The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 17, 2006, 06:04am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Suwanee, GA
Posts: 64
Send a message via AIM to fastpitch Send a message via MSN to fastpitch
No need to start calling me names because I want equality in sports programs. As you stated it, equal funding for girls and boys programs. It is obvious that this is not the case when you throw in football. We've seen Title IX make its way through the courts, be challenged by the Executive Branch, be upheld in most cases and contribute greatly to womens' sports. In Georgia we did not even have softball fields for the girls before Title IX. Now athletic directors at high schools hide behind booster club money. I am not exaggerating when I say $10K for the softball field and $100k for the baseball field. No one challenges it because it will impact their daughter's ability to play at the school.

We started an annual tournament that raised $12K each of the last 2 years so now our softball field looks much better but still does not match the baseball facilities. The school loves this because they do have some limits to what they can spend on boys' sports versus girls. When you raise money for the girls they can spend more on the boys.

Athletic directors at each school administer their programs differently. What I am asking is why do we continue to pour excessive amounts of money into certain sports instead of expanding the sporting programs so that more children can participate. In our case, hockey and bicycling are school activities and not sports. There are so many sports that could be offered and so many more children would be involved in activities that keep them out of trouble.

Instead, everything is focused on the school football program. The baseball parents even complain of this. If your son is not a football player, he is second class and with schools in excess of 2,000 students not everyone can be a football star, or even a second or third string player.

It should be all about the kids and offering more opportunity. The more sports that are funded the more children participate. In our locale a lot of folks complain about the lack of skill in our rec leagues because of too many travel teams. I say, look at all these girls that are getting an opportunity to play and to play the positions they want to learn. Now if we could just get good coaches that could teach them.
__________________
Mike R Suwanee, GA
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 17, 2006, 06:40am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Title IX

http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 17, 2006, 09:02am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastpitch
No need to start calling me names because I want equality in sports programs. As you stated it, equal funding for girls and boys programs. It is obvious that this is not the case when you throw in football. We've seen Title IX make its way through the courts, be challenged by the Executive Branch, be upheld in most cases and contribute greatly to womens' sports. In Georgia we did not even have softball fields for the girls before Title IX. Now athletic directors at high schools hide behind booster club money. I am not exaggerating when I say $10K for the softball field and $100k for the baseball field. No one challenges it because it will impact their daughter's ability to play at the school.

We started an annual tournament that raised $12K each of the last 2 years so now our softball field looks much better but still does not match the baseball facilities. The school loves this because they do have some limits to what they can spend on boys' sports versus girls. When you raise money for the girls they can spend more on the boys.

Athletic directors at each school administer their programs differently. What I am asking is why do we continue to pour excessive amounts of money into certain sports instead of expanding the sporting programs so that more children can participate. In our case, hockey and bicycling are school activities and not sports. There are so many sports that could be offered and so many more children would be involved in activities that keep them out of trouble.

Instead, everything is focused on the school football program. The baseball parents even complain of this. If your son is not a football player, he is second class and with schools in excess of 2,000 students not everyone can be a football star, or even a second or third string player.

It should be all about the kids and offering more opportunity. The more sports that are funded the more children participate. In our locale a lot of folks complain about the lack of skill in our rec leagues because of too many travel teams. I say, look at all these girls that are getting an opportunity to play and to play the positions they want to learn. Now if we could just get good coaches that could teach them.
Now that we are totally off the subject of softball and talking about equality of sports funding……

I’m the father of 5 sons. #1 played baseball through HS; #2 was a football player; #3 played hockey; #4 didn’t play sports but became a certified SCUBA diver at age 10; & #5 played soccer & baseball.

Football had the big stadium. But charged admission to the games and sold lots of food to raise additional money + fund raising projects.

Baseball (and softball) had nice varsity fields but nothing on the scale of football but baseball didn’t bring as many fans out. Free to watch most of the games (playoffs weren’t free) but sold food + other fund raising projects.

Hockey was played at public rinks. Admission was charged (to cover some of the rink rental) and other fund raising projects.

Soccer was played on well mowed and lined fields, usually not on school property and survived mainly due to fund raising.

So which sport should I hate the most? Should I favor taking money from the football program and give it to the soccer program just because football earns more money because they put a couple thousand paying fans in the stadium each game? Maybe I should hate the softball program because they had a nice field and the hockey team had to rent public rinks....shouldn't the school have built their own ice rink? With that logic maybe a fry cook should earn as much as a doctor or a Hummer cost the same as a Ford Focus.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 17, 2006, 09:16am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
1) Please stop beating each other up and focus on officiating.

2) Asking for help should be a private conversation, and as said above, the question is whether the other official saw anything you didn't.

3) I can be good game management to be courteous enough to ask, even when you are "sure". I've been surprised a few times, which is why it should be private.

4) No one seems to have noticed the absolutely wrong part of the OP, the PU signalling an out on a BU call.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 17, 2006, 09:22am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Suwanee, GA
Posts: 64
Send a message via AIM to fastpitch Send a message via MSN to fastpitch
You are really kidding yourself if you think the price of admission covers the facilty costs of a football stadium, that would be your tax dollars. When a new high school is built, and we're building lots of them in our area there is always a football stadium with weight room and gymnasium ready to go then baseball then soccer, tennis, then softball. I think it is great all your boys are involved in sports. I am in favor of spreading the wealth. School sponsored scuba, hockey, cycling, etc. - challenge the status quo.

