Jump to content


Close Open
Close Open
Photo

Title IX....the reality of liberalism........


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#41 WernerIsTentative

WernerIsTentative

    All-American Gator

  • Members
  • 942 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 08:14 AM

Whining about women's sports? Exposing what is wrong with the current system is not a whine. It is a summary of what is wrong with it in it's current format.

 

If the posters listened to what I said instead of defending women's sports which I actually enjoy, maybe a civil conversation would have actually occurred.  But too many idiots want to show how compassionate they are regarding women's sports without addressing the real issue that currently excites in the system.

 

This was not a discussion of how good women's sports are, or how they are not. That is for your feeble mind to display to the onlookers that you are a decent human being and anyone who discusses the reality of current funding that does not agree with your "ideas" is stupid, short sided and a women hater. Sounds like a trip to CNN.

 

BTW, where did I reverse roles? A debater you are not. Like taking candy from a baby. 

 

Since you ignored my last post, I'll highlight some questions that I'm curious about in red. The first and third question are basically the same, and they are all yes or no questions, so if you don't mind, I would love to see your answers.

 

If you wanted a civil discussion then you would have presented the information without saying that half of the population always overreacts to things and doesn't care about fairness. Do you think that people are not going to take offense to that?

 

You totally could have presented your same original argument without pissing people off. If you don't know how that could have been done any better, feel free to ask me to reword your original post and I gladly will do it so that you can learn how to better avoid confrontation in the future. Maybe I can help you learn something today since you are surprised by something that is easily foreseen.

 

If I said "conservatives do not care about anybody who is poor and don't care about children born into poverty" would you take offense to that? You absolutely would as you SHOULD because neither statement is true and it insults half of the population....

 

Answer me truthfully since you ignored my last post. Do you honestly think that what you posted was going to end up in a civil discussion where nobody would take offense? I have a hard time believing that any educated person who has ever been involved in political discourse would think that. Someone who claims to be so much smarter than a lot of the posters on here surely would have seen this coming...

 

You are so much more intelligent than many of us... how did you not foresee that people would take offense?

 

Truthfully I don't think you are actually stupid and did this all for fun, knowing that it would end up in a fight, as I mentioned in my previous post, but maybe I'm wrong and you really are just THAT naive. Take care.

 

Also, do you care to respond to my last post? Did you not see it or could you not think of a response? Just curious.

 

As I mentioned I would love you to answer my questions. Feel free to ask me any of your own.



#42 GatorUrf10

GatorUrf10

    Heisman Gator

  • Members
  • 1,650 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 08:42 AM

Since you ignored my last post, I'll highlight some questions that I'm curious about in red. The first and third question are basically the same, and they are all yes or no questions, so if you don't mind, I would love to see your answers.

 

If you wanted a civil discussion then you would have presented the information without saying that half of the population always overreacts to things and doesn't care about fairness. Do you think that people are not going to take offense to that?

 

You totally could have presented your same original argument without pissing people off. If you don't know how that could have been done any better, feel free to ask me to reword your original post and I gladly will do it so that you can learn how to better avoid confrontation in the future. Maybe I can help you learn something today since you are surprised by something that is easily foreseen.

 

If I said "conservatives do not care about anybody who is poor and don't care about children born into poverty" would you take offense to that? You absolutely would as you SHOULD because neither statement is true and it insults half of the population....

 

Answer me truthfully since you ignored my last post. Do you honestly think that what you posted was going to end up in a civil discussion where nobody would take offense? I have a hard time believing that any educated person who has ever been involved in political discourse would think that. Someone who claims to be so much smarter than a lot of the posters on here surely would have seen this coming...

 

You are so much more intelligent than many of us... how did you not foresee that people would take offense?

 

Truthfully I don't think you are actually stupid and did this all for fun, knowing that it would end up in a fight, as I mentioned in my previous post, but maybe I'm wrong and you really are just THAT naive. Take care.

