40% of girls' games have to be either on a Friday or Saturday.

 

There for a while they made girls play the last game of the night on a DH for approximately 50% of the games. The girls really hated that becuase fans would leave after the boys' game.

 

Yeah, when I was in HS, or girls always said they preferred to not play on Friday night because they liked going to the guy's games and hanging out with friends the rest of the night instead of worrying about playing. But Title IX made them have to play then.

Im for girls having whatever, but if the boosters and parents of one outwork the other then why should they be punished?

 

I doubt anything would have been said if it was a softball storage bld.

Title 9 has done some good, creating opportunities for girls that didn't previously exist, and also making sure their sports programs get the fair treatment they deserve. As a father who has a daughter that played sports, I appreciate that. However, I hate that boys programs sometimes get shafted because of Title 9. I've seen baseball and wrestling (two sports both myself and my kids are involved in) get cut at the college level, in part, due to Title 9. And in this case, policy clearly got in the way of common sense.

 

I'm not sure that Title 9 has outlived it's usefullness...I wouldn't go that far. But certainly, when Boys programs get hurt or affected, at least a review is needed.

Title 9 has done some good, creating opportunities for girls that didn't previously exist, and also making sure their sports programs get the fair treatment they deserve. As a father who has a daughter that played sports, I appreciate that. However, I hate that boys programs sometimes get shafted because of Title 9. I've seen baseball and wrestling (two sports both myself and my kids are involved in) get cut at the college level, in part, due to Title 9. And in this case, policy clearly got in the way of common sense.

 

I'm not sure that Title 9 has outlived it's usefullness...I wouldn't go that far. But certainly, when Boys programs get hurt or affected, at least a review is needed.

 

Agreed.

I think that its the lazy boosters or parents.

 

One group wants to work and the other don't and someone gets punished.

 

My question is why didnt the baseball boosters just share it with the girls softball team if it was just for storage. Not a big deal IMO.

 

Fundraising is the same way now. We have an 8th grade Washington DC trip. You used to be able to do individual fundraising for your child. You could go work Reds games, soccer games, sell kits, etc and the money you made would go to your child's expenses. Kentucky now says you can not do individual fundraising so if I worked a Reds games, the money I made would be split among all the other kids to lower their expenses. Now, no one will work the games because most parents do not want to put in time and those that do, don't want their work to pay for another person's kid.

Girls ruin everything.

 

Well, almost everything. :banana:

I think that its the lazy boosters or parents.

 

One group wants to work and the other don't and someone gets punished.

 

My question is why didnt the baseball boosters just share it with the girls softball team if it was just for storage. Not a big deal IMO.

 

It may be part that. It also may also in part be that it's harder to raise money for girls' sports teams from the general public than it is for the marquee boys' sports such as FB, basketball and baseball. It's even harder if those girls' teams aren't very good.

 

That said, why couldn't there have been a compromise somewhere? How close are the baseball and softball fields to one another? Couldn't a shed have been used for both in this case and satisfy certain administrators' sense of fairness?

 

Some schools have all fundraising go into one pool, and underperforming teams on the fundraising trail will have to work more events (concession stands at games, etc.) to make up their part of the nut.

 

I don't know that there's a right answer for all of it. I know that girls' sports still gets short shrift at many places around this state, so Title IX is needed in principle, but the law's application process is deeply flawed.

My question: How did it cost $21,000 to remove a shed?!?

My question: How did it cost $21,000 to remove a shed?!?

 

Union :sssh:

My question: How did it cost $21,000 to remove a shed?!?

 

Probably had to be bid on by a list of approved vendors/contractors.

While Title IX is a good idea in principle, it will always be easier to cut funding/teams on the boy's side, than it is to come up with the funds needed to field a girls team.

 

My biggest issue is that for every girl interested in playing sports, there are probably 10 boys interested in playing on a team. So how can it be construed that it is fair to the student body as a whole?

 

Just tell me when was the last time that you drove by a park and saw a group of girls playing a pick-up game of anything?

This is just ridiculous. Why not just build the girls a shed since it cost the boys nothing? Make the baseball team pay for half of it rather than waste $21,000 getting rid of it.

There for a while they made girls play the last game of the night on a DH for approximately 50% of the games. The girls really hated that becuase fans would leave after the boys' game.

 

Yep, same happened at my school. It didn't matter what time you made the games. If the folks didn't want to watch the girls game, they weren't going to be there for it. Period.

While Title IX is a good idea in principle, it will always be easier to cut funding/teams on the boy's side, than it is to come up with the funds needed to field a girls team.

 

My biggest issue is that for every girl interested in playing sports, there are probably 10 boys interested in playing on a team. So how can it be construed that it is fair to the student body as a whole?

Just tell me when was the last time that you drove by a park and saw a group of girls playing a pick-up game of anything?

 

The "three prong test" for Title IX compliance addresses this:

 

1.Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollment.

2.Demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).

3.Accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.

The "three prong test" for Title IX compliance addresses this:

 

2.Demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).

.

 

Problem with #2 is that you get to a point where you can't add anymore sports because you don't have enough kids to play it. This is especially true at a small school.