Football
Sack college football, not Title IX
Don't blame the law that opened up sports to women for the demise of men's sports programs -- blame the good old boys who won't touch the biggest cash drain, football.
Normally when a law is surrounded by a storm of controversy, it’s because the legislation resulted in some disaster that no one wants to take responsibility for. Title IX is proving to be the exact opposite. It’s hard to think of a similar law passed within the last quarter century that has been more successful. In fact, it’s not hyperbole to say that Title IX has been spectacularly successful, but you wouldn’t know it from the acrimonious debates that have been eating up our sports pages for the past few weeks.
Title IX, which prohibits gender discrimination at educational institutions that receive federal funds, was signed into law — let’s give the devil his due — by Richard Nixon in 1972. Twenty-one years ago there were, according to the General Accounting Office, fewer than 295,000 girls participating in sports at a high school level. There are currently slightly more than 2.7 million. Can anyone argue that this has not radically changed America for the better?
The argument against Title IX, of course, is not that it has helped girls and women, but that it has unfairly done so at the expense of boys and men — and that getting rid of it won’t hurt women’s athletics. This is the argument advanced, for example, by Joe Drape, who wrote a piece in the New York Times last month called “A Good Law Whose Time Has Passed.” Drape argued that Title IX “is no longer necessary and should be abolished.” As he puts it, “You have administrators creating so-called emerging sports like women’s bowling to comply with federal law, or slashing men’s programs altogether … You have young people — forget their sex — being denied opportunities to participate in sports.” Drape believes, as apparently do many in the Bush administration’s advisory commission, that Title IX has already done all the good it’s going to do, that the gains made by women in sports cannot be rolled back, and that further insistence on compliance in any form (and the rules for compliance are flexible, so long as the school is making an effort) will only result in the loss of more men’s programs.
Drape is right, at least as regards the cutting of men’s programs. According to the General Accounting Office, America’s colleges have eliminated at least 80 tennis teams, 70 gymnastics teams, and 170 wrestling programs, all for lack of funds, while funds are poured into creating teams for women (such as women’s bowling and women’s equestrian teams) that there is no real call or demand for simply to be in compliance with the law. In other words, Title IX is now being unfair to men.
As Drape says, “The athletic administrators play shell games with the numbers.” Indeed they do; I’m sure the average high school or college athletic director could teach Major League Baseball and the motion picture industry some lessons in creative bookkeeping. But the biggest elephant of all, the one that everyone involved has kept hidden throughout all of the debate, is football. Everyone knows that football, at the high school or college level, is by far school sports’ biggest revenue producer. Everyone also knows that football and the enormously bloated structure that goes along with it — extra coaches, state-of-the-art facilities, scholarships, expensive recruiting trips, etc. — is also its biggest money drain.
Murray Sperber, author of “Beer and Circuses and Other Studies of College Sports,” estimates that perhaps 90 percent of America’s college athletic departments lose money, inevitably because of football. The percentage of male students who play football is actually very small, especially in comparison to the money spent on the sport. But everyone knows that football is untouchable. No one wants to take on the combination of athletic administrators and alumni that keeps the football power structure in place. So when the athletic budget has to be trimmed, and you can’t take it from women’s sports and you can’t take it from football, it’s men’s tennis, gymnastics, swimming and wrestling that are going to take a hit.
The system is unfair, very unfair, but who is ultimately to blame? In a lawsuit filed by several organizations, most notably the National Wrestling Coaches Association, the courts are being asked to replace the systems of compliance with what Eric Pearson, chairman of the College Sports Council, called “something more flexible.” Now, the system of compliance is more flexible than a tax plan for a billionaire. You can comply in one of three ways: proportionality, in which the number of women in athletics matches their share of student enrollment; showing a “history of expanding opportunities in sports for women”; and providing facilities for women in sports “fully and effectively.”
The one governing principle in all three is that the amount of money spent has to be the same or close to the same for both men’s and women’s sports. I can understand the anger and frustration of the coaches of men’s swimming and wrestling teams that have to cut back or have even lost their jobs because a committee within the university has decided that their method of compliance will be to create a women’s equestrian team. But they’re lining up against the wrong foe. Their enemy isn’t the women’s sports lobby for Title IX; it’s the hundreds of cash-gobbling football programs that provide athletic opportunities for relatively few students at any university.
The argument has and will continue to be made that football teams serve universities in more ways than can be measured by simply counting the number of warm bodies in uniforms. Having grown up in a college football tradition, I can testify to the truth of that. However, no one is asking the university to cut college football. What should be asked — no, what should be demanded — by every university in the country is that the football team stand in line to get its proper share of funds after the university has done what it’s supposed to do: namely, see to the proper athletic needs of all its men and women. Any argument to the contrary is double-talk. If every university in the country wants more money for men’s wrestling, swimming or any other team, let them all agree to cut 20 of the 85 scholarships from the football team.
