On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Dave Wollstadt wrote:
 
> 2.  I'm glad "girl reporter" is honest enough to admit that she doesn't mind
> seeing male athletes get screwed by Title IX. But surely that wasn't the
> intent of Congress when it passed the legislation. The intent was to open
> opportunities to women, not take them away from men. And is "girl reporter"
> happy about seeing entire sports, like men's gymnastics or wrestling,
> endangered because several schools have decided that its easier to cut those
> non-revenue sports than to expand scholarship opportunties for women?
>
This "guy observer" has little interest in watching women's sports but I
still find the scholarship discrepancy disturbing.  If college sports are
about learning and not producing revenue for the schools then the issue of
number of scholarships is a legitimate issue AND it is absurd to exempt
football, which causes more than its share of the imbalance, from
corrective measures.
 
OTOH, if one admits that football, basketball, and hockey players are
professionals being paid in another guise, then they are exploited given
the level of compensation vis a vis the financial return.  Either way, big
time collegiate football, IMO, is a sick culture, as is basketball.
Hockey, because of its lower profile, has not reached those depths, but I
can think of a couple of examples indicating it is capable of it.
 
I do agree that it will be great to be talking hockey again later in the
year.
 
Arthur Berman [log in to unmask]
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.