Watching ESPN's show on Little League World Series
- Thread starter Lee Corso
- Start date
This. If baseball had 20 full scholarships to give you'd see players from all over the world. As it is, some kids barely get their books paid for. Thanks Title IX.
Forgive me for what might be a really dumb question....
but how does Title IX limit the scholarships on a baseball team? I thought those two items weren't connected.
but how does Title IX limit the scholarships on a baseball team? I thought those two items weren't connected.
Are you kidding? Title IX is the entire reason baseball scholarships are so limited. There are two ways to get in compliance with Title IX. Offer more women's scholarships or offer fewer men's scholarships. Since there's no way in hell football is going to be cut any further than 85 (years ago the limit was closer to 100), something has to give. And baseball was a big sacrificial lamb to Title IX compliance.
Not kidding at all.
I know that Title IX requires schools to offer a woman's sport for every male sport... but I didn't know it also limits scholarship amounts.
I know that Title IX requires schools to offer a woman's sport for every male sport... but I didn't know it also limits scholarship amounts.
A quick little google search
may show that my initial assertion was correct as well... According to the article linked below, scholarhip limits were established by the NCAA (not Title IX).
http://espn.go.com/espnw/title-ix/7959799/the-silent-enemy-men-sports
may show that my initial assertion was correct as well... According to the article linked below, scholarhip limits were established by the NCAA (not Title IX).
http://espn.go.com/espnw/title-ix/7959799/the-silent-enemy-men-sports
Here's the gist
Title IX requires that a college give athletic scholarships relative (within 10% if school sponsors football) to their regular student body makeup.
So at Mississippi State:
51% men, 49% women
Breakdown of athletic scholarships:
Men's
Football : 85
Basketball: 13
Baseball: 11.7
Tennis: 4.5
Track: 12.6
Golf: 4.5
Total: 131.3 (59.8%)
Women's
Basketball: 15
Tennis: 8
Volleyball: 12 (+4 sand volleyball)
Softball: 12
Track: 23 (includes XC)
Soccer: 14
Total: 88 (40.2%)
We are barely in compliance. You'll see us add a women's sport in the next few years. Ole Miss had to add rifle not too long ago.
Title IX requires that a college give athletic scholarships relative (within 10% if school sponsors football) to their regular student body makeup.
So at Mississippi State:
51% men, 49% women
Breakdown of athletic scholarships:
Men's
Football : 85
Basketball: 13
Baseball: 11.7
Tennis: 4.5
Track: 12.6
Golf: 4.5
Total: 131.3 (59.8%)
Women's
Basketball: 15
Tennis: 8
Volleyball: 12 (+4 sand volleyball)
Softball: 12
Track: 23 (includes XC)
Soccer: 14
Total: 88 (40.2%)
We are barely in compliance. You'll see us add a women's sport in the next few years. Ole Miss had to add rifle not too long ago.
It doesn't even require that.
It merely means the 'quality' needs to be the same. Now, you can't have 2,000 men on scholarship and 20 women. That wouldn't show an effort to create equal opportunity. The same also applies to every part of the university, not just athletics. It does mean that female sports need to have comparable access to facilities, training, coaching, etc. We can't get the new Seal Complex for football only if the rest of the athletes on campus don't also have access to quality practice facilities, doctors, etc. The only monetary provision is that you have to spend scholarship money according to proportion. If males make up 60% of the total scholarship athletes and women make up 40%, then the scholarship money has to be divided up 60/40.
Schools would be able to dole that money out however they saw fit if the NCAA (not the federal govt. and Title IX) didn't put scholarship limits in place. The limits went into place because of football... think Majors and Bryant offering like 90 scholarships a year to freshmen. If they would raise the limit on baseball, we could just give more baseball scholarships as long as we didn't sacrifice the quality of women's athletics to do it. It really wouldn't be applicable to Title IX at all. The real issue is that the NCAA protected it's revenue generators and thought they would keep the programs from hiding additional players on smaller sports scholarship roles by limiting them. In other words, with only 11.7 baseball scholarships, Dan Mullen isn't going to be able to have a back up DB on a baseball scholarship.
It merely means the 'quality' needs to be the same. Now, you can't have 2,000 men on scholarship and 20 women. That wouldn't show an effort to create equal opportunity. The same also applies to every part of the university, not just athletics. It does mean that female sports need to have comparable access to facilities, training, coaching, etc. We can't get the new Seal Complex for football only if the rest of the athletes on campus don't also have access to quality practice facilities, doctors, etc. The only monetary provision is that you have to spend scholarship money according to proportion. If males make up 60% of the total scholarship athletes and women make up 40%, then the scholarship money has to be divided up 60/40.
