PDA

View Full Version : Lack of Men's Tennis teams?


BigBUBBA
02-15-2009, 07:42 AM
I have noticed that many succesful schools only have women's tennis teams...it's kind of upsetting. Confrence USA, which houses most of my favorite teams, has only 6 or 7 men's teams-Marshall, UTEP, Houston, North Texas, Syracuse, Bowling Green, and that's just to name a few. Does anyone know why this is? Is it because women get more scholarships?

~Bubbs

jbetti
02-15-2009, 08:07 AM
Title 9 states that universities must have (or work towards) an appropriate percentage of athletic scholarships and money put towards women's sports based on the enrollment on the school. Syracuse, for example, is about 60% female, so they actually need to have MORE scholarships for women than men. Plus, football requires about 70 scholarships or more, so you need to have several women's sports without a men's equivalent to balance that out.

Some schools still manage to have quite a few men's sports by just giving the men fewer scholarships than women. For example, maybe the baseball team only has 7 guys on scholarship while the softball team has 15 girls on scholarship. Women's tennis teams almost always have more scholarships to go around than men's team. Schools often choose not to do too much of this, because they need to balance the benefit of having a sport versus the literal cost of funding the team plus the knowledge that you may get your butt kicked if you don't have many scholarships to allocate toward that team.

And as an Orange alum, Syracuse isn't C-USA, they're Big East. And their women's tennis team (I used to be a male hitting partner for them) is now 6-0. :-)

They do have an awfully good college club team (men and women), though.

BigBUBBA
02-15-2009, 08:30 AM
Title 9 states that universities must have (or work towards) an appropriate percentage of athletic scholarships and money put towards women's sports based on the enrollment on the school. Syracuse, for example, is about 60% female, so they actually need to have MORE scholarships for women than men. Plus, football requires about 70 scholarships or more, so you need to have several women's sports without a men's equivalent to balance that out.

Some schools still manage to have quite a few men's sports by just giving the men fewer scholarships than women. For example, maybe the baseball team only has 7 guys on scholarship while the softball team has 15 girls on scholarship. Women's tennis teams almost always have more scholarships to go around than men's team. Schools often choose not to do too much of this, because they need to balance the benefit of having a sport versus the literal cost of funding the team plus the knowledge that you may get your butt kicked if you don't have many scholarships to allocate toward that team.

And as an Orange alum, Syracuse isn't C-USA, they're Big East. And their women's tennis team (I used to be a male hitting partner for them) is now 6-0. :-)

They do have an awfully good college club team (men and women), though.

Thanks for the response!
Oh yeah, and I know Syracuse isn't C-USA, just giving more examples. Neither is Bowling Green or North Texas...sorry for the confusion.

~Bubbs

Rob_C
02-15-2009, 07:55 PM
Title 9 states that universities must have (or work towards) an appropriate percentage of athletic scholarships and money put towards women's sports based on the enrollment on the school. Syracuse, for example, is about 60% female, so they actually need to have MORE scholarships for women than men. Plus, football requires about 70 scholarships or more, so you need to have several women's sports without a men's equivalent to balance that out.

Some schools still manage to have quite a few men's sports by just giving the men fewer scholarships than women. For example, maybe the baseball team only has 7 guys on scholarship while the softball team has 15 girls on scholarship. Women's tennis teams almost always have more scholarships to go around than men's team. Schools often choose not to do too much of this, because they need to balance the benefit of having a sport versus the literal cost of funding the team plus the knowledge that you may get your butt kicked if you don't have many scholarships to allocate toward that team.

And as an Orange alum, Syracuse isn't C-USA, they're Big East. And their women's tennis team (I used to be a male hitting partner for them) is now 6-0. :-)

They do have an awfully good college club team (men and women), though.

Hey, I tried to send u an email but I guess u have it disabled. Can u send me an email thru my profile? I have a question for u.

heartman
02-16-2009, 10:22 AM
Gotta be Title IX accomodation. Men's tennis gets cut - Women's tennis remains. Gotta' be Title IX. Adherence to policy, and the men pay the price. What's good about that? Equal opportunity? Poop - stinky poop.

Title IX should be deep VI'd.

jbetti
02-16-2009, 12:26 PM
Hey, I tried to send u an email but I guess u have it disabled. Can u send me an email thru my profile? I have a question for u.

My e-mail is justin.betti@gmail.com.

stapletonj
02-15-2010, 04:49 AM
Much as I hate to say it and much as I wish it were not so,
Marshall has not had a men's tennis team in about 30 years.

