I believe his logic is, ok, women want to be treated equally, well, let the
women pay for the women's sports and the men for the men's - and they can
split the booster money and any general(federal) funding the Dept. might get.
 
That might not pass the current Title IX law, but I don't believe that would
be sexism on any part. They're not discriminating, they're both given equal
opportunity, it's just more people want to see some sports than others - law
of supply and demand by Adam Smith.
 
I also don't necessarily agree with it. My personal beef is with Title IX
and the cutting of men's sports. By all means women deserve to have their
crew and field hockey teams as much as men's gymnastics and wrestling, but
not more so and not to the point where one has to be cut for the other.
 
And there can be competition among the sexes without it being sexist. I just
want it to be on a level playing field, and frankly the current law, Title
IX, creates an uneven field tilted toward the women.
 
Once the first women's sport is cut to make room for a male sport, I
guarantee the courts will listen. But until then, all I can do about Title
IX is bitch and try to stir up support for my views.
 
>Gerald Williams wrote:
>
>> I couldn't agree with Brian more, they should take that whole pot load of
>> money than women's athletics brings in to college athletics and use 100% of
>> it to fund women's scholarships.  I love fairness, especially under the law.
>>
>> I can't wait until football is on network TV (big money) this fall and they
>> fill Michigan Stadium with 105,000 people all paying $30 per ticket to then
>> watch men toss the pig skin around. (3 Million per game.... Nice!)
>>
>> Or watch the hockey team play in side of Yost Ice Arena ($30,000 per game)
>>
>> And then after that game maybe we all can go to a women's volleyball game and
>> sit with the other 50 people in the gym that paid $2 to watch that match.
>> Maybe ABC will pick up that match too.
>>
>> Fairness, what a concept.
>>
>> And to all a good night,
>
>Beyond the problem with this thinking that I've mentioned repeatedly, that you
>ignore, there's another.  What is the logic process that leads you to the
>conclusion that the profits from football, etc. should be used to fund men's
>sports that can't support themselves, but not women's sports?  Particularly
since
>you seem to think that this would not only be ethically fair, but also pass
legal
>muster?
>
>J. Michael Neal
>
>HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
>[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
>
>
===============================
      Ben Flickinger
-------------------------------
E-Mail:    [log in to unmask]
===============================
(Stanley Cup Champion) Detroit Red Wings Fan for Life
Proud resident of Bugaha(Omaha)-Home of the 1st Jim Rome World Tour Stop.
To all the CCHA teams, UNO welcomes you to the Bullpen. Now get ready to lose.
Everyone can have a bad century or two. Cubbies all the way in 1999.
===============================
QOTW: "And that's the bottom line, cause Stone Cold said so." ("Stone Cold"
Steve Austin, WWF)
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.