 

Also, do you care to respond to my last post? Did you not see it or could you not think of a response? Just curious.

 

As I mentioned I would love you to answer my questions. Feel free to ask me any of your own.

 

Too much logic in one post. Will not compute

 

:)


On illegal hits against Danny Wuerffel: "He's like a New Testament person. He gets slapped up side the face, and turns the other cheek and says, 'Lord, forgive them for they know not what they're doing.' I'm probably more of an Old Testament guy. You spear our guy in the earhole, we think we're supposed to spear you in the earhole. That's kind of where we're a little different." - SOS


#43 gatorhart

gatorhart

    Senior Gator

  • Members
  • 389 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 09:11 AM

Wait why did you say shame on me and then start talking about something that had nothing to do with what I said?...

 

My point is that not EVERY liberal ALWAYS over compensates on any issue regardless of fairness. Shame on me for believing that?

 

You said that a liberal ALWAYS over compensates on any issue regardless of fairness. I think  you should just admit that was an exaggeration...

 

Trust me... I completely understand what you are saying...but when I see an incorrect blanket statement, I had to call it out. Thinking that all liberals think one thing or all conservatives think one thing is an extremely toxic way of thinking. It's kind of strange to see someone, who clearly thinks that they are so enlightened, not realize that.

 

In one of my graduate courses at UF, title IX took up an entire day in my education law class. It is a VERY VERY complicated issue (for dolts like myself anyway)  that is hotly contested today as it has been since it was introduced, and a lot of that is because title IX extends to many more issues in institutions other than just sports (which I think a lot of sports fans are unaware of).

 

 

 

Whether it is fair or not with sports and scholarships is not a debate I care about, because it's not going to change any time soon anyway... so I admit it... forgive me lord, for I have sinned... I am straying off topic by attacking a particular part of your original post, instead of joining in on the discussion of whether title IX is fair or not. 

 

I don't take issue with your topic, NOR DO I TAKE ISSUE WITH YOUR STANCE ON THIS SUBJECT OF TITLE IX and whether it should extend as far as it does, but I do take issue with someone using the topic to attack liberals (as if liberals all think and act the same way for every issue in any given situation). Just as I would take issue with someone using the topic to attack conservatives (as if conservatives all think and act the same way for every issue in any given situation). (I italicized and bolded those last two sentences because that was the point of my original response, which seems to have been misunderstood by you since when you responded to me you started making general title IX statements that you made in your original post... except with the added nuance of suggesting maybe I was too stupid to understand what you were saying? I'm making this post longer because I'm not great with words and I guess I didn't use enough of them the first time)

 

Title IX was a liberal idea, and it was put into place by liberals, and the statutes extended by liberals, but that doesn't mean that liberals ALWAYS over-compensate in any situation regardless of fairness. That is a toxic, silly, way to use a brain....especially since the statement is patently and objectively false.

 

 

For that, shame on you, friend.

 

 

 

Your entire original post (along with some of your following posts) gives me the impression that you were looking for a fight though, and I see that you got a few of them.  Of course people responded as nastily (although, perhaps more overtly nasty) as the original post, and you got to sling around some of those insults against liberals that have been used since the dawn of time (heck, why even come up with creative insults for those fairies anyway, right?)... And you probably got to, temporarily, feel a little bit better for being on what you see as the morally (or maybe in this case, the ideologically?) superior ground.

 

And for that, congrats friend.

Apologize for ignoring your post. Truthfully, did not see it but will respond in kind. Do not apologize for the liberal response, it is in almost every case true!

 

As far as liberals, I will make my point. I grew up with mostly liberal family and extended family members. Family were devoted Roosevelt, Truman, Stevenson ect.... I thought hat JFK was a living GOD sent to earth to help mankind. Then LBJ came along and for the most part I though he tried to do good (except for the war) and spend trillions attempting to solve problems that money could not and will not solve.

 

The last administration tried to move this country to the left without regards for accepting congress that was elected by the people and IMO over reached his liberal agenda by pushing reforms so far overboard that almost everything he did and tried to do will over time be changed over the next 4 years.