And since we have a Div I football team, Title 9 has pretty much killed any idea of having a men's tennis team in the foreseeable future.

In the mid to late 80s they started the women's team.
Pitiful for a long while (3.5 middle age men were beating the lower women in practice matches) and then John Mercer and his wife came along as co coaches.
We have had a couple All Americans and our doubles team made the national finals a few years ago.

This year we are doing quite well. We are undefeated (8-0) and beat #56 Virignia Tech on our home courts Saturday and beat #31 Kentucky on their home courts last week (6-1?). Apparantly we are still ranked lower than both teams..........oh well

Mister Goulash
02-15-2010, 05:11 AM
bleleding heart liberal feminists are to blame

TennisCoachFLA
02-15-2010, 05:22 AM
I always have to laugh when us middle and upper middle class white guys find something like this to complain about. Yes, it is somewhat unfair.

Just like white guys from Princeton only hiring other white guys from Princeton is unfair. Just like nepotism and the good old boys network is unfair. Just like women getting paid less for doing the exact same job as men in many cases is unfair. Just like the star athlete getting away with all sorts of garbage in school is unfair. And about 2000000 other unfair things.

But I would say all and all the middle to upper middle class white guys have a pretty nice deal overall on the unfairness spectrum. The problem of them not having as many tennis teams is pretty far down on the priority list of unfair things we need to fix.

ClarkC
02-15-2010, 06:22 AM
Just like women getting paid less for doing the exact same job as men in many cases is unfair.

Urban mythology. Best not to spread untruths.

EP1998
02-15-2010, 06:22 AM
Yay to tennis coach FLA for a great post.

Also, from the school point of view tennis just isnt a big sport for men compared to other sports. I know this for a 100 percent fact backed up by a lot of personal experience. They'd rather spend the money on football, baseball, basketball etc..

ClarkC
02-15-2010, 06:25 AM
Also, from the school point of view tennis just isnt a big sport for men compared to other sports. I know this for a 100 percent fact backed up by a lot of personal experience. They'd rather spend the money on football, baseball, basketball etc..

So, from the school point of view, is women's tennis a big sport? Is that why there are so many schools with women's teams and no men's team? Lots of fan and alumni interest for women's tennis at the same school that has little interest for men's tennis?

EP1998
02-17-2010, 01:48 PM
So, from the school point of view, is women's tennis a big sport? Is that why there are so many schools with women's teams and no men's team? Lots of fan and alumni interest for women's tennis at the same school that has little interest for men's tennis?

No, women's tennis isn't a big sport either. But I dont think any of the women's sports are, so there is less pressure to divert the money elsewhere.

Delano
02-17-2010, 02:58 PM
I always have to laugh when us middle and upper middle class white guys find something like this to complain about. Yes, it is somewhat unfair.

Just like white guys from Princeton only hiring other white guys from Princeton is unfair. Just like nepotism and the good old boys network is unfair. Just like women getting paid less for doing the exact same job as men in many cases is unfair. Just like the star athlete getting away with all sorts of garbage in school is unfair. And about 2000000 other unfair things.

But I would say all and all the middle to upper middle class white guys have a pretty nice deal overall on the unfairness spectrum. The problem of them not having as many tennis teams is pretty far down on the priority list of unfair things we need to fix.

I'm not quite as enthusiastic about your dismissal of these complaints as BridgetJones. Keep in mind that women have greatly outpaced men recently in college enrollment, are a clear majority on college campuses, and are closing the gap in sports as well. I'm delighted that women are doing so well, but nobody is going into dance classes, art classes, student government, music groups, and so forth (which generally have more women than men) and saying that they have to be gender balanced. I'm not as convinced as you are that high school and college aged men are an advantaged group relative to women of the same age. Things are actually looking pretty bleak.

I'd encourage you to read a bit more about the crisis of boys in schools... here's a good link

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200005/war-against-boys

You don't have to agree, of course, but I do urge you to read it and consider the arguments.


Sports participation is one bright spot in an otherwise pretty bleak picture for boys, but it's the only one that is regulated with such a heavy hand to ensure gender parity. Sure, if you only look at upper middle class white guys, you're not going to see the bleakness, but these are the people who suffer the very least when sports scholarships are cut. Rich white guys don't need scholarships to afford college or tennis. To me, you're essentially saying that you don't mind cutting one way for a poor inner city kid to afford college because rich white guys would be fine without it.

