Backwards Title IX at it again

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

He said no such thing.

You inferred that was his meaning.

well, what other inference could there be? From what he said?

[Adam]

Trigger's just a cave man anyway. He is from Minnesota.

Seriously, while I can see how it could be read that way, I generally find it helpful to grant someone the benefit of the doubt in situations like this and assume they didn't mean it the way it came across.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Trigger's just a cave man anyway. He is from Minnesota.

Seriously, while I can see how it could be read that way, I generally find it helpful to grant someone the benefit of the doubt in situations like this and assume they didn't mean it the way it came across.

I guess I'm just missing the irascibility of our late, lamented JR, and so I had to get a little grumpy myself. I usually figure that when someone uses words like "prevent" and "promote" which aren't generally used as exaggerations, that they mean what they say. Silly me. But not as silly as the NCAA.

[Adam]

I think Trigger’s sentiment is bolstered by this quote from the article, “It also suggests the contention by coaches and players that men make women better players isn't, even if it's true, worth the cost of lost opportunity.”

Basically, they're saying that the added improvement isn’t worth it.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I think Trigger’s sentiment is bolstered by this quote from the article, “It also suggests the contention by coaches and players that men make women better players isn't, even if it's true, worth the cost of lost opportunity.”

Basically, they're saying that the added improvement isn’t worth it.

No, it's quite the opposite. The improvement that comes from male practice players is additional to other kinds of improvements. Trigger makes it sound as though there is no other way to improve.

[rainmaker]

Okay, I still think that my inference from Trigger's post was reasonable. But on the other hand, I really, really want that Slappy. Tough choice. If I admit that I was being overly-irascible and that I mis-read what Trigger was trying to say, can I have my little trophy with the diamond eyes? And still get credit for conducting an intelligent argument in the rest of the thread?

Huh? Huh? Can I, can I?

[Jimgolf]

The concern is the loss of spots on the team for women basketball players. If teams can use men scout team players, they don't have to carry 15 players on their roster. Some D1 women's teams are now carrying 12 or 13 on their roster, instead of the permitted 15.

But aren't they allowed only 12 scholarships? I may be wrong here, but I thought Title IX only mentioned equal number of scholarships for men and women, not equal numbers of walk-ons.

[Adam]

Trigger's just sore because his alma mater had to drop baseball.

Okay, I'm going to stop joking for a bit. Give Trigger a chance to answer your concern before you start imputing motives to his post. Maybe he thinks it's the only way to improve, or maybe he thinks it's the best way (obviously most coaches do). Either of those sentiments can be deduced by what he wrote. In these cases, charity is my preferred angle.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Trigger's just sore because his alma mater had to drop baseball.

Okay, I'm going to stop joking for a bit. Give Trigger a chance to answer your concern before you start imputing motives to his post. Maybe he thinks it's the only way to improve, or maybe he thinks it's the best way (obviously most coaches do). Either of those sentiments can be deduced by what he wrote. In these cases, charity is my preferred angle.

Sheez, Snaq's now you're hitting a little close to home. I know you know what that code means.

You're right, of course. And I am properly chastened. But please don't tell Dan. Fighting with him is the only thing that gets me up some days.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

well, what other inference could there be? From what he said?

You mean other than concluding his remark meant "using male practice players is the only possible way for a female athlete to improve"?

If the article he posted was about the NCAA banning the use of jump ropes manufactured in China (for whatever silly reason) would you be so fast to claim that Chinese jump ropes are the only way female athletes can improve?

[Rich]

When will we have to stop "making opportunities" like this? There are no shortages of female students on campus.

BTW, the only thing I saw while I was in college in the late 80s was the elimination of the men's swimming, diving, wrestling, tennis, golf, and cross-country teams. Go Title IX.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

BTW, the only thing I saw while I was in college in the late 80s was the elimination of the men's swimming, diving, wrestling, tennis, golf, and cross-country teams.

That's not all I saw. Just slightly more subversive, subtle, (and for some reason, not at all linked to the disappearance of men's minor sports in the general public's eyes,) and nearly universally viewed as completely acceptable was the beginning of exponentially raising men's head basketball and football coaches' salaries during that time - as well as the open non-enforcement and non-funding of this federal law by the President at the time (continuing the tradition set by his predecessor), up until 1989, after the succeeding President took office.

[Junker]

This is just a stupid idea. Players need competition to get better. If a college team needs to dip into the talent pool of the other sex to get competition that is more like what they'll see in a game, let them do it. Trigger and I played a lot of pickup hoops in college together (and I'm almost as mad for them dumping baseball) and rarely did we see women still playing. If the team needs the men for the competition, let them have it.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

You mean other than concluding his remark meant "using male practice players is the only possible way for a female athlete to improve"?

Yes, that's what I mean.

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

If the article he posted was about the NCAA banning the use of jump ropes manufactured in China (for whatever silly reason) would you be so fast to claim that Chinese jump ropes are the only way female athletes can improve?

But I'm claiming the opposite. That women can improve without male practice partners. I'm not saying male practice partners aren't a good way to improve, just that they're not the only way. And it sounds as though trigger thinks they are the only way.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

But I'm claiming the opposite. That women can improve without male practice partners.

And you're also inferring that trigger does not agree with this.

There's no basis for this inference.

(I'll leave alone the question of whether this practice tool used by the actual coaches has any value to them and what standing you or I have to agree or disagree with their professional opinion. We already agree the NCAA is being silly inserting themselves here.)