 

The liberal cause gave way to helping our enemies by trying to be kind to them in an attempt to change their behavior. Providing govt assistance for illegals so we can have .50 peaches and cheap servers. Giving people who change their sexual gender the ability to go into the shower legally of the other sex and then taking funding away from states that use common sense regarding this horrible ruling. (BTW, I have never been a member of the GOP…more of a libertarian)

 

Keeping the courts stocked with judges that interrupt the constitution in a way that effects the majority IMO negatively to satisfy some people that not only want equality but in any case, an unfair advantage. I don’t see any University attempting to admit more males now that females are in some cases the majority. We admit that only the best should qualify, if there not white males. Liberalism at it’s beat.

 

Hillary advocates for women’s rights (which I totally agree 100%) but wants to erase any restrictions on when they make that choice which IMO is wrong.

 

I can go on and on, but you see how I look at rulings and how things have got to change and are changing.

 

Yes, I knew that I would be attacked, and the level of attacks was so pedestrian I was totally amused. But my point was to discuss how Title IX is considered in the context of fairness, not an attack on women or women’s sports which I am a big fan.



#44 GatorUrf10

GatorUrf10

    Heisman Gator

  • Members
  • 1,650 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 09:33 AM

Yes, I knew that I would be attacked, and the level of attacks was so pedestrian I was totally amused. But my point was to discuss how Title IX is considered in the context of fairness, not an attack on women or women’s sports which I am a big fan.

 

Point in case that this whole thread is worthless on a sports forum. Sorry, but if you like women's sports, you like Title IX. 


On illegal hits against Danny Wuerffel: "He's like a New Testament person. He gets slapped up side the face, and turns the other cheek and says, 'Lord, forgive them for they know not what they're doing.' I'm probably more of an Old Testament guy. You spear our guy in the earhole, we think we're supposed to spear you in the earhole. That's kind of where we're a little different." - SOS


#45 vulcan_alex

vulcan_alex

    Bull Gator

  • Members
  • 9,560 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 09:54 AM

Point in case that this whole thread is worthless on a sports forum. Sorry, but if you like women's sports, you like Title IX. 

 

Perhaps you have this opinion, but I like women's sports and I would like title 9 to be mostly or totally eliminated.  The federal government had a good concept here now it can continue without government interference.


I am a "Vulcan" and try hard to keep things logical and without emotion. However as a "Vulcan" I have a highly emotional reaction mode for special occasions.
UF 1973 Physics
Miami Carol City
Financial Planning / Quality
Tn

#46 GatorUrf10

GatorUrf10

    Heisman Gator

  • Members
  • 1,650 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 10:09 AM

Perhaps you have this opinion, but I like women's sports and I would like title 9 to be mostly or totally eliminated.  The federal government had a good concept here now it can continue without government interference.

 

The elimination of Title IX would mean the total elimination of women's sports on virtually every level. Think about it this way- most schools aren't like UF in terms of cash flow. (In a world without Title IX) At the first sign of trouble, they will begin to shut down women's sports and lower level men's sports because they bring in next to no revenue and would strengthen profit margins overall for athletics and the university or college. Can you imagine being a HS principal and being asked whether you would like to keep softball or pay for books? They're going to choose education over athletics every time and rightfully so.

 

This break in women's programs slowly happens at the smaller schools in the country then all of a sudden, women's leagues shrink to the point where larger schools see no point in having them either. It's the same scenario as the play for play model that schools like UF could easily afford, but not smaller schools.

 

Title IX exsts because it has to. I'm totally against federal involvement in most everything but like I've said, if you like women's sports, Title IX is the only thing keeping them around from young ages through college. 

 

That's why I see this argument as pointless. You need Title IX to have women's sports. 