EP1998
02-18-2010, 06:58 AM
Interesting article but you do realize that rich white guys are getting the tennis scholarships, right? I am trying to come up with one, just one, "inner city" kid who has a tennis scholarship. Can you name any? I don't know of any. I certainly know plenty of boys whose parents welcomed and needed the additional tuition help, but that is not inner city by any strech. Those boys had parents who had enough cash (and usually two parents) to get to the tournaments week in and week out. You need those tournament wins to get a scholarship. I don't think inner city boys have much of a chance of playing college tennis whether programs are cut or not. If you think that then you do not know much about tennis. Tennis is way too expensive for anyone in the inner city to pursue. Maybe if you're really lucky someone will notice you but the chance of that is about same as winning lotto. And even then the USTA may put up any roadblock they can because they traditionally have wanted certain kinds of kids representing American tennis. Hopefully that has changed, but who knows. In any case, I think everyone wants all kids to succeed and have opportunities.

Delano
02-18-2010, 07:35 AM
Interesting article but you do realize that rich white guys are getting the tennis scholarships, right? I am trying to come up with one, just one, "inner city" kid who has a tennis scholarship. Can you name any? I don't know of any. I certainly know plenty of boys whose parents welcomed and needed the additional tuition help, but that is not inner city by any strech. Those boys had parents who had enough cash (and usually two parents) to get to the tournaments week in and week out. You need those tournament wins to get a scholarship. I don't think inner city boys have much of a chance of playing college tennis whether programs are cut or not. If you think that then you do not know much about tennis. Tennis is way too expensive for anyone in the inner city to pursue. Maybe if you're really lucky someone will notice you but the chance of that is about same as winning lotto. And even then the USTA may put up any roadblock they can because they traditionally have wanted certain kinds of kids representing American tennis. Hopefully that has changed, but who knows. In any case, I think everyone wants all kids to succeed and have opportunities.

I agree with you that inner city boys are unlikely to play tennis (actually, my impression from what I've read is that Americans in general are increasingly unlikely to get college scholarships). Please do re-read my post, though - my objection is that focusing on tennis scholarships at universities (ie., depriving the "rich white guys" of scholarships) paints a very misleading picture of the elimination of sports scholarships.

Here's the quote from the atlantic article that I think represents my position:

"Data from the U.S. Department of Education and from several recent university studies show that far from being shy and demoralized, today's girls outshine boys. They get better grades. They have higher educational aspirations. They follow more-rigorous academic programs and participate in advanced-placement classes at higher rates. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, slightly more girls than boys enroll in high-level math and science courses. Girls, allegedly timorous and lacking in confidence, now outnumber boys in student government, in honor societies, on school newspapers, and in debating clubs. Only in sports are boys ahead, and women's groups are targeting the sports gap with a vengeance."

I don't like to hear people say "oh, this is just a bunch of rich white guys complaining about tennis scholarships that they don't need in the first place."

I'm actually not as about title IX as some people, because I do understand the historical context. Women's sports were belittled, and I think that if you come from this generation, you feel that title IX was a kind of saviour, because it gave universities and other organizations no choice but to start treating women equally, and I think a lot of people would say "I'm sorry it took such a heavy hand, but sometimes that's what it takes to create change." They'd also say, well, get rid of football, then, and you'll have no trouble funding all those men's sports. Trust me, I get it.

I think that a lot of resentment now comes from young men who grew up in an environment that reflects that passage I posted above. They see their sports cut, and they wonder (reasonably, in my opinion) why a policy so aggressively enforces gender equity in sports when women are such a clear majority in so many other college activities. It does seem like the policy says "gender equity is bad and must be stopped, unless the inequity favors women."

Anyway, my main point is that we should not dismiss complaints regarding cuts to men's scholarships as "upper middle class white guys" complaining about tennis.

andfor
02-18-2010, 09:46 AM
Interesting article but you do realize that rich white guys are getting the tennis scholarships, right? I am trying to come up with one, just one, "inner city" kid who has a tennis scholarship. Can you name any? I don't know of any. I certainly know plenty of boys whose parents welcomed and needed the additional tuition help, but that is not inner city by any strech. Those boys had parents who had enough cash (and usually two parents) to get to the tournaments week in and week out. You need those tournament wins to get a scholarship. I don't think inner city boys have much of a chance of playing college tennis whether programs are cut or not. If you think that then you do not know much about tennis. Tennis is way too expensive for anyone in the inner city to pursue. Maybe if you're really lucky someone will notice you but the chance of that is about same as winning lotto. And even then the USTA may put up any roadblock they can because they traditionally have wanted certain kinds of kids representing American tennis. Hopefully that has changed, but who knows. In any case, I think everyone wants all kids to succeed and have opportunities.

