LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Hawkeye wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 4:36 pm Painting with a wide brush, Title IX has been detrimental to male athletes (in sports other than football) rather than beneficial to female athletes.

Maybe the stupidest statement ever on any forum. There are more women than men undergraduates. Why should there be more scholarships to men. In the 1960s there were no women's intercollegiate sports to speak of. Look at what's happened since.

Gobigred wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:56 pm

I’m going to ignore the first sentence of your response.

Equal scholarships for equal sports. The NCAA should add new women’s sports if there aren’t enough female athletes receiving scholarships. Maybe both genders can even have equal sports! I know women’s football will be a big hit. Why should a school be able to award more basketball scholarships for women than they can for men? (Because they can. If you don’t believe me, go look up scholarship limits by sports.)

So you’d say that Title IX was intended to cause schools to drop men’s sports? Right... because that’s what has happened since the legislation passed. Schools achieved compliance in the easiest/cheapest way possible.

Thanks for the response. Have a good day.

Hawkeye wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 4:36 pm

LaxOverBaseball wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 4:32 pm Is it whining if it’s true.

Let there be no doubt that Title IX has limited the growth of D1 Men’s Lacrosse. Adding a large number of male scholarships has been near impossible especially for universities with football teams. Dropping men’s sports has been one method (Richmond dropped Soccer. BU dropped Wrestling.) Another method is to add more Women’s sports. Both of these “answers” were needed because of Title IX.

You can not like the whining, but can’t deny the facts.

Football is the core of the problem.

I agree, and don't see why the number of scholarships and athletes can't be cut in half.

Hawkeye wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:03 pm

Gobigred wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:56 pm

I’m going to ignore the first sentence of your response, because I don’t think you really want to play that game with me.

Equal scholarships for equal sports. The NCAA should add new women’s sports if there aren’t enough female athletes receiving scholarships. Let’s all be special snowflakes and have everything equal! I know women’s football will be a big hit. Why should a school be able to award more basketball scholarships for women than they can for men? (Because they can. If you don’t believe me, go look up scholarship limits by sports.)

So you’d say that Title IX was intended to cause schools to drop men’s sports? Right... because that’s what has happened since the legislation passed. Schools achieved compliance in the easiest/cheapest way possible.

Thanks for the response. Have a good day.

Title IX is beyond scholarships. Does Title IX not apply to Ivy League Schools or D3 schools?

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:50 pm Title IX is beyond scholarships. Does Title IX not apply to Ivy League Schools or D3 schools?

Yes, this is true that Title IX is beyond scholarships and applies to all institutions that receive/accept federal funding (i.e., effectively all schools). Scholarships are the most visible aspect of how Title IX is related to athletics, though.

Hawkeye wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:55 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:50 pm Title IX is beyond scholarships. Does Title IX not apply to Ivy League Schools or D3 schools?

Yes, this is true that Title IX is beyond scholarships and applies to all institutions that receive/accept federal funding (i.e., effectively all schools). Scholarships are the most visible aspect of how Title IX is related to athletics, though.

Yes. Generally title IX has been a good thing.

I remember a whole Forum for Title IX. Probably needed again. History repeats itself.

Title IX started out well intentioned and did do wonderful things for women’s athletics. Secondary effects have hit men’s athletics hard especially in Olympic sports. Think about the last time we had Olympic boxing medalists or a cadre of wrestling medalists or male gymnasts? How is World Cup soccer working for men?

My solution is to exempt football scholarships from the equation and move on from there. Football typically funds a lot of the athletic department anyway. Let them do that and then count scholarships with football exempted.

LaxOverBaseball wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:49 pm I remember a whole Forum for Title IX. Probably needed again. History repeats itself.

Title IX started out well intentioned and did do wonderful things for women’s athletics. Secondary effects have hit men’s athletics hard especially in Olympic sports. Think about the last time we had Olympic boxing medalists or a cadre of wrestling medalists or male gymnasts? How is World Cup soccer working for men?

My solution is to exempt football scholarships from the equation and move on from there. Football typically funds a lot of the athletic department anyway. Let them do that and then count scholarships with football exempted.

Football is a loss leader at MOST schools.

IMO Title IX has been great for women athletes and applaud the objectives and results. Having said that I think it has reached a point where it is now holding back men’s athletics. It’s not only holding up the expansion of lacrosse but causing schools to cancel men’s teams like wrestling, swimming and others to comply. I don’t believe that this was the intention but has reached a point where in its current form is counter productive. I think small adjustments can solve this and still support its original mission. Like most things Title IX needs to change with the times to remain effective.

LaxOverBaseball wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 4:32 pm Is it whining if it’s true.

Let there be no doubt that Title IX has limited the growth of D1 Men’s Lacrosse. Adding a large number of male scholarships has been near impossible especially for universities with football teams. Dropping men’s sports has been one method (Richmond dropped Soccer. BU dropped Wrestling.) Another method is to add more Women’s sports. Both of these “answers” were needed because of Title IX.

You can not like the whining, but can’t deny the facts.

There has never, I repeat, never been a title IX lawsuit for a school adding a program. Remember title nine has a do with opportunity in all things not just Sports
I can tell you right now no lawsuit would ever see a quart room because a Pac-10 team added men’s lacrosse, or an SEC conference grew up it just would never happen

Not one of these colleges could pass a real genuine equality audit they know it you know it and I know it so to blame title nine is a joke is just lazy boring athletic directors alumni and administration people.

Hawkeye wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:55 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:50 pm Title IX is beyond scholarships. Does Title IX not apply to Ivy League Schools or D3 schools?

