From Class last Wednesday each of our groups had questions to answer over Title IX. The question that we decided to answer was question #8, “In 2004 intercollegiate competition for women is characterized by full seasons, paid coaches, financial aid, and more similar funding for equipment, uniforms, and travel. Find a few negatives among the positives.”
As a group we thought about this question and came up with some great examples of some of the negatives that come along with these positives. First and foremost the most obvious negative is that women’s sports don’t even get close to the amount of national attention or television coverage that men’s sports get. The only time that a women’s game is even aired is if it is a big time game or a big name player is in it. For men’s sports there are always games on no matter what teams are playing.
The fact that this happens brings in another negative. Women’s sports don’t make as much revenue for the school as men’s teams would. With television coverage that brings way more money to a University. And with women’s sports minimally televised they don’t get as many chances to produce high amounts of revenue.
Lastly this is hurting the overall competition in NCAA women’s basketball and probably all other sports as well. The teams that are getting the national coverage, (ex. Uconn), are continually going to be the top contenders. Because they get the most coverage in women’s basketball all the best players want to go there so that they can be on television and be known about. This is why women’s college basketball seems so unfair and that the same teams always will do well. Hopefully something will soon change and women’s basketball will be covered and televised more.
Post by Kane Godfrey
To kind of aid in what Kane was saying the only time women sports are recognized are when they are playing in a major game. All eyes were on women’s soccer when they recently played in the world cup; if they had not been in this championship game, we would not have been watching them at all. I feel another factor that aids in on the negative side, is how female sports cannot offer as many scholarships as male sports can. Landcaster, J found that “It has been estimated that men receive $133 million more per year than women in athletic scholarships” (para. 5). From this statement, alone we can see how much a difference there is between scholarships being available to female athletes.
ReplyDeleteThis comment was done by Trent Ringle
Lancaster, J. (n.d.). Title ix laws and intercollegiate athletics. Retrieved from http://www.athleticscholarships.net/title-ix-college-athletics-3.htm
I agree with Kane about the bigger and better Universities such as UConn getting more coverage time even though it is fewer than some Mid-Major men's teams. That affects scouting very much so along with what Trent had found about scholarships which is a huge negative. I also agree with Trent that if the US was not doing so well in the World Cup, most of America would not have been so into it. But being a soccer fan I thought it was great to see everyone so interested and rooting for them. I feel the only time that a woman's team gets any recognition is when they are overcoming the odds and doing very well or when there is nothing else going on. Hopefully women's sports will be televised more in the near future.
ReplyDelete-Nick Daverio
I also agree with everyone above. I feel revenue for womens sports dictates perhaps their lack of support. If you are a diehard fan you can see that these women know their sport and can play at high levels but their lack of exposure effects their revenue which in part could lead to that sport getting cut. Comment by Jared King.
ReplyDelete