The USTA does have programs and grants money promoting and subsidizing diversity & inner-city tennis programs for youth. http://www.usta.com/USTA/Home/AboutUs/AwardsandGrants.aspx

cll30
02-20-2010, 07:09 AM
Title 9 states that universities must have (or work towards) an appropriate percentage of athletic scholarships and money put towards women's sports based on the enrollment on the school. Syracuse, for example, is about 60% female, so they actually need to have MORE scholarships for women than men. Plus, football requires about 70 scholarships or more, so you need to have several women's sports without a men's equivalent to balance that out.

I thought football was exempt and didn't count against men for Title IX purposes.

MIGHTY MANFRED THE WONDER
02-20-2010, 09:12 AM
It is not as simple as blaming "Title IX" off hand, nor is it just minor sports taking a hit-
Like it was posted earlier-You will have bigger fish to fry than Men's tennis disappearing soon enough; Continue to hold your chin up to the demeaning, idiotic PC world upside down and take your beating, as that is what your new role in the scheme of things is... (along with carrying a hankerchief, a pocket knife, and honoring your word).

When you see your local University's Women's water polo team fly off to all points in the nation in search, (Ahab-like), of another team to play, remind yourself once again about what unintended consequences and federal governement really means to you- then get on getting on.....

EP1998
02-20-2010, 10:09 AM
The USTA does have programs and grants money promoting and subsidizing diversity & inner-city tennis programs for youth. http://www.usta.com/USTA/Home/AboutUs/AwardsandGrants.aspx

Thanks for posting. Interesting thing about some of those is that results in the form of a national ranking are required for consideration. So the parents have already had to have the funds to get their child to the tournaments that count for a national ranking.

MIGHTY MANFRED THE WONDER
02-20-2010, 02:49 PM
The only interesting thing is just what lengths the USTA will pander and make token nods concerning a systemically expensive, white dominated sport.

ClarkC
02-20-2010, 05:10 PM
I thought football was exempt and didn't count against men for Title IX purposes.

In that case, your thinking was wrong. There would be near-zero controversy over Title IX if this were the case, even though Title IX would still be inequitable.

andfor
02-21-2010, 09:27 AM
Thanks for posting. Interesting thing about some of those is that results in the form of a national ranking are required for consideration. So the parents have already had to have the funds to get their child to the tournaments that count for a national ranking.

In your post you said "some". I hope your read and trust you understood the rest of the grants. Your not wanting the USTA to send scouts to the inner-city to pluck kids off from places like pick-up basketball games and turn them into tennis players are you? What ever your intentions are kids are going to gravitate to play sports that the see on TV the most and have the most publicized stars. Manford makes good points about this and the inherent high cost to train world class tennis players and for that matter a very good junior tennis player.

Maybe some of the $68 billion unspent stimulus money is available to deveop tennis players.

stapletonj
05-23-2010, 06:18 AM
yes, INSTITUTIONALIZED, FEDERALLY MANDATED gender INEQUALITY is in fact disturbing.

Revenue producing sports are NOT exempt from the title IX requirements.

A young friend I coached in the 80s in rural WV, went on to get a tennis scholarship in GA, So I have first hand knowledge of this issue. He was NOT the product of a "rich white family" and indeed came from a broken home.

It's this simple, "injustices" of more than 50 years ago (ESPECIALLY where the "victims" of the injustice were largely compensated by the system - yes women made less, but they usually/often were married to men who made more and therefore indirectly benefitting from the "injustice", unlike blacks, etc.) are largely economically unrelated to present economic realities.

Students (customers/consumers) largely do NOT enroll at this or that school because of the women's softball team. (to the extent that sports teams play a factor in school choice). They enroll at the school with the best football and bball programs. period.

Yes, TN gets a decent crowd out for women's bball, UConn too, LA Tech a few times back in the day. Now compare that to Men's sports of schools with similar dominaton, etc. It's not remeotely close. - Kentucky basketball. FLorida football. OSU football. Duke basketball.

The men's sports and teams above are HUGE revenue producers for the schools. Let the schools decide where their money is best spent.