Schools would be able to dole that money out however they saw fit if the NCAA (not the federal govt. and Title IX) didn't put scholarship limits in place. The limits went into place because of football... think Majors and Bryant offering like 90 scholarships a year to freshmen. If they would raise the limit on baseball, we could just give more baseball scholarships as long as we didn't sacrifice the quality of women's athletics to do it. It really wouldn't be applicable to Title IX at all. The real issue is that the NCAA protected it's revenue generators and thought they would keep the programs from hiding additional players on smaller sports scholarship roles by limiting them. In other words, with only 11.7 baseball scholarships, Dan Mullen isn't going to be able to have a back up DB on a baseball scholarship.
So if we add a women's sport... that should mean we could potentially add more baseball scholarships... but we all know that isn't the case.
The hinderance on the number 11.7 is an NCAA thing, not a Title IX thing... right?
The hinderance on the number 11.7 is an NCAA thing, not a Title IX thing... right?
This is correct. 11.7 is an NCAA thing but it was a number derived because of title IX just like the 85 in football. Baseball got the short end of the stick.
The thing that
I find the most comical is how the NCAA likes to pretend that it is some champion for the promotion of higher education, etc. However, they won't even allow sports to give out full-scholarships. If they were so high on kids going to college to get an education, I would think they wouldn't enforce regulations that virtually prevent kids from doing so.
I find the most comical is how the NCAA likes to pretend that it is some champion for the promotion of higher education, etc. However, they won't even allow sports to give out full-scholarships. If they were so high on kids going to college to get an education, I would think they wouldn't enforce regulations that virtually prevent kids from doing so.
Right. The IX law does not limit scholly amount but the NCAA dictates how many are allowed for each sport to supposedly make it a level playing field. That was the crux of ron polk's crusade against the NCAA.
How is that misdirected? Title IX doesn't dictate that baseball players specifically get screwed, but it does for all practical purposes ensure that some male college athletes will get screwed. I'm not sure why baseball ended up with 11.7 scholarships, but Title IX makes it a lot harder to change it because it either has to come at the expense of other male sports or a proportional increase of scholarships must be paid for for women's sports.
The full truth is that the higher revenue generating sports (football and basketball) are protected allowing them a larger number of scholarships. However without title 9 there would be more room for making changes to allow more scholarships for baseball.
If the sports were listed based on their revenue generation the highest producing woman's sport would probably rank just below men's ultimate frisbee club team. So if they were ranked according to revenue and then scholarships were doled out based on that list baseball would get more. Of course Title IX won't allow that to be done so baseball gets the short end of the stick.
If the sports were listed based on their revenue generation the highest producing woman's sport would probably rank just below men's ultimate frisbee club team. So if they were ranked according to revenue and then scholarships were doled out based on that list baseball would get more. Of course Title IX won't allow that to be done so baseball gets the short end of the stick.
Its misdirected because who/what he is blaming isnt correct. Such a conclusion is often times called MISDIRECTED.
He blames Title IX when its actually the NCAA. His blame should be directed towards the NCAA and not Title IX.
I dont even understand how someone can even ask how its misdirected. Its so blatently clear- he is blaming the wrong person/group/thing. That is misdirected in its most basic form.
Baseball gets the short end of the stick because THE NCAA decided to do it that way.
THE NCAA decided to limit baseball to that many scholarships.
THE NCAA decided to set scholarship levels for football and basketball.
THE NCAA decided to give more scholarships to revenue producing sports.
Title IX doesnt keep THE NCAA from giving more scholarships to baseball, THE NCAA is keeping THE NCAA from giving more scholarships to baseball.
THE NCAA could take 3 scholarships away from football and 1 away from basketball. There would still be PLENTY of depth. FBS teams would still have more than 3 deep at every position(both offense and defense) on scholarship. FCS teams would have almost 3 deep at every position(both offense and defense on scholarship. FCS teams can split scholarships though, so they very well could still have more than 3 deep.
Basketball has 13 on scholarship right now. Take 1 away and what happens?- Still more than twice as many players on scholarship than on the court at any one time. You still have 7 players, or 140% of the allowable players on the court, on scholarship and sitting on the bench. Apply it to MSU- Bernard Rimmer may not have been offered. Stelmach may not have been offered. Brian Johnson may not have transferred.
All great guys, im sure, but hardly impact players. Teams typically have a 7-9 man rotation and 1-3 players get minutes due to injury or foul trouble.
Having 12 scholarships would be fine.
Hell, it may create better basketball for all due to overall talent level of those on scholarship.
Take the 4 scholarships that were just created and add em to baseball.
There ya go, 15.7 scholarships for baseball. It can absolutely be done, regardless of Title IX.
THE NCAA decided to limit baseball to that many scholarships.