On illegal hits against Danny Wuerffel: "He's like a New Testament person. He gets slapped up side the face, and turns the other cheek and says, 'Lord, forgive them for they know not what they're doing.' I'm probably more of an Old Testament guy. You spear our guy in the earhole, we think we're supposed to spear you in the earhole. That's kind of where we're a little different." - SOS


#47 gatorhart

gatorhart

    Senior Gator

  • Members
  • 389 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 10:36 AM

The elimination of Title IX would mean the total elimination of women's sports on virtually every level. Think about it this way- most schools aren't like UF in terms of cash flow. (In a world without Title IX) At the first sign of trouble, they will begin to shut down women's sports and lower level men's sports because they bring in next to no revenue and would strengthen profit margins overall for athletics and the university or college. Can you imagine being a HS principal and being asked whether you would like to keep softball or pay for books? They're going to choose education over athletics every time and rightfully so.

 

This break in women's programs slowly happens at the smaller schools in the country then all of a sudden, women's leagues shrink to the point where larger schools see no point in having them either. It's the same scenario as the play for play model that schools like UF could easily afford, but not smaller schools.

 

Title IX exsts because it has to. I'm totally against federal involvement in most everything but like I've said, if you like women's sports, Title IX is the only thing keeping them around from young ages through college. 

 

That's why I see this argument as pointless. You need Title IX to have women's sports. 

What is comical is that you STILL don't get it. While TITLE IX is wrong in it's details, I did not oppose the increase in women's sports, as long as it treats men's sports fairly, whcih it does not. 



#48 GatorUrf10

GatorUrf10

    Heisman Gator

  • Members
  • 1,650 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 10:49 AM

What is comical is that you STILL don't get it. While TITLE IX is wrong in it's details, I did not oppose the increase in women's sports, as long as it treats men's sports fairly, whcih it does not. 

 

My point, which you still do not understand, and may never understand, is that the equity between men's and women's sports will never be fair, that's why Title IX is needed in order for women's sports to exist. Women's sports don't make the same type of money that men's sports do and I don't think they ever will. That's why some "liberal" made this into law. That's all I've said this entire thread. What's so hard to understand?


On illegal hits against Danny Wuerffel: "He's like a New Testament person. He gets slapped up side the face, and turns the other cheek and says, 'Lord, forgive them for they know not what they're doing.' I'm probably more of an Old Testament guy. You spear our guy in the earhole, we think we're supposed to spear you in the earhole. That's kind of where we're a little different." - SOS


#49 WernerIsTentative

WernerIsTentative

    All-American Gator

  • Members
  • 942 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 12:48 PM

Apologize for ignoring your post. Truthfully, did not see it but will respond in kind. Do not apologize for the liberal response, it is in almost every case true!

 

As far as liberals, I will make my point. I grew up with mostly liberal family and extended family members. Family were devoted Roosevelt, Truman, Stevenson ect.... I thought hat JFK was a living GOD sent to earth to help mankind. Then LBJ came along and for the most part I though he tried to do good (except for the war) and spend trillions attempting to solve problems that money could not and will not solve.

 

The last administration tried to move this country to the left without regards for accepting congress that was elected by the people and IMO over reached his liberal agenda by pushing reforms so far overboard that almost everything he did and tried to do will over time be changed over the next 4 years.

 

The liberal cause gave way to helping our enemies by trying to be kind to them in an attempt to change their behavior. Providing govt assistance for illegals so we can have .50 peaches and cheap servers. Giving people who change their sexual gender the ability to go into the shower legally of the other sex and then taking funding away from states that use common sense regarding this horrible ruling. (BTW, I have never been a member of the GOP…more of a libertarian)

 

Keeping the courts stocked with judges that interrupt the constitution in a way that effects the majority IMO negatively to satisfy some people that not only want equality but in any case, an unfair advantage. I don’t see any University attempting to admit more males now that females are in some cases the majority. We admit that only the best should qualify, if there not white males. Liberalism at it’s beat.

 

Hillary advocates for women’s rights (which I totally agree 100%) but wants to erase any restrictions on when they make that choice which IMO is wrong.