TheOC
05-29-2010, 10:28 PM
Not only has Title IX cut down on men's programs, there is also an increasing trend of men's teams consisting of mainly foreign players. The D1 school which I currently attend has a men's team of 12 players, 8 of which now are foreign. The men's coach spends significant amount of money and resources to recruit internationally.

Issue #1: Many of these international guys are coming in at age 23+ as freshman. Why? Because they had been playing in pro circuits outside the U.S. that aren't very regulated and the NCAA doesn't really check pro status outside of the ATP. So after being a failure as a pro tennis player, they figure they might as well go get a good education through the use of their tennis abilities and take away scholarships that could be given to citizens of this country.

Issue #2: Several of these international recruits are not necessarily that good. For example, there are several guys here at my school including myself who are former local or in-state junior players that were top 20 or 30 in our section, however did not get recruited by D1 schools or chose not to attend the schools at which we were recruited by. I attended this school with the intention to try to walk on to the men's team, however was denied the chance to tryout despite beating several guys from the varsity men's team in a local open tournament during the summer. Clearly the man who was #1 in Taiwan with a decent ITF ranking must be better than a top 20 player from the section, despite losing to him 2 and 1. The coach is just too stubborn to admit that a local player who wants to walk onto the team is better than a guy he spent tons of money recruiting overseas. Keep in mind this is also a public state school, which is supported through our tax dollars.

Issue #3: The NCAA is an abbreviation for National Collegiate Athletic Association. Shouldn't it be meant to develop national talent? Especially at in-state institutions that were created with the intention to educate the people of THIS COUNTRY? There is a reason why the United States is not as much of a power in the tennis world as it used to be. We only have one player now in the top 10 ATP rankings, Roddick; whereas in the past some of the best players of all time have been American: Sampras, Agassi, Connors, McEnroe, Chang, etc. We haven't been able to develop much talent within the past decade or so, and that trend of men's college teams to become dominated by foreign players has had an effect on that.

Now, this is not to say non-Americans don't have a right to compete in tennis especially at the pro level or other international events, however the NCAA's, an American institution should be a platform for which American's should compete on. Foreign countries should develop their own talent, we shouldn't be developing theirs.

ClarkC
05-31-2010, 06:38 AM
Not only has Title IX cut down on men's programs, there is also an increasing trend of men's teams consisting of mainly foreign players. The D1 school which I currently attend has a men's team of 12 players, 8 of which now are foreign. The men's coach spends significant amount of money and resources to recruit internationally.

Issue #1: Many of these international guys are coming in at age 23+ as freshman. Why? Because they had been playing in pro circuits outside the U.S. that aren't very regulated and the NCAA doesn't really check pro status outside of the ATP. So after being a failure as a pro tennis player, they figure they might as well go get a good education through the use of their tennis abilities and take away scholarships that could be given to citizens of this country.



In that case, they do not have 4 years of eligibility and are not really freshmen.

If you doubt me, please cite the NCAA Division I players who entered at age 23 and then played 4 years.

raiden031
05-31-2010, 06:59 AM
I think its absurd that even though males generally have more interest in sports than females, that is a problem to some who think we need to correct this by restricting males from playing sports because there aren't enough females playing sports.

Next there will be limitations on how many men are allowed to major in Math and Science fields because there aren't enough women interested in those majors.

anchorsteamer
05-31-2010, 09:40 AM
More title 9 fun:

Womens tennis scholarships (fully funded school): 8 scholarships

Mens tennis scholariships (fully funded school): 4.5 scholarships

The school I went to had 8 girls on full scholarship. The 7th girl played doubles and the 8th girl never played a match (despite being healthy) the entire spring. She was on a full scholarship...crazy crazy system. Equality among sports makes sense...throw out foortball and give the mens and womens team 6 scholarships each...and if not...put your daughters in tennis, as it really isn't very tough to get a scholarship as a girl...

TennisCoachFLA
05-31-2010, 09:56 AM
Ha, this always cracks me up. Wahhhh, upper middle class white guys complaining about the only unfair thing they can find. Big deal, women have a better deal in college tennis.

How about white guys getting paid much more for the same jobs as women and minorities? How about white guys controlling most large companies? How about white guys hiring mostly other white guys as they have done for centuries?

Give me a break. There are about 10 million inequalities in the world to fix before worrying about the college tennis thing.

raiden031
05-31-2010, 12:53 PM
Ha, this always cracks me up. Wahhhh, upper middle class white guys complaining about the only unfair thing they can find. Big deal, women have a better deal in college tennis.