Yes, this is true that Title IX is beyond scholarships and applies to all institutions that receive/accept federal funding (i.e., effectively all schools). Scholarships are the most visible aspect of how Title IX is related to athletics, though.

No they don’t. Legislation is very clear about opportunity and not financial equality

RedIvy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:13 pm IMO Title IX has been great for women athletes and applaud the objectives and results. Having said that I think it has reached a point where it is now holding back men’s athletics. It’s not only holding up the expansion of lacrosse but causing schools to cancel men’s teams like wrestling, swimming and others to comply. I don’t believe that this was the intention but has reached a point where in its current form is counter productive. I think small adjustments can solve this and still support its original mission. Like most things Title IX needs to change with the times to remain effective.

You really think schools like UNH and Boston College dropped division one men’s lacrosse to comply with title nine. It’s complete nonsense

meh. imo, title ix is only responsible for men's limitations and retraction in that it gives an ad an excuse not to add (or to subtract) a sport that doesn't butter his/her bread. and takes time and energy.

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:24 pm

RedIvy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:13 pm IMO Title IX has been great for women athletes and applaud the objectives and results. Having said that I think it has reached a point where it is now holding back men’s athletics. It’s not only holding up the expansion of lacrosse but causing schools to cancel men’s teams like wrestling, swimming and others to comply. I don’t believe that this was the intention but has reached a point where in its current form is counter productive. I think small adjustments can solve this and still support its original mission. Like most things Title IX needs to change with the times to remain effective.

You really think schools like UNH and Boston College dropped division one men’s lacrosse to comply with title nine. It’s complete nonsense

I think schools like SU and Rutgers dropped Men’s swimming because of Title IX and many schools don’t add Men’s Lacrosse because of Title IX. Suggest you read my post again, it doesn’t say it caused BC or UNH to drop men’s lacrosse, it says it’s holding up men’s lacrosse expansion. Please don’t add words to my posts to support your views.

I’m just wondering when the EEOC and the DOJ are going to file a lawsuit against Penn State for having their men’s ice hockey team go varsity. Oh why other big 10 schools have 15 to 20 men’s varsity sports but somehow a place like Maryland can only manage to support five men’s varsity sports.
It’s completely hilarious that people totally disregard the addition of men’s lacrosse at the Division II and Division III level. Where is all the title nine lawsuits

D1 MEN: Brown beat Providence, Sacred Heart beat Binghamton, and... We not only updated the FanLax Computer Rankings and Game Scores but, for no good reason, we also changed the format.

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:30 pm I’m just wondering when the EEOC and the DOJ are going to file a lawsuit against Penn State for having their men’s ice hockey team go varsity. Oh why other big 10 schools have 15 to 20 men’s varsity sports but somehow a place like Maryland can only manage to support five men’s varsity sports.
It’s completely hilarious that people totally disregard the addition of men’s lacrosse at the Division II and Division III level. Where is all the title nine lawsuits

The Division III UAA League is an example, all top 35 schools academically and are challenged to add Lacrosse due in large part or entirely because of Title IX.

Again I’m not suggesting it was a bad idea but it should not prevent the encouragement of Mens sports, I don’t believe that was the intention, time for re-evaluation.

Germain, stating the obvious but... The different Metrics and Rank-ers have BU over Army and Army over BU. As for why FanLax's Computer Ranking has Army, though barely, ahead of BU is based on Army's Top 5 Wins (and three losses which are not bad though the loss to Lehigh isn't good) vs. BU's Top 5 Wins which are better than Army's but... It's their losses. Three are that are very similar to Army's (except the loss to Harvard is a little worse than the loss to Lehigh) and the fourth loss, to Colgate, is killing them. one loss won't doom any team for the 2019 season but... BU defintely needs a good W to counterbalance that L. better Ws than they currently have.

Rutstein, though it used to, the Computer ranking doesn't look at timing of Ws and Ls. Just Ws and Ls. i.e. It's not the run. It's the, so to speak, good Ls (Maryland, Duke, and PSU) and the good Ws (the Top 5 being: Yale, Cornell, Villanova, Princeton, Harvard) and a Best Win of Yale. It's a good resume. Rutstein and Palmer, Not a resume that predicts anything for the future. but speaks to a pretty good, in this case, #2, past.

McClay, I'd have to look-up when but I'm 90% sure that this isn't the first time (that Penn and PSU are #1 and #2).

RedIvy wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 12:37 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:30 pm I’m just wondering when the EEOC and the DOJ are going to file a lawsuit against Penn State for having their men’s ice hockey team go varsity. Oh why other big 10 schools have 15 to 20 men’s varsity sports but somehow a place like Maryland can only manage to support five men’s varsity sports.
It’s completely hilarious that people totally disregard the addition of men’s lacrosse at the Division II and Division III level. Where is all the title nine lawsuits

The Division III UAA League is an example, all top 35 schools academically and are challenged to add Lacrosse due in large part or entirely because of Title IX.

Again I’m not suggesting it was a bad idea but it should not prevent the encouragement of Mens sports, I don’t believe that was the intention, time for re-evaluation.

There are 56% more schools playing Women D1 Lacrosse than Men
There are 50% more schools playing it in D2
18% more in D3

Smaller gap in D3 may be due to the scholarship issues in D1 and D2

Before we hijacked this thread

I've always felt there should be a sticky Title IX thread with a primer written by poster ggait explaining the nuances of the law. Title IX is an easy but valid excuse that AD's use for not adding men's lacrosse as the proportionality test is the only Safe Harbor.


The $88 million gift from Terry and Kim Pegula elevated both Men's and Women's Hockey programs from club status to D1.