THE NCAA decided to set scholarship levels for football and basketball.
THE NCAA decided to give more scholarships to revenue producing sports.
Title IX doesnt keep THE NCAA from giving more scholarships to baseball, THE NCAA is keeping THE NCAA from giving more scholarships to baseball.
THE NCAA could take 3 scholarships away from football and 1 away from basketball. There would still be PLENTY of depth. FBS teams would still have more than 3 deep at every position(both offense and defense) on scholarship. FCS teams would have almost 3 deep at every position(both offense and defense on scholarship. FCS teams can split scholarships though, so they very well could still have more than 3 deep.
Basketball has 13 on scholarship right now. Take 1 away and what happens?- Still more than twice as many players on scholarship than on the court at any one time. You still have 7 players, or 140% of the allowable players on the court, on scholarship and sitting on the bench. Apply it to MSU- Bernard Rimmer may not have been offered. Stelmach may not have been offered. Brian Johnson may not have transferred.
All great guys, im sure, but hardly impact players. Teams typically have a 7-9 man rotation and 1-3 players get minutes due to injury or foul trouble.
Having 12 scholarships would be fine.
Hell, it may create better basketball for all due to overall talent level of those on scholarship.
Take the 4 scholarships that were just created and add em to baseball.
There ya go, 15.7 scholarships for baseball. It can absolutely be done, regardless of Title IX.
The question I have is why does a scholarship have to be taken from football or basketball? Each sport should have the number of scholarships it needs. why not just give baseball 6.3 more. That would give them 18 (double the roster).
Why does a scholarship have to be taken from one sport to give it to another? They are completely independent entities?
Why does a scholarship have to be taken from one sport to give it to another? They are completely independent entities?
In this hypothetical, scholarships would have to be taken from football because Mississippi State has decided to not add more sports. If more sports were added to the women's side, then more scholarships would be added to the men's side.
Again though, that is only in this hypothetical where THE NCAA caps on scholarships dont exist.
Since THE NCAA has capped scholarships for each sport(your original complaint, the one that was misdirected), my hypothetical and your question directed to my hypothetical are moot. That darn NCAA and their darn rules. Thank goodness we all now know who to blame for capping baseball scholarships, right?
It was the NCAA's grand scheme to protect the major revenue generating sports of football and basketball. Some schools would have cut back five football scholarships and one or two basketball scholarships knowing that it wouldn't make a difference at all. The school would have remained in compliance with Title IX and no harm done at all. Not so fast said the NCAA. They claimed it was to protect the revenue generating sports that fund other sports at schools. So even if MSU wanted to add some scholarships to it's baseball team, then NCAA thinks that's a bad idea because it would hurt or cash cow football team. Just protecting the
Hypothetical or not title IX is still to blame. If there were no title IX there would be no need to "take" a scholarship away from another sport to stay in compliance. There would be no need to protect revenue generating sports. That would allow each sport to have the number of scholarships it needed.
I understand that the caps are there to protect the revenue generating sports. But the only reason they need to be protected is because of Title IX. Without it the sports wouldn't be linked together.
I agree the NCAA has some blame because they are "protecting" the revenue generators but the root cause of the issue is Title IX. Without it, there would be no need for "protection".
Could the problem be solved AND keep Title IX? Yes if the NCAA would shift some scholarships. But that doesn't mean Title IX isn't the root cause of the issue.
And just for the record I'm ok with Title IX, my original comment was in jest.
I understand that the caps are there to protect the revenue generating sports. But the only reason they need to be protected is because of Title IX. Without it the sports wouldn't be linked together.
I agree the NCAA has some blame because they are "protecting" the revenue generators but the root cause of the issue is Title IX. Without it, there would be no need for "protection".
Could the problem be solved AND keep Title IX? Yes if the NCAA would shift some scholarships. But that doesn't mean Title IX isn't the root cause of the issue.
And just for the record I'm ok with Title IX, my original comment was in jest.
It's not misdirected. The NCAA is operating within the limitations imposed by Title IX. They don't have to pick on baseball in particular, and they have other financial reasons to want to limit scholarships, but if it wasn't for Title IX, I seriously doubt they'd be able to justify the number of scholarships they provide to baseball. Further, to the extent the NCAA member institutions choose to screw baseball, that's there business. But the federal gov't has no business dictating that female athletes that play sports people don't care about should have more scholarship opportunities than male athletes playing sports people don't care about. They either should stay out of it altogether at the college level or they should require that male and female athletes be treated equitably.
more expensive to give to men than to women. Athletes not generating money for the school should be treated the same, whether they are male or female.
more expensive to give to men than to women. Athletes not generating money for the school should be treated the same, whether they are male or female.