How about white guys getting paid much more for the same jobs as women and minorities? How about white guys controlling most large companies? How about white guys hiring mostly other white guys as they have done for centuries?

Give me a break. There are about 10 million inequalities in the world to fix before worrying about the college tennis thing.

There are more female nurses than male. I guess that is due to discrimination against men? How else can you explain it? :roll:

anchorsteamer
05-31-2010, 01:49 PM
Ha, this always cracks me up. Wahhhh, upper middle class white guys complaining about the only unfair thing they can find. Big deal, women have a better deal in college tennis.

How about white guys getting paid much more for the same jobs as women and minorities? How about white guys controlling most large companies? How about white guys hiring mostly other white guys as they have done for centuries?

Give me a break. There are about 10 million inequalities in the world to fix before worrying about the college tennis thing.

So your justifying inequality...with inequality? Interesting. You act like I've searched around from position of superiority and privelage and found the only thing I can to complain about. What a ridiculous and juvenile assertion and line of thinking. Title 9 is ridiculous and unfair...your rant is both irrelevant and dumb.

cll30
05-31-2010, 03:48 PM
Interesting link (number of scholarships per NCAA sport)

http://www.hsbaseballweb.com/scholarships_by_sport.htm

ClarkC
05-31-2010, 06:12 PM
How about white guys getting paid much more for the same jobs as women and minorities?

This is a lie. Why do you keep repeating it? When you consider all factors, including number of years in the work force, men do not make more than women in the exact same job. In fact, there are statistics that show women making more than men in the exact same job, and women getting slightly higher starting pay out of college than men in many fields.

raiden031
05-31-2010, 06:45 PM
This is a lie. Why do you keep repeating it? When you consider all factors, including number of years in the work force, men do not make more than women in the exact same job. In fact, there are statistics that show women making more than men in the exact same job, and women getting slightly higher starting pay out of college than men in many fields.

Fact: Women generally make 76 cents to the dollar when compared to a man.
Femin@zi Fiction: Women generally make 76 cents to the dollar for the exact same job when compared to a man.

It makes sense that women make less because 1) they traditionally choose professions that pay less like nursing, teaching, etc. where men traditionally choose professions that pay more, and 2) women are more likely to take time off to raise children, which inhibits them from increasing their skillset, networking in the workforce, and gaining years of experience.

One example is that in the Tennis grand slam events, women make more money than men. If you equate the number of hours spent training and competing, the men have to spend more time because they must train to endure 5-setters unlike the women, and must also actually compete in these 5-setters. Yet despite all this they get the same paycheck at the end of the day.

West Coast Ace
06-13-2010, 11:59 AM
Ha, this always cracks me up. Wahhhh, upper middle class white guys complaining about the only unfair thing they can find.... There are about 10 million inequalities in the world to fix before worrying about the college tennis thing.On page one you said they were 'rich'; now they're 'upper middle class' - boy the economy must have really gotten a lot worse in 3 month! LOL!

And this is a tennis board - we talk about tennis. No one said this was the most important world issue.

So your justifying inequality...with inequality?That's what Liberals/Socialists do. Makes them feel good about themselves. Great Spenders of Other People's Money.


Femin@zi Fiction: Women generally make 76 cents to the dollar for the exact same job when compared to a man.

It makes sense that women make less because 1) they traditionally choose professions that pay less like nursing, teaching, etc. where men traditionally choose professions that pay more, and 2) women are more likely to take time off to raise children, which inhibits them from increasing their skillset, networking in the workforce, and gaining years of experience.
Well said.

onehandbh
06-13-2010, 12:50 PM
It makes sense that women make less because 1) they traditionally choose professions that pay less like nursing, teaching, etc. where men traditionally choose professions that pay more, and 2) women are more likely to take time off to raise children, which inhibits them from increasing their skillset, networking in the workforce, and gaining years of experience.


But men also have more heart attacks and tend to not go to
the doctor until it's too late. This might increase the costs.
Men are also more likely to get a sexual harrassment suit
filed against them. Should these factors be included in the
pay calculations as well? How about less healthy employees
vs healthier ones that won't use sick leave as much. Should
the healthier ones make more?

Autodidactic player
06-13-2010, 02:10 PM
I always have to laugh when us middle and upper middle class white guys find something like this to complain about. Yes, it is somewhat unfair.

Just like white guys from Princeton only hiring other white guys from Princeton is unfair. Just like nepotism and the good old boys network is unfair. Just like women getting paid less for doing the exact same job as men in many cases is unfair. Just like the star athlete getting away with all sorts of garbage in school is unfair. And about 2000000 other unfair things.