 

I can go on and on, but you see how I look at rulings and how things have got to change and are changing.

 

Yes, I knew that I would be attacked, and the level of attacks was so pedestrian I was totally amused. But my point was to discuss how Title IX is considered in the context of fairness, not an attack on women or women’s sports which I am a big fan.

 

 

I appreciate you being civil with your response and I appreciate you partially admitting that you knew it would stir some people up.

 

You still haven't admitted that putting all liberals under the same umbrella by saying they all overreact to everything regardless of fairness  is an exaggerated statement.  You kind of beat around the bush by continuing to talk about why you don't like the liberal agenda. I understand why people don't like the liberal agenda and I understand why people don't like the conservative agenda (I know... I'm a freak of nature) but I don't understand why BOTH sides make inflammatory blanket statements about the other side. It makes the individuals who make them look uninformed, gullible, and even hateful. This is how you appeared with your initial post because of that statement, and that is why you got the "pedestrian" attacks that you say you weren't expecting. Have you thought about the possibility that maybe you started the thread with a blanket, inflammatory, and dare I say...pedestrian statement yourself?


  • GatorUrf10 likes this

#50 gator67

gator67

    Senior Gator

  • Members
  • 290 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 02:47 PM

Yes, I knew that I would be attacked, and the level of attacks was so pedestrian I was totally amused. But my point was to discuss how Title IX is considered in the context of fairness, not an attack on women or women’s sports which I am a big fan.

Maybe I'm flattering myself, but I do not believe that my responses involved a personal attack, nor nor did they simply sing the praises of women's sports. Now, perhaps they are "so pedestrian" that they amuse some people, but to me this kind of dismissal seems to be a refusal to engage the substance of the arguments. An argument is not wrong simply because it is basic or simple.

 

I am still waiting to hear what in principle distinguishes an intercollegiate sport such as football from other intercollegiate sports -- and describing it as a different sport with different rules and numbers of participants will not qualify since that is not germane to the issue of equity in the opportunities to participate in intercollegiate athletics. Pragmatic considerations, such as football's ability to generate revenue in some schools (not all or probably even most if we don't consider only D1 schools, which Title IX does not) are not a matter of principle, so this also does not provide an answer. Let me be clear: I understand that schools cannot ignore financial issues when they decide what intercollegiate sports they should have, but this is not the concern of the law itself; it is a problem schools must address within the framework of the law.

 

If one accepts the basic idea that schools need to give men and women a roughly equal chance to participate in intercollegiate athletics, but also wants to exempt football from being part of that equation, it is this question -- why, in principle, is football an exception? -- one must answer.



#51 gator67

gator67

    Senior Gator

  • Members
  • 290 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 02:49 PM

By the way, from my perspective, vulcan_alex and I had a civil disagreement, which I appreciated. We ultimately have to agree to disagree, it appears, but I appreciate the way he engaged my arguments and offered some thoughtful points of his own.


  • vulcan_alex likes this

#52 Jabberdave

Jabberdave

    Snatch Magnet

  • Members
  • 8,404 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 02:55 PM

I was just happy to see the posting traffic this pissing match caused.  Haven't read much of it, but it's been nice seeing the activity in this old place.


  • Gator2222 likes this

There's not really an emoticon that says "I'm sorry I honked your boobs, and that you weren't a fan of that."


#53 gatorhart

gatorhart

    Senior Gator

  • Members
  • 389 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 04:52 PM

Maybe I'm flattering myself, but I do not believe that my responses involved a personal attack, nor nor did they simply sing the praises of women's sports. Now, perhaps they are "so pedestrian" that they amuse some people, but to me this kind of dismissal seems to be a refusal to engage the substance of the arguments. An argument is not wrong simply because it is basic or simple.

