Women in Sports

Well, I've put it off long enough.
I promised to speak about this so here it is.

First off, I want to say I believe Women can be as good as men and better in some cases in many sports that lend themselves to it.
Recently there's been many cases that have challenged the establishment, so I'll tackle those but first here's the stuff I love.

Tennis. This is clear cut, Women's Tennis is much better. Not just because Martina Hingis makes my heart pitter patter.
I'm so happy she's back, that's awesome and she's played well, winning in Rome recently.
My other faves are Kim Clijsters, Justine Henin-Hardenne and Maria Sharapova (it's her power, not her looks, just ask my buddy West - I've been a fan since early on).
Smashnova has the best name, but I couldn't pick her out in a lineup.
I also love Women's volleyball, mostly the beach stuff but that's because I've had more exposure to it. I used to watch indoor VB but it doesn't seem to be on anymore. I used to watch when Reece was playing and now May & McPeak are just dominating the circuit. It's a good game and that's how I busted my knee, by diving in the sand and hitting glass under it.

Danica Patrick has challenged the men and is doing great. The chauvinists, see Richard Petty, say she belongs in the kitchen, she's only popular for her looks and she hasn't won anything.
First off, last year she was a rookie. Rookie's don't win. She did very well for herself though and is young enough to improve.
Second, she might be pretty, but what is she supposed to do? Wear a mask? She said on PTI that she has to refuse some stuff because she doesn't want to be overexposed, good for her! She's no Anna K.
Andretti never won on the F1 circuit, does that mean he's a bad driver? Give her time.

Michelle Wie is also trying to play with boys. There a few things here.
First off, the Ladies have their own tour (not an option for Danica) and it's fun. I love watching Pressel and Creamer and seeing Sorenstam dominate is fun.
Annika has earned the right to play on the men's tour, she can use the challenge. Wie on the other hand has not. She is not Tiger, she has never won anything, not the amateur championship, not an LPGA event, even less a major. Her biggest accomplishment is making the cut in a men's Asian Tour event. Not exactly a marquee event.
She needs to prove she can beat the women before she can talk about playing in the Masters!

The WNBA. I have no objection to the league in of itself, but forcing the programming on me is getting on my nerves. Where's the International Football (Soccer), or the rugby scores. I'd prefer seeing Aussie Rules scores than WNBA. Please, no one tell me that they are more technically sound than the men, that's crap. There might be a few stars but for the most part they are just not as good as the NBA, or the NCAA. Last year they made a big fuss about a woman dunking twice and used that as proof of the women being as good. You can't have it both ways, and did you see the dunks? That's called a finger roll and a layup in the men's league, if your hand is under the ball as it goes over the rim, it's not a dunk.
Now the women's soccer league should have been given a better chance, they had stars that people loved and it was growing as much as the WNBA, which is to mean they aren't growing. But I don't think it should go away, some people enjoy it and that's cool. Just like some people like hockey and others don't.

Softball is out of the Olympics and that makes no sense. I only watch the summer Olympics for the softball, men's basketball and some cycling events (the Dutch rule!).
Softball was the most marketable event in the US also, and it would seem they are always catering to the Americans ... I'm clueless.

On to the touchy subject. Title IX.
For the uninitiated, Title IX is the NCAA rule that forces all schools to have a proportional amount of women athletes as the general student population. So if you 60% women student body, you need to have 60% women's athletic participation in NCAA governed sports.
First off the NCAA is insane, the BCS is a mess for one, but they are so rigid it makes no sense. Recently a kid was a champion in the 10000 meters in track. He was going to the Nationals to try to break his record but his coach made a mistake and clicked on 5000 meters on the online form. The next day he noticed the mistake and called the NCAA and the meet organizers who said that although the field was not set, and there were spots open, the rules say he had 12 hours to correct the mistake. This was still almost a week before the race. The kid having never qualified for the 5000 had to stay home and the people at the meet from other schools wore shirts asking where he was and chanted his name in the stands. Yet the NCAA says they can't play favorite. They do of course let basketball and football programs slide.
Anyway, the reason Title IX is a problem is for the smaller schools. They only have money for a few sports and the rule forces them to cut back on many sports because they can't offer as many sports and that hurts the kids because less scholarships mean less opportunity.
Now I'm not saying women are not interested in sports, but am I really going out on a limb by saying that on a whole dudes are more interested in sports than gals?
This means that many young males who can't pay for school are getting less and less opportunities to get an education.
The logical thing to say is that more women are getting the chance, but that's just not the case. Women's programs are not being added to meet a quota, the men's are being cut.
I'm all for equality, but this is hurting the poor, no one else. Forget about the money the big schools make, that's only 100 schools, tops.
Now I'm not advocating a repeal of the rule. It's good to have equality, women were once considered inferior and denied education and that's wrong of course. But a football program has over 100 athletes, and that is a huge chunk, meaning you need many women's sports to compensate. Unfortunately the debate on this has become political with the people against the rule being right-wing lunatics. I feel a little queasy to be even close to the same side as them, but I'm not against the rule in principle, only in it's application. Can reasonable people not decide if a school is being unfair on a case by case basis. So what if 60 percent of the athletes are dudes and only 45% of the students if the women have all the sports they want. I don't want to cut women's programs, and there is a stipulation in the law that says schools must show they are increasing women's sports continually, I just want to see more sports and more scholarships awarded for whoever wants them, men or women. So I say let's see more women in sports and more men too!

Well that's enough of this rant.