G.L.Piggy [at] gmail.com
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
Title IX and other legislation has sought to redress the imbalance between men’s and women’s sports in college and high school. By providing for equality in the number of athletic scholarships, Title IX legislation has acted counter to the spirit of its intention and caused women’s sports to be less competitive and boring compared to men’s. The eye-gouging nature of women’s sports is added to the fact that Title IX is patently anti-male.
Women’s sports have very low levels of parity compared to men’s; across all major sports, women’s sports are dominated by a handful of powerhouse teams.
Title IX operates on the principle of proportionality. The sex ratio of the athletic population should be in accord with that of the student population. Given the higher ratio of women to men on most college campuses, this implies that more funding and scholarships have to be provided for women rather than men. This legislation exists despite the fact that boys are more interested in sports, more aggressive, and more competitive than girls. Those pushing the legislation through, in light of ERA, sought to achieve gender equality. For them, pure gender equality comes when boys are no longer boys and girls are no longer girls; when androgyny rules.
I’m going to avoid the issue of sports facilities for men’s sports compared to women’s. It seems to me that the sport that brings in the most revenue should have the nicest facilities; this is a function of how good the team is and how popular the sport is. It so happens that men’s sports are more popular than women’s sports and bring in more revenue.
I’m more interested in the divvying up of sports scholarships between men’s and women’s programs. Women are given more scholarships in each sport than men because of the higher proportion of female college students to male college students. Women field a thousand more sports teams than men (9,300 versus 8,300) despite the fact that of all high school sports participants, 41% are girls while 59% are boys.
Boys are 55% of high school basketball players, 53% of soccer players, and 56% of baseball/softball players.The disparity in high school sport participation doesn’t match up with the incongruency in college scholarships:
“This means that there is a total of 7,177 men’s basketball scholarships available in the NCAA alone. NCAA basketball scholarships for women a total of 9,285.”
“The NCAA allows each Division 1 Men’s Basketball program 13 Scholarships and in Division 2, 10 are available. For Women’s basketball 15 Scholarships are offered in Division 1 and 10 in Division 2.”
“The NCAA allows each division 1 soccer program 9.9 scholarships for Men and 12 for Women. In division 2 the ratio is 9 for men and 9.9 for women.”
Men receive 43% of the number of women’s basketball scholarships despite 55% of the supply of basketball players being male, and 45% of soccer scholarships despite being 53% of the supply.
So what we have is less bottom-up supply of female for college sports programs, yet we give more scholarships and inducements to women’s college teams in order to attract high school girls. It only seems natural that the blue chip athletes will be more tightly packed amongst the best teams in women’s college sports. The UCONNs and Tennessees of women’s college basketball are afforded several more scholarships than the best men’s teams each year. Selecting from a recruit base that likely features a lower absolute number of really good players (since girls participate in lower numbers in high school basketball and are generally less interested in it), those top teams get to pick more from the cream of the crop. This creates dynasties which are hard to break.
Lower scholarship availability for men’s programs in analogous sports, with higher high school boy participation, implies that men’s teams benefit from a spreading out of talent. The best of the best don’t always go to the same few teams, they go to the best two dozen teams. There is less parity in men’s sports which leads to higher competition and a more interesting sport. To bring women’s college sports in greater parity, and make it more competitive, fewer women’s teams should be allowed to compete in Division 1 sports, fewer scholarships should be granted, or more girls should be compelled to play high school sports.
Ah, but this is the rub. That last point is what feminists and Title IX pushers have relied on – their faulty premise: that girls want to engage in sports just as much as boys do. Even with 30 years of Title IX we see that girls don’t participate in sports nearly as much as boys. We can further assume, in the same way that women have more erotic plasticity, the fact that they aren’t as geared towards competition and sport implies that those who do participate aren’t as “into it” as boys who play their respective sports.
Title IX has led to an overcapacity of women’s sport. Like a car manufacturer who overshoots the demand of its vehicles and builds unused factories, women’s college sports have a lot of empty, underutilized space (or men’s sports have an undercapacitization; same effect). If things were “fair” and inducements for athletes were equal between the sexes, women’s talents would be better utilized in other facets. Perhaps they could take on the traditional college experience or go to beauty school.
This has the effect of going against the spirit of equal opportunity that was the thrust behind Title IX and the pipe-dream of equality of outcome. It also creates a much less competitive and utterly boring women’s sport. Only when the top handful of teams compete is there any reason to hope for a “good game” in women’s college sports. In men’s sports, major upsets of top-ranked teams by the unranked is common.