 

I am still waiting to hear what in principle distinguishes an intercollegiate sport such as football from other intercollegiate sports -- and describing it as a different sport with different rules and numbers of participants will not qualify since that is not germane to the issue of equity in the opportunities to participate in intercollegiate athletics. Pragmatic considerations, such as football's ability to generate revenue in some schools (not all or probably even most if we don't consider only D1 schools, which Title IX does not) are not a matter of principle, so this also does not provide an answer. Let me be clear: I understand that schools cannot ignore financial issues when they decide what intercollegiate sports they should have, but this is not the concern of the law itself; it is a problem schools must address within the framework of the law.

 

If one accepts the basic idea that schools need to give men and women a roughly equal chance to participate in intercollegiate athletics, but also wants to exempt football from being part of that equation, it is this question -- why, in principle, is football an exception? -- one must answer.

Two basic points. Number one: the idea that without football, all other sports would be an over reach for most schools in terms of funding. Number two......the issue of what a football player contributes to the school in terms of sacrifice: that is the abuse of their own bodies in order to play a sport that may not be around in the same way in 20 years. These young man sacrifice their bodies and mental health for the rest of their lives so that they can get an education and a chance for shot at the "show" if possible. I know the argument....it's their choice....no one forces them to do it...yata yata  A LOT of these kids would NEVER get a legitimate opportunity to get an education if not for football. I respect what they do to get ready.....12 years of playing POP Warner, local leagues and then high school, getting busted up in the process.  They deserve this chance but at what cost?  This is my point. And I believe it is a valid argument.  Football is king, let the other sports become an equality issue into itself. Even steven.

 

I don't have the legal answers to make this thing right. But I do raise many issues in this debate. No one here has made their point IMO correctly except to jump on the women's band wagon. Good for you, you have demonstrated that you are great human beings. I'm proud of you. But you say nothing in return.



#54 gator67

gator67

    Senior Gator

  • Members
  • 290 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 05:30 PM

Two basic points. Number one: the idea that without football, all other sports would be an over reach for most schools in terms of funding. Number two......the issue of what a football player contributes to the school in terms of sacrifice: that is the abuse of their own bodies in order to play a sport that may not be around in the same way in 20 years. These young man sacrifice their bodies and mental health for the rest of their lives so that they can get an education and a chance for shot at the "show" if possible. I know the argument....it's their choice....no one forces them to do it...yata yata  A LOT of these kids would NEVER get a legitimate opportunity to get an education if not for football. I respect what they do to get ready.....12 years of playing POP Warner, local leagues and then high school, getting busted up in the process.  They deserve this chance but at what cost?  This is my point. And I believe it is a valid argument.  Football is king, let the other sports become an equality issue into itself. Even steven.

 

I don't have the legal answers to make this thing right. But I do raise many issues in this debate. No one here has made their point IMO correctly except to jump on the women's band wagon. Good for you, you have demonstrated that you are great human beings. I'm proud of you. But you say nothing in return.

I appreciate the reply, even if you finish by dismissing my question as not raising a significant point. In any case, in the interest of furthering the conversation, I will offer some responses.

 

As to your first point, this is a pragmatic matter rather than a distinction in principle between football and other sports. It is also a questionable claim, especially since there are a fair number of universities and colleges that do not have a football team while nevertheless having a variety of intercollegiate sports. Georgetown University and Gonzaga are two D1 level schools that immediately come to mind. 

 

As to point number two, it is without a doubt true that football players go through a lot to get to the point where they can compete in college. I am not sure why you think that this is unique to football, however. Maybe you are thinking about the brain trauma that they risk, if not inevitably incur, which is a matter of grave concern. Maybe the only other sport where the risk is as great (or greater) is boxing. Even so, other sports (such as soccer) also entail this risk. And, more to the central question, it is not clear to me that this risk constitutes a reason for putting football in a different category than other sports when the question is number of opportunities for individual student-athletes to compete at the intercollegiate level.

