Title IX impact goes far beyond athletics for girls

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

by

J.T. Simms

Daily Mail sports writer

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The sight of little girls running up and down a basketball court or soccer field is so common these days that it is hard to imagine a time when they were not playing sports.

Scouting services focusing on the promotion of female high school athletes to college coaches are almost as common as ones touting the next Heisman Trophy candidate.

Teenage girls now have college coaches attending their games, sitting in their living rooms offering scholarships and trying to sell their colleges just like the boys.

In reality though it was not very long ago at all that things were very different for girls.

June 23 marked the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon signing the Education Act of 1972 into law.

Title IX of that Act reads, "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."

Neither sports nor athletics are mentioned among those 37 words. Yet Title IX has become the bedrock upon which female sports has grown exponentially in the United States.

That simple statement led to monumental changes affecting he lives of millions of young girls.

"It gave me the opportunity to go to college," former Dunbar High and University of Charleston star basketball player Cathy (Burke) Widdecombe said. "My parents probably could not have afforded to send me without that scholarship."

She played on one of the first high school state championship teams in the fall of 1976.

Just how many lives did Title IX effect?

During the 1971-72 school year 294,015 girls took part in high school sports in the United States.

"In those days girls just wanted the opportunity to play," former Charleston Catholic girls basketball Coach Frank Scagnelli, Jr., said. "Then parents realized there was the opportunity to get scholarships and that was a big plus."

Title IX gained some teeth in 1992, when courts determined monetary damages could be awarded as a result of suits based on the law.

In the college ranks women saw a 70 percent increase in scholarship money, a 45 percent increase in head coaches' salaries, and a 75 percent increase in assistant coaches' salaries by 1997.

With high schools forced to offer more girls sports programs and colleges forced to offer more females scholarships the number of girls playing prep sports took off.

By 2011 the number of girls participating in prep sports had risen to 3,173,549 according to the National Federation of State High School Associations.

That is to say that in 1972 one out of 27 high school girls participated in sports compared to one in three today.

...

While the number of girls playing high school sports continues to lag behind the number of boys the difference has been cut to about 1.2 million with 1.1 million of those boys playing football, a sport that has no similar female equivalent.

The impact of Title IX goes far beyond the courts and playing fields.

It is also credited with lowering the dropout rate of girls from high school and increasing the number of women who pursue higher education and obtain college degrees.

According to a recent Sports Illustrated story before Title IX, 7 percent of new lawyers and 9 percent of new doctors were women; today the figures are 47 percent and 48 percent.

All because of 37 seemingly simple words.

http://www.dailymail...ts/201206240109

[slim 1,533]

That stuff is such BS. Why is it that girls are allowed to play boys sports but boys aren't allowed to play girls sports?

[Danno 1,228]

The part that was missing from the story was how thousands of sports teams were done away with to alot money for Girls teams.

Of course the whole thing was predicated on the idea that "girls want to be involved in sports as much as boys do".... when thats not the case.

The result is fewer female athletes are getting more money, while boys teams are eliminated.

Why not let the market decide? If a College invests more in Female athletics, it stands to reason more Students will attend (if there is a market for it).

Facts are that boys sports generate income for a school, girls, not so much.

[kytwell 179]

Facts are that boys sports generate income for a school, girls, not so much.

Most(girls sports) of them actually lose money.

____________________________________________________________________________________

What women learn from sports, including fighting back after defeat, can’t be accounted for in a financial statement and will help long after college, said Susan Herbst, who will become Connecticut’s first female president in June.

‘Different Calculus’

Female athletes are worth the investment whatever their sports’ earning power, said Herbst, executive vice chancellor and chief academic officer for the University System of Georgia.

“It’s a different calculus,” she said.

Last year, 3.5 million people watched on television as Connecticut beat Stanford 53-47 for the women’s NCAA title, while Duke University’s victory over Butler in the men’s match attracted an audience of 23.9 million, according to New York- based The Nielsen Company.

The two stories are told in other TV numbers. The NCAA signed a 14-year, $10.8 billion contract last year to show its men’s basketball tournament on CBS Sports Inc. and Time Warner Inc. (TWX)’s Turner Broadcasting. The 11-year women’s basketball agreement with Walt Disney Co. (DIS)’s ESPN -- packaged with 21 other championships, including Division 1 men’s lacrosse -- that was negotiated in 2001 is worth $163 million, according to the NCAA.

In 2010, college sports’ governing body received $6.74 million in ticket sales from the women’s tournament, and spent $13.9 million to run the event, according to the NCAA.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-01/women-s-basketball-teams-operate-in-red-as-salaries-break-college-budgets.html

[^_^ 5,021]

Seriously. When did the purpose of a school or university become to make money?

If it costs money but teaches kids things they need to learn, it's worth it.

Good post, kytwell.