Yes, male college students are being victimized. But don’t look to women’s athletics. Look to the real culprit: football and the male hierarchy that dominate America’s university athletic departments.
Allen Barra's next book is "Mickey and Willie -- The Parallel Lives of Baseball's Golden Age," from Crown. More Allen Barra.
Can Tebow find salvation?
Updated: After losing his job in Denver, evangelicals' favorite jock faces an uncertain future in New York.
Tim Tebow (Credit: Reuters/Rick WIlking) [UPDATED BELOW]
You don’t need to be an evangelical Christian to care about the future of Tim Tebow. I’m a lapsed atheist myself. But with the resurrection of quarterback Peyton Manning in Denver, I wonder most about the future of the spiritual scrambler, who led the Broncos to the playoffs last year.
The Broncos signing Manning to replace Tebow is a no-brainer. He may be diminished by age and injury, but he is also the best quarterback of our time, not because he is a brilliant coach’s puppet (Tom Brady) or an on-field, off-field brute (Ben Roethlisberger) but by virtue of a fierce work ethic and a concentrated intelligence that is contagious and inspirational. Whatever is left at age 35 of him will make the Broncos better.
Continue Reading CloseRobert Lipsyte is a former New York Times sports columnist. His new memoir, "An Accidental Sportswriter," has just been published. More Robert Lipsyte.
The Super Bowl is not a job creator
Despite what civic boosters say, hosting the big game provides few long-term benefits
(Credit: AP/Michael Conroy) Roger Goodell, the commissioner of the National Football League, argued on “60 Minutes” last Sunday that the NFL is one professional organization designed to appeal to the economic interests of the little guy: Its revenue-sharing model, he said, gives a fighting chance to squads from Green Bay and Buffalo as well as to those from large media markets like New York, Los Angeles and Boston.
On the eve of the Super Bowl, Goodell was touting the familiar idea that the sport’s biggest game is a boon to economic development. But with the cost of a ticket now averaging $3,982 and 30-second television spots selling for $3.5 million, the Super Bowl can appear to be more an occasion for ostentatious excess than an engine of development.
Continue Reading CloseAlexander Heffner is a freelance journalist whose writing has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Boston Globe. More Alexander Heffner.
Political lessons from this year’s Super Bowl
From jobs to health care, football's big game illustrates the factors that will dominate the 2012 election
New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady (Credit: AP Photo/Elise Amendola) Most Americans won’t need a justification to watch Sunday’s game, but if you’re a Salon reader you might think, even in passing, that celebrating the holiest day of violence, consumerism and class warfare on your couch is a betrayal of your values or a waste of your time. You might even imagine that it would be better to take a hike, read a book or meditate.
Not this Sunday, buster. It’s an election season. You need to watch this game to fully understand how jobs, religion, leadership and healthcare dominate every American contest.
Continue Reading CloseRobert Lipsyte is a former New York Times sports columnist. His new memoir, "An Accidental Sportswriter," has just been published. More Robert Lipsyte.
Enjoy the game? For the true fan, it’s all about agony
The New York Giants are in the Super Bowl. But for one obsessive, the question is what time to take the Ativan
Ohio State football fans (Credit: AP) “The truth is,” Nick Hornby wrote in “Fever Pitch,” his book about his obsession with Arsenal and British football, “for alarmingly large chunks of an average day, I am a moron.”
That’s a wonderful sentence by one of my favorite writers, but if Hornby is only a moron for only large chunks of the average day, he is doing a lot better than I am. I can honestly report that for the last few months I have been an absolute idiot for all but very small portions of the day.
Continue Reading CloseTed Heller's latest novel, "Pocket Kings," will be published in March. He is also the author of the novels "Slab Rat" and "Funnymen." More Ted Heller.
Small blunders kill Super Bowl dreams
For fans of the 49ers and Ravens, the road to the big game is paved with pain
Kyle Williams loses it Just when it looked like the NFC and AFC championship games were going to last until the Super Bowl, two fatal blunders brought them to an abrupt close. The stunning conclusions to two of the most tense, evenly matched conference championship games in recent memory were a painful reminder that although football is a team game, one miscue by a single player can wipe out thousands of hours of collective blood, sweat and tears.
It will be a sad and lonely night for Baltimore Ravens’ kicker Billy Cundiff, whose shanked chip-shot 32-yarder gave the AFC championship to the New England Patriots. Kickers must have strong mental constitutions: in a sport where bonds between teammates are cemented in blood and pain, they are not always regarded as full-fledged comrades to begin with, and so when they screw up, it’s even harder for them to deal with. The mantra “short memory,” which defensive backs are constantly shouting at each other, applies in spades to kickers. Cundiff could use a tall glass of Milk of Amnesia.
Continue Reading CloseGary Kamiya is a Salon contributing writer. More Gary Kamiya.
Page 1 of 52 in Football