But I would say all and all the middle to upper middle class white guys have a pretty nice deal overall on the unfairness spectrum. The problem of them not having as many tennis teams is pretty far down on the priority list of unfair things we need to fix.

While I generally agree with the sentiment of this post, it is important to remember that all the instances of unfairness mentioned in this post are caused by individual biases or other individual shortcomings. In fact, in all of these instances society generally frowns on this type of unfairness and governments attempt to create laws designed to prohibit this type of conduct. The unfairness created by Title IX is just the opposite because the bias against men playing any sport other than football is mandated by federal law.

bpp
06-13-2010, 04:52 PM
Fact: Women generally make 76 cents to the dollar when compared to a man.
Femin@zi Fiction: Women generally make 76 cents to the dollar for the exact same job when compared to a man.

It makes sense that women make less because 1) they traditionally choose professions that pay less like nursing, teaching, etc. where men traditionally choose professions that pay more, and 2) women are more likely to take time off to raise children, which inhibits them from increasing their skillset, networking in the workforce, and gaining years of experience.


Good post. Anecdotally, at every job I have had, it has been men mostly that had the extreme talent/skills/ work ethic. I rarely if ever saw women long after hours or during the weekends. This isn't a knock on women as they are leading a more balanced life (especially taking care of the family). I think the women did a good job at the places I have worked but once the schedule was up, they were out of the office. I know many guys where their career was their life (which could be a bad thing but certainly they should be rewarded for their work).

I am all about girls getting the same scholarships as men. The problem is girls arent as into sports as most guys. Why not make up scholarship difference in subjects females are more interested (performing arts, dance, etc.)? For many schools, the female cheerleaders/dance team dont count against Title IX because its not considered a competitive sport.

Anyways, I know two cases where girls got athletic scholarships for sports they HAD NEVER PLAYED. One was water polo scholarship (girl swam competitively beforehand) and another got a rowing scholarship based purely on the size of her frame. I doubt there are many guys on athletic scholarship that have put less than 1000 hours training and many young boys who have that have put that type of training in and have no chance at any scholarship.

SirSweetSpot
06-21-2010, 09:54 AM
What I don't understand is how softball players can get all these scholarships and tennis players, with more talent in their pinky fingers, get the shaft.

Softball is a ridiculous sport with a bunch of no-talent scholly stealing dummies.

jamison85
06-28-2010, 01:52 PM
Some of the division 2 colleges wbere i live dont have tennis programs. it sucks

polski
07-06-2010, 09:35 AM
What I don't understand is how softball players can get all these scholarships and tennis players, with more talent in their pinky fingers, get the shaft.

Softball is a ridiculous sport with a bunch of no-talent scholly stealing dummies.

I'm not a softball fan, but this is just a crazy statement. Softball at a high level is just as competitive as tennis at a high level. And I assume (I have done no fact checking) that NCAA attendance at softball games is far more than at tennis matches.

Frankly, softball is a great cross training activity for junior tennis players. Swing is nearly the same as a forehand (tennis BH can even teach softball switch-hitting). Throwing is nearly the same as service motion when done properly.

The only thing that tennis has over softball is cardio conditioning in match situations. Good softball teams condition just as hard as tennis teams, but clearly a tennis match is more cardio-intense than a softball game.

polski
07-06-2010, 09:48 AM
More title 9 fun:

Womens tennis scholarships (fully funded school): 8 scholarships

Mens tennis scholariships (fully funded school): 4.5 scholarships

The school I went to had 8 girls on full scholarship. The 7th girl played doubles and the 8th girl never played a match (despite being healthy) the entire spring. She was on a full scholarship...crazy crazy system. Equality among sports makes sense...throw out foortball and give the mens and womens team 6 scholarships each...and if not...put your daughters in tennis, as it really isn't very tough to get a scholarship as a girl...

I definately agree with this. Fully funded men's programs should have 6 fulls (or maybe 7) & women the same. The NCAA does that in m&w basketball, but for some reason tennis is treated differently. If it's the same sport & the only difference is an X or Y chromosome, the scholarship availability should be the same. Leave it up to the schools to decide how many they can hand out to keep their Title IX compliance in check.

I also have issues with the amount of foreign players playing NCAA tennis. I think one of two things need to be done:

1) A player should not be able to start college sports if they are over 20. Period. Don't even mess with eligibility years being reduced. Sorry Chris Weinke fans.