 

Regarding the risk that football players face, it has made me -- an avid fan from a young age -- feel somewhat guilty about my interest in the game, just not guilty enough to stop being a fan. More importantly, it could be the reason we ultimately see the end of the sport as a major athletic competition. Perhaps some adjustments to the rules or improvements in the gear can keep it going, but there is a real possibility that fewer people will play, which will likely lead to a drop in the skill level and probably decreased interest from fans. So, in the long run (and perhaps sooner than we think) it may cease to be the cash cow it now is. I suppose this debate would then become moot.

 

Finally, I am not sure how supporting a principle that insists on fair treatment of both women and men is jumping "on the women's band wagon." But if that's what it is, I suppose I am guilty as charged.


  • mtn2top likes this

#55 GatorUrf10

GatorUrf10

    Heisman Gator

  • Members
  • 1,650 posts

Posted 12 July 2017 - 06:12 AM

I don't have the legal answers to make this thing right. But I do raise many issues in this debate. No one here has made their point IMO correctly 

 

So you don't have an answer for the issue you raised? And you're chastising the people here for giving their opinions? Wow. So you think most of the people here contributed nothing to an argument from which you yourself contributed nothing? Seems logical...

 

PS- The issue you brought up has been a point of contention in sports for many years. It's not exactly innovative to bring to a sports board, or any conversation for that matter.  


On illegal hits against Danny Wuerffel: "He's like a New Testament person. He gets slapped up side the face, and turns the other cheek and says, 'Lord, forgive them for they know not what they're doing.' I'm probably more of an Old Testament guy. You spear our guy in the earhole, we think we're supposed to spear you in the earhole. That's kind of where we're a little different." - SOS


#56 gatorhart

gatorhart

    Senior Gator

  • Members
  • 389 posts

Posted 12 July 2017 - 06:22 AM

I appreciate the reply, even if you finish by dismissing my question as not raising a significant point. In any case, in the interest of furthering the conversation, I will offer some responses.

 

As to your first point, this is a pragmatic matter rather than a distinction in principle between football and other sports. It is also a questionable claim, especially since there are a fair number of universities and colleges that do not have a football team while nevertheless having a variety of intercollegiate sports. Georgetown University and Gonzaga are two D1 level schools that immediately come to mind. 

 

As to point number two, it is without a doubt true that football players go through a lot to get to the point where they can compete in college. I am not sure why you think that this is unique to football, however. Maybe you are thinking about the brain trauma that they risk, if not inevitably incur, which is a matter of grave concern. Maybe the only other sport where the risk is as great (or greater) is boxing. Even so, other sports (such as soccer) also entail this risk. And, more to the central question, it is not clear to me that this risk constitutes a reason for putting football in a different category than other sports when the question is number of opportunities for individual student-athletes to compete at the intercollegiate level.

 

Regarding the risk that football players face, it has made me -- an avid fan from a young age -- feel somewhat guilty about my interest in the game, just not guilty enough to stop being a fan. More importantly, it could be the reason we ultimately see the end of the sport as a major athletic competition. Perhaps some adjustments to the rules or improvements in the gear can keep it going, but there is a real possibility that fewer people will play, which will likely lead to a drop in the skill level and probably decreased interest from fans. So, in the long run (and perhaps sooner than we think) it may cease to be the cash cow it now is. I suppose this debate would then become moot.

 

Finally, I am not sure how supporting a principle that insists on fair treatment of both women and men is jumping "on the women's band wagon." But if that's what it is, I suppose I am guilty as charged.

"Limiting" the football injury concerns to the brain only is not entirely fair. Although it is the most concerning, if you ask former players about their football careers, even those that do not make it to the college level. almost everyone has had some form of injury that effects them throughout their life. I don't think too many volleyball players can make the same claim. The risk of injury in any sport is always present, but nothing like football, regardless of your downplaying the reality by interchanging the sports injury comparisons. 

 

Whether it puts football in another class or not goes way beyond our powers to make changes. But it does enter into the equation a reality that without football all sports programs will change dramatically. And with it the dynamics of their future.

