERCENTAGE* of head coaches in 2014.

Mathematically, it is likely. However, it is misleading because there were almost *NO* women sports in 1972. My guess is there were probably 100 girls/womens teams in 1972.

The first NCAA softball championship was in 1982. The first women's NCAA basketball championship was in 1982. The first women's volleyball championship was in 1981.

In Illinois, there were *NO* HS girls sports in 1972. In Illinois, the first state girls basketball championship wasn't until 1977.

When Title IX forced schools to create teams, there was a sudden need for a large number of coaches. Since few women played any sports, men were usually the best qualified to coach the teams.

At first, men didn't apply to be head coaches because the pay was less for women sports. As soon as that problem was fixed by Title IX, qualified male coaches started applying for the jobs.

 

[Amy in AZ.]

Guess what year I graduated from HS, in IL.? 1972. Ironic, isn't it? Anyway, by then, I had played ASA softball 8 years. I did have female coaches, because our city was state champs in 1969. I think my DD and I have had equally the same number of men or women coaches. I don't know how many teams, IL. had, but it was a lot. Every little town had one.

Before there were soccer and other sports, to draw away sponsors, we (players) spent nothing to play softball at a high level.

 

[marriard]

Riseball is using an extremely deceptive statistic. Rather than actually arguing the point, he cites some meaningless statistics. **delete quite correct point of view***

Absolutely correct,

Also as various woman's sports have become more prominent in this country, the prestige at some of these jobs has also increased, and also the view that it is a 'dead end' (i.e. once you coached a womans sports there is no path back to mens sports) has also gone away (yes it absolutely existed). You look at a great coach like Geno Auriemma who has had multiple opportunities to return to the mens game but hasn't because his current situation in woman's basketball is superior/more fulfilling/whatever his personnel reasons are.

The hope is as generations of woman go through the sports at a high level and coaching becomes a more and more viable career you see more and more take the coaching reigns. Slowly happening - it may never go all the way, but as Sluggers says - the actual number of women in coaching is now significantly higher.

 

[riseball]

Riseball is using an extremely deceptive statistic. Rather than actually arguing the point, he cites some meaningless statistics.

What Riseball is really saying: "There were 90 female head coaches and 10 male head coaches in 1972 for girls/women sports with 5000 girls/women playing sports. In 2014, there are 8000 female head coaches and 12000 head coaches, with 2,000,000 girls/women playing sports. Therefore, Title IX is a failure."

The statistic he cites compare women sports in 1972 with women sports in 2014. He says that the *PERCENTAGE* of female head coaches in 2014 is less than the *PERCENTAGE* of head coaches in 2014.

Mathematically, it is likely. However, it is misleading because there were almost *NO* women sports in 1972. My guess is there were probably 100 girls/womens teams in 1972.

The first NCAA softball championship was in 1982. The first women's NCAA basketball championship was in 1982. The first women's volleyball championship was in 1981.

In Illinois, there were *NO* HS girls sports in 1972. In Illinois, the first state girls basketball championship wasn't until 1977.

When Title IX forced schools to create teams, there was a sudden need for a large number of coaches. Since few women played any sports, men were usually the best qualified to coach the teams.

At first, men didn't apply to be head coaches because the pay was less for women sports. As soon as that problem was fixed by Title IX, qualified male coaches started applying for the jobs.

1) When did I say that Title IX was a failure? May want to re-read my post, slowly.

2) Over time has the trend of female coaches in college sports gone up or down since 1972?

3) Once the number of women's sports became more or less static did this trend change?

4) When was the first High School football state championship in Illinois?

5) Does this mean that High School football was not played in Illinois prior to 1974? I seem to remember going to games in the 60's.

 

[chinamigarden]

From a pragmatic standpoint any school district would be hard pressed to justify the existing expenditures on sports programs were it not for the fact that school sports have existed for so long and are so much a part of our culture. However, given the narrow audience that school sports serve I have to wonder if it is only a matter of time before groups like the ACLU litigate them out of existence under the premise that they do not serve all students equally.

The ACLU? what would their constitutional concern be?

 

[riseball]

The ACLU? what would their constitutional concern be?

...groups like the ACLU... Meaning narrow special interest groups who believe that if an action possibly offends 1 person then the other 10,000 people must do without. Example: In California High Schools you cannot wear a t-shirt with an American flag on May 5th because it might offend students of Mexican lineage.

 

[chinamigarden]

...groups like the ACLU... Meaning narrow special interest groups who believe that if an action possibly offends 1 person then the other 10,000 people must do without. Example: In California High Schools you cannot wear a t-shirt with an American flag on May 5th because it might offend students of Mexican lineage.

Like them or not the ACLU is not a narrow focused special interest group.