<p>Bay, it is not a matter of “blaming” Title IX or women’s sports. It is just a statement of fact that bonanza mentioned as well explaining that men’s volleyball has fewer programs since Title IX was enacted(as you say as a direct result of women not having as many opportunities previously because of sports like football having such big rosters). Harvard, Princeton,Stanford,Penn State and a few other schools still do have men’s D-1 volleyball but there are very few programs-just a statement of fact and some historical perspective on men’s volleyball. One of the ways men’s volleyball has responded is by forming strong and competitive club teams and regional and national club tournaments.</p>
<p>Also, Title IX does not require schools to provide male and female sports and funding on a 50/50 basis; it requires the sports and funding to be proportional to enrollment, which across the nation is 57% female. When Title IX went into effect, the athletic landscape was severely tilted toward the male side, so it’s a long-term process for most schools to make progress toward complete equity. Over time, that could be done by adding more and more female sports, and funding them at a level that eventually allocates the appropriate percentage of budget to female sports, but at many (most?) colleges, that’s just not going to be financially feasible. And financial feasibility doesn’t exempt a campus from the mandate to move towards proportionality. In many cases, phasing out men’s sports is the only realistic way to get to proportionality, and sports like volleyball and wrestling are often among the first to go because they’re not revenue-producers. And then, some schools (like Rutgers) want to continue to build their football programs (with 5x the roster size and 20x the budget of a big women’s sport) while they move toward proportionality. In that case, a lot of other men’s sports get phased out.</p>
<p>I think people would be justifiably outraged if a White person continually stated that there used to be more water fountains available to them before the Civil Rights Act. Title IX is a civil rights issue for women.</p>
<p>Bay–not to hijack the thread but I feel compelled to respond to your comments about Title IX–parts of which I agree with but parts of which are rather disingenuous. The truth is that the results from Title IX are a mixed bag. On the plus side, the law has dramatically improved athletic opportunities for women which I think we can all agree is a good thing. Prior to the law’s passage, there was tremendous inequality by gender in college athletics. That inequality has largely ended, and that’s positive. </p>
<p>But the law has unquestionably had a negative impact on athletic opportunities for men. Because most schools have limited resources that they can devote to athletics, and because some sports (football, most notably) suck up such tremendous resources if one wants to be competitive, one practical effect of the law is that the number of men’s varsity sports has been cut back at many schools, in some cases quite dramatically. True, some places like Harvard have the resources to continue offering a wide array of sports to both genders but, let’s face it, there aren’t many schools with the financial resources of Harvard (actually, there are none!). So sure, the law didn’t require schools to reduce athletic opportunties for men as it opened up opportunities for women, but you’ve got to put your head in the sand not to see that, as a practical matter, that was the result.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True, but it is “disingenuous” to cite Title IX as causing that result. Limited budgets are the cause, not womens sports.</p>
<p>Title IX this
Title IX that</p>
<p>I find it unbelievable that a wealthy University with such proud Athletic program, such as USC, fails to supply a Men’s Soccer team, particularly with the continued importance and growth of this sport in the U.S. and California.</p>
<p>^I agree, onecircuit. Maybe Pat Haden will help change things in that regard.</p>