 

The "goose" won't be appreciated until it is killed off. Just because a few schools have additional programs without football, (I don't have information just how many they do have) doesn't mean that it is possible for the majority to fund them without it. Yes I know Pepperdine has a baseball program and additionally other small time programs that have a hard time competing. The same could be said that a couple of women played football by being a kicker in high school so women are capable of playing football. Anything is possible in small doses. But reality is reality.



#57 gator67

gator67

    Senior Gator

  • Members
  • 290 posts

Posted 12 July 2017 - 07:04 AM

"Limiting" the football injury concerns to the brain only is not entirely fair. Although it is the most concerning, if you ask former players about their football careers, even those that do not make it to the college level. almost everyone has had some form of injury that effects them throughout their life. I don't think too many volleyball players can make the same claim. The risk of injury in any sport is always present, but nothing like football, regardless of your downplaying the reality by interchanging the sports injury comparisons. 

 

Whether it puts football in another class or not goes way beyond our powers to make changes. But it does enter into the equation a reality that without football all sports programs will change dramatically. And with it the dynamics of their future.

 

The "goose" won't be appreciated until it is killed off. Just because a few schools have additional programs without football, (I don't have information just how many they do have) doesn't mean that it is possible for the majority to fund them without it. Yes I know Pepperdine has a baseball program and additionally other small time programs that have a hard time competing. The same could be said that a couple of women played football by being a kicker in high school so women are capable of playing football. Anything is possible in small doses. But reality is reality.

I agree that football is higher risk than most sports but remain unconvinced that this puts it in a different category with respect to the issue at hand. I also agree that at some schools, such as those with D1 football teams that benefit from television contracts, football makes a financial contribution to the overall sports program. This makes it advantageous, from a particular practical point of  view, for those schools to have football teams, but this still does not make football different in principle. The question is whether the principle at stake is less important than such financial considerations. For me, it is not. (There are different considerations, as well, that might lead some to think schools would be better off without the football team. For example, large football programs sometimes have questionable influences on the academics of an institution, as pressures mount to compromise academic integrity for the sake of the team. This problem concerns me, but not to the point that I would want to see the end of college football. I'm a hardcore fan and readily admit that this prejudices me. I do think, however, that it is possible to have football and academic quality at the same time. Perhaps that is more of a hope than a firm conviction.)

 

There are actually many universities and colleges that either do not have a football program or have one that does not make money. Most of them also have intercollegiate athletic programs. I'm sure that they generally have to operate without the funding that schools such as UF can provide, in part due to football and in part due to relative size of the school. But they nevertheless do exist. 

 

It is easy to forget that a university's reason for existence is education, not providing sports for the entertainment of its fans or the benefit of athletes who hope to reach the professional level in their sport. This is one of the reasons that the principle underlying Title IX is more important than practical considerations, including financial. One cannot avoid such considerations, to be sure, but the fundamental purpose of the institution guides how it should address them.


  • GatorUrf10 likes this

#58 vulcan_alex

vulcan_alex

    Bull Gator

  • Members
  • 9,560 posts

Posted 12 July 2017 - 03:31 PM

By the way, from my perspective, vulcan_alex and I had a civil disagreement, which I appreciated. We ultimately have to agree to disagree, it appears, but I appreciate the way he engaged my arguments and offered some thoughtful points of his own.

 

Thanks for the compliment, I too see it the same, we might disagree but we should not be disagreeable.

 

Calling names, etc. is not appropriate any time, but if I get disrespect I generally send it back.

 

My modification of a famous quote goes like this

 

Don't get mad, get ahead, get way ahead because getting even is not educational.

 

I prefer logic, but my handle indicates that like Vulcans (they are not real), I have a very emotional nature that I try to keep under control through logic.  Not as well as their fictional race is said to do most times.


  • gator67 likes this
I am a "Vulcan" and try hard to keep things logical and without emotion. However as a "Vulcan" I have a highly emotional reaction mode for special occasions.
UF 1973 Physics
Miami Carol City
Financial Planning / Quality
Tn




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users