My son participated in baseball through 14U and my oldest daughter played softball up to 14U when she had more interest in academic clubs and swim team. My youngest daughters are playing their last season of 18U.
__________________
Mike R Suwanee, GA
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 17, 2006, 09:54am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Ump
Especially with the history of this thread, I am surprised at the tone of your answer. To me it comes across as smart a$$.
Take it however you want. It was simply asking the poster to back up his statement with something other than apocryphal stories or opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Ump
Have you read Title IX? .
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Ump
My understanding of Title IX is that it means equal funding for qirls and boys programs.
Incorrect. It mean equal opportunity. Opportunity does not equal funding. Nor does it mean equal facilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Ump
I do not believe it is limited to a sport-by-sport evaluation,
True, it is much broader than merely sports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Ump
but just that a school cannot budget money unfairly earmarked for one specific demographic.
You could read that into it, but "fair" does not mean "equal."
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Ump
..how 'booster club' money would affect this parity.
If the booster club is closely associated with the school's atheltic program, it is not separated out. What I was referring to was not booster club money, but (for example) Little League raising money to build dugouts on elementary school fields. That is separate, and does not obligate the school to spend tax-payer money to similarly upgrade the softball fields. I hope you can see how that would be very unfair to both the Little League and the taxpayers, since the end result of such a policy would likely be the LLs would not be allowed to improve the facilities for their use. Given the nutty courts these days, all this does not mean such a ruling will not be made (or maybe already has been made). But it is not in the law itself.
__________________
Tom

Last edited by Dakota; Wed May 17, 2006 at 10:07am.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 17, 2006, 10:01am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastpitch
No need to start calling me names .
Don't know who this is directed to, but I did not call you anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastpitch
...Now athletic directors at high schools hide behind booster club money. I am not exaggerating when I say $10K for the softball field and $100k for the baseball field. No one challenges it because it will impact their daughter's ability to play at the school.
The ADs are skating on very thin ice. If it is school-associated booster club money (for the benefit of the school's varsity sports), then the schools are vulnerable to a Title IX challenge, and should be challenged.

Trying to get some areas of the country to not be so football-centric in HS sports is a challenge, for sure. Same for colleges. Same for your average sports fan.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 17, 2006, 10:05am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Suwanee, GA
Posts: 64
Send a message via AIM to fastpitch Send a message via MSN to fastpitch
I think CecilOne said it best, I enjoyed venting my frustrations with the bureaucracy though. I'm from those days we had to fight to offer fastpitch instead of slowpitch at our local park then we had to fight to offer travel teams in addition to rec league teams when there were no travel baseball teams out of our park. Love the sport and looking forward to many years of getting better as an umpire.
__________________
Mike R Suwanee, GA
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 19, 2006, 11:02am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 114
As to the original post it's up to the umpire who made the call to ask for help. To ask a H/P umpire who was 80 -90 ft away to help you with a out call on the tag at 2nd is NUTS! Tell the coach it's your call and no help is needed.
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 19, 2006, 11:21am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by LIIRISHMAN
As to the original post it's up to the umpire who made the call to ask for help. To ask a H/P umpire who was 80 -90 ft away to help you with a out call on the tag at 2nd is NUTS! Tell the coach it's your call and no help is needed.
Angle is more important than distance.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Sat May 20, 2006, 09:03pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme
IMHO it was great that you went to your partner for help but I would have done it privately
Okay


.
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Sun May 21, 2006, 10:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northeastern NC
Posts: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/200.../04-12-08.html
__________________
TCBLUE13
NFHS, PONY, Babe Ruth, LL, NSA

Softball in the Bible
"In the big-inning"

Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 22, 2006, 06:15am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcblue13
The comment opening the article is a myth, plain and simple. I can see no reason to waste my time reading an article by someone who obviously doesn't understand the subject.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 22, 2006, 09:54am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northeastern NC
Posts: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
The comment opening the article is a myth, plain and simple. I can see no reason to waste my time reading an article by someone who obviously doesn't understand the subject.
Yeah Sure Right
__________________
TCBLUE13
NFHS, PONY, Babe Ruth, LL, NSA

Softball in the Bible
"In the big-inning"

Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 22, 2006, 10:01am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
The comment opening the article is a myth, plain and simple. I can see no reason to waste my time reading an article by someone who obviously doesn't understand the subject.
Hyperbole, sure. Myth, no.

While it is true title IX has not "{forced} colleges and universities to eliminate hundreds of male athletic teams" it has forced them to choose between spending even more money on athletics or eliminating teams, especially after the Feds decided the only part of title IX they would use in ruling on college athletics was numbers of athletes, ignoring the level of interest requirement.

As a result, many men's teams have been eliminated. You can argue is it for budget reasons, but the reason the budget became a reason was due to the way title IX was being enforced (in a way that was more limited than the law actually allows).

"...are now trying to persuade the Supreme Court to create a private cause of action ..." Absolutely true (or was true at the time the article was written).
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SEC Deal olddoc08 Basketball 3 Thu Mar 30, 2006 08:35pm
What's the big deal ?! Ref-X Basketball 32 Sun Oct 30, 2005 04:52pm
How do you deal with this? Sleeper Football 5 Mon Sep 22, 2003 04:16pm
bad deal Ralph Stubenthal Basketball 2 Wed Feb 12, 2003 02:19am
Okay what is the deal with...... Smoke Basketball 4 Sun Dec 03, 2000 03:45am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:18pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1