Conference Realignment

[Root4GT]

Root, It became greedy when title nine was implemented, I watched it happen. Don't know that it was coming or not, no way for me to tell that. I did not see it coming at that time and nothing today says to me it was coming. TV began ramping up about the time title nine came along and help feed the greed monster. I am one that believes you let these sort of things happen naturally and it will end up where it is supposed to be. I expect people that did not own Coca Cola stock thought Asa Candler was greedy to since they did not buy the stock. Those, I have found over the years, are the ones usually screaming the loudest yet they could have bought the stock. I've always thought that type person really was mad at themselves but just cannot own it. As far as I'm concerned it the same type person always yelling greed no matter where it's coming from. Academia is full of people of this nature, that is one of the reasons they're in academia and will never make it in the real world. There are do ers and the rest teach.

I would say the Georgia and Okalahoma lawsuit vs the NCAA in 1981 was the turning point. Title IX became law in June 1972. I think you are conflating correlation and causation.

Hard to imagine what life would be had Title IX not come about. It was both logical and necessary in the athletic environment.

Oklahoma and Georgia’s lawsuit dramatically changed funding for college football from primarily thru attendance and donations to making TV revenue a major source of programs budgets.

 

[MWBATL]

I would say the Georgia and Okalahoma lawsuit vs the NCAA in 1981 was the turning point. Title IX became law in June 1972. I think you are conflating correlation and causation.

Hard to imagine what life would be had Title IX not come about. It was both logical and necessary in the athletic environment.

Oklahoma and Georgia’s lawsuit dramatically changed funding for college football from primarily thru attendance and donations to making TV revenue a major source of programs budgets.

Your first point about the lawsuit is spot on.

Your comment about Title IX being “logical and necessary “ is opinion (and maybe political opinion). There is no revenue sharing in any professional sports where there are men’s and women’s leagues. Ergo, mandating it in college is clearly a personal choice, not nearly as obvious as you suggest.

 

[billga99]

Your first point about the lawsuit is spot on.

Your comment about Title IX being “logical and necessary “ is opinion (and maybe political opinion). There is no revenue sharing in any professional sports where there are men’s and women’s leagues. Ergo, mandating it in college is clearly a personal choice, not nearly as obvious as you suggest.

I think the issue that made Title IX possible is how to argue that only revenue producing sports should exist. That really pointed out the discrimation against women participants particularly when a large percent of Division I schools were public universities. Prior to Title IX, most schools had multiple men's sports but very few women's sports. However, my personal hangup on this is in most schools, the number of men's sports went down due to football having such a large number of scholarships versus any other men or women sports teams. FSU 8 men, 11 women, UNC 12 men, 14 women are 2 examples.

 

[Root4GT]

Your first point about the lawsuit is spot on.

Your comment about Title IX being “logical and necessary “ is opinion (and maybe political opinion). There is no revenue sharing in any professional sports where there are men’s and women’s leagues. Ergo, mandating it in college is clearly a personal choice, not nearly as obvious as you suggest.

The mandating was not designed against College Football. In a nutshell Title IX said- "It prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or any other education program that receives funding from the federal government." Pretty much all Federal Government spending prohibits discrimination in any form.

That to me it is logical in every sense of the word. As with any Law it it has second and third order impacts. College football charted it's own path to greed. The NCAA has always been an ineffective "Governing Body." They simply joined the money train!

 

[iceeater1969]

The mandating was not designed against College Football. In a nutshell Title IX said- "It prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or any other education program that receives funding from the federal government." Pretty much all Federal Government spending prohibits discrimination in any form.

That to me it is logical in every sense of the word. As with any Law it it has second and third order impacts. College football charted it's own path to greed. The NCAA has always been an ineffective "Governing Body." They simply joined the money train!

The ncaa is run by college presidents who are for the students but are more for tv money to make football exciting.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Your first point about the lawsuit is spot on.

Your comment about Title IX being “logical and necessary “ is opinion (and maybe political opinion). There is no revenue sharing in any professional sports where there are men’s and women’s leagues. Ergo, mandating it in college is clearly a personal choice, not nearly as obvious as you suggest.

College wasn't supposed to be "professional sports" when Title IX was enacted. Providing varsity opportunities to both men and women relative to their proportion of the student body is reasonable. I was always of the opinion that revenue sports (that pay for everything else) should be exempt from Title IX, i.e., the number of student-athletes in a revenue-generating varsity sport does not count in the Title IX allocation. When I was at Tech, the varsity sports that were revenue-generating at Auburn were Football and Women's Basketball. (I don't think this has to be a political discussion)