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.

Wasn't there a story from a few years ago where a school had to disband some or most of their male sports programs because they couldn't get very many girls to come out for the various female teams.

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.

 

 

Good post. Title IX gave my daughter opportunities that I never had. I think the key word is opportunity. The girls team likely had the opportunity to get their own shed or even share the boys, but chose not to. They didn't seem to have a problem with it. Boys and girls should have the same opportunities but not be forced to comply or else.

I wonder why the parents of the boys didn't offer to let the girls store things there as well.

 

I remember a similar discussion about this on BGP a. A coach for a boys team bought himself a small refrigerator for his office. He had to take it out because the girls coach didn't have one.

Wasn't there a story from a few years ago where a school had to disband some or most of their male sports programs because they couldn't get very many girls to come out for the various female teams.

 

That happens at the HS and college level