tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169281096117913024.post495948560679100571..comments2024-03-09T04:13:07.622-06:00Comments on crAAKKer: Idiot Sports Announcers Watch (v. 1.0)—ESPN LacrosseGrange95http://www.blogger.com/profile/01857460215043659894noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169281096117913024.post-8153862452271691892010-04-01T19:57:57.149-05:002010-04-01T19:57:57.149-05:00Actually Aaron, I think you're wrong here. It&...Actually Aaron, I think you're wrong here. It's a classic case of begrudging the gift handed to someone else just because no one sent you anything.<br /><br />The girl's lacrosse team is getting Title IX funding because of some OTHER men's sport. Say football, or because they only have men's tennis or something.<br /><br />If Title IX didn't exist, your step-son would STILL play on a club with no support or acknowledgement from the school - but so would his sister.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169281096117913024.post-4043272663972004772010-03-29T22:16:44.453-05:002010-03-29T22:16:44.453-05:00Just to let you know, the announcer had it right. ...Just to let you know, the announcer had it right. My step son plays club lax in Missouri with no support or acknowledgment from the school. His sister plays fully funded and supported lacrosse. The boys have had a league longer and with more teams than the girls, but alas, they are boys and therefore not covered under the same rules as the girls.<br />Also goes for Ice hockey and roller hockey. Field hockey is sanctioned.. but boys aren't allowed to play.<br /><br />The ONLY times that Title IX guarantees equality is when a) the girls' interest/participation rate matches the boys or b) there is enough money to give everyone whatever sport they want.<br /><br />So basically, neverAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169281096117913024.post-19379588371954958292010-03-29T07:50:21.248-05:002010-03-29T07:50:21.248-05:00Shouldn't have said "would also have"...Shouldn't have said "would also have" earlier...meant "may also have."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169281096117913024.post-60795875931537089222010-03-29T07:49:25.120-05:002010-03-29T07:49:25.120-05:00Yeah, I think you are forgetting a vital cause-eff...Yeah, I think you are forgetting a vital cause-effect scenario here. Even though they could choose to fund men's lacrosse, they would also have to increase some women's program or fund another one to add the sport. This extra budgetary burden is the reason many schools probably don't offer lacrosse. At least, that is what the announcer was trying to say. He still could have been an idiot though....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169281096117913024.post-50872469493898550102010-03-28T13:07:39.337-05:002010-03-28T13:07:39.337-05:00I have to somewhat disagree with you on this topic...I have to somewhat disagree with you on this topic. Case in point. Last year, UNI cut their baseball program. A program that had been around over 100 years. At no time was there any mention of cutting any women's program (I believe baseball and wrestling were the only 2 mentioned). FYI, the softball team has the full number of scholarships (as do pretty much all women's sports) while the baseball time had to get by with about half of the maximum, so I'm sure baseball cost less than softball.<br /><br />Why wasn't there mention of any of the women's programs? Because they make money? No. Because more people go to those events? No. Because football takes up 63 scholarships (85 if they were not I-AA and were I-A), and in order to try to keep equality through Title IX, they can't justify cutting a women's program even if it does cost more.<br /><br />That is where I have issues with Title IX. Football, which is the main sport at almost any university, makes it impossible to have "equality" between the sexes and sports.briggek8717https://www.blogger.com/profile/05224712175842841564noreply@blogger.com