2) All sports should have no more than 1/2 their roster consisting of non-US citizens.

It's a problem in tennis, volleyball, track, and basketball. If it were a problem in football, I bet rule #2 would already exist. We need to be providing opportunities to our citizens first, other's second. This isn't the pros, it's college.

Falloutjr
07-06-2010, 10:12 AM
Good post. Anecdotally, at every job I have had, it has been men mostly that had the extreme talent/skills/ work ethic. I rarely if ever saw women long after hours or during the weekends. This isn't a knock on women as they are leading a more balanced life (especially taking care of the family). I think the women did a good job at the places I have worked but once the schedule was up, they were out of the office. I know many guys where their career was their life (which could be a bad thing but certainly they should be rewarded for their work).

I am all about girls getting the same scholarships as men. The problem is girls arent as into sports as most guys. Why not make up scholarship difference in subjects females are more interested (performing arts, dance, etc.)? For many schools, the female cheerleaders/dance team dont count against Title IX because its not considered a competitive sport.

Anyways, I know two cases where girls got athletic scholarships for sports they HAD NEVER PLAYED. One was water polo scholarship (girl swam competitively beforehand) and another got a rowing scholarship based purely on the size of her frame. I doubt there are many guys on athletic scholarship that have put less than 1000 hours training and many young boys who have that have put that type of training in and have no chance at any scholarship.

Only situation I could see this happening is with a football player who is A BIG HWS (height-weight-speed guy), a person who is EXTREMELY fast in track (though there is not much to spints, if you're the fastest, you win) or a freakishly tall person getting a basketball scholarship. Non-football playing male athletes (like myself) really get screwed here because football at the highest level has I believe 83 full scholarships. That is a LOT when you consider that most schools only offer 9-11 varsity sports for both men and women and when you consider most sports are non-revenue sports (football is one that creates revenue, basketball at some schools and schools who are top 5 in the country in sports like soccer, hockey, and baseball probably generate a little bit). There should be an equal number of scholarships for non-revenue generating sports and let football and men's basketball not be a part of the equation because those sports create money for schools. 83 scholarships for one sport is outrageous! You have 3rd and 4th string guys on full ride who don't contribute much, if at all.

genius24
07-06-2010, 09:53 PM
I always have to laugh when us middle and upper middle class white guys find something like this to complain about. Yes, it is somewhat unfair.

Just like white guys from Princeton only hiring other white guys from Princeton is unfair. Just like nepotism and the good old boys network is unfair. Just like women getting paid less for doing the exact same job as men in many cases is unfair. Just like the star athlete getting away with all sorts of garbage in school is unfair. And about 2000000 other unfair things.

But I would say all and all the middle to upper middle class white guys have a pretty nice deal overall on the unfairness spectrum. The problem of them not having as many tennis teams is pretty far down on the priority list of unfair things we need to fix.

so to summarize this guys point in 1 sentence: life is not fair, but upper class white people don't get screwed as much as other people in life.

i take it your not white....

genius24
07-06-2010, 09:59 PM
also, that's why some schools give scholarships to many female tennis players while men's tennis gets no money at all in order to balance out all the football players who are getting full rides. how sad would it be of the girls #1 at a certain college could beat the #1 or #2 mens seed at the same school for the reason i stated above.....

Dawgie Dawg
02-07-2012, 10:11 AM
I find it odd that no Big 12 morth team has tennis. Or Arizona State, Oregon State or Washington State

Vicious Vik
02-07-2012, 01:32 PM
More title 9 fun:

Womens tennis scholarships (fully funded school): 8 scholarships

Mens tennis scholariships (fully funded school): 4.5 scholarships

The school I went to had 8 girls on full scholarship. The 7th girl played doubles and the 8th girl never played a match (despite being healthy) the entire spring. She was on a full scholarship...crazy crazy system. Equality among sports makes sense...throw out foortball and give the mens and womens team 6 scholarships each...and if not...put your daughters in tennis, as it really isn't very tough to get a scholarship as a girl...

It's a joke to think that the 8th player on a womens team who never plays gets more scholarship than an elite level men's player.

avengaar
02-21-2012, 09:18 AM
Yeah for some reason in college tennis is a women's sport. It's quickly fading from every school in the area. At my university I was the 8th player on the team got cut my freshman year while the women carried around 15 players. Now at my junior year the men's team has been cut completely and when the women have a decently sized conference there is no longer any remaining mens teams in the conference. I think give it time and men's tennis will fade at the collegiate level.