Arkansas Blog

I'm glad to see this change.

Now someone please explain to me how Wally Hall is an award-winning writer. I usually don't even pick up the Sports section so I'm not a regular reader of his column. Is this a good example of his work?

iHow do you suggest that the two Razorback basketball teams be distinguished?

Women Razorbacks? F-Team and M-Team?

ARK. BLOG: This is simple. They are both Razorbacks. If, for purposes of clarity you need to differentiate, one is the men's basketball team, the other is the women's basketball team. Men's swimming. Women's swimming. That's how they do it everywhere else. Why should this be so hard?

"Babe Zaharias scored 23 points to lead the Arkansas Razorbacks to a 91-53 win over the LSU Tigers Saturday."
"The Hogs are now 1-0 in SEC women's basketball play. LSU falls to 0-1."

See how simple?

Now if we can just the revenue generated by the "two" teams to be level then we can have that "equality" labell so sought.

ARK. BLOG: Too much time spent around Frank. Until Nolan came along, the only revenue generation came from football. It still wags the dog everywhere. In theory, sports aren't about revenue, they are about providing full collegiate experiences for all students. Try this argument on me when men's golf, track, etc., is paying their own way. Oh, wait. I know. Because a manly sport makes the money, only men should benefit, regardless of sport. That was Frank's notion anyway. Happily, the new regime has ditched that point of view. And if you think there's equity in sports spending now, I invited you to obtain a list of the amount spent on coaches in men's and women's athletics.

Cato, were I in charge the revenue would be shared across the board of UA athletics. It is a state institution. The state university students play on state owned land. Radical me!

Thank God sexism is dead at the UA.
Now, I hope we can concentrate on getting some more-revealing outfits for those -- er -- Razorbacks. I have in mind something low-cut and clingy. Like those Lady Bearcats wear up in Polk County. Right, Cato?
Of course, the Lady Bobcats down at Hope will continue to wear overalls in all sports.

You guys wouldn't be this generous if the taxpayers picked up the tab for the UofA athletic program (men and women's) instead of it being paid for by the male sports at the UofA. It's just a fact of life, boys, folks don't go watch women sports as they do men's sports. I didn't make it that way, I can't change it. It's just a fact. You may like paying the tab (and the students paying also) for the athletic programs at the state's institutions of higher learning. I don't. I'm glad the UofA sports pays its own way. Rap old Frank again, Max, if you prefer shelling it out of your own pocket.

Couldn't disagree more with your equal pay for coaches arguement, Max. Should the CEO of Bob's Hardware make the same as CEO of Walmart? Of course not; so why should the men's basketball coach who plays in front of 19,000 people get paid the same as the women's coach who plays in front of 4,000? It's simple supply and demand. I bet you don't make what the editor of the NYTimes does. And how many women's games have you gone to as opposed to men's teams? Quit living in some dreamland.

Come on! Everyone knows that women sports is at the bottom of the heap ratings wise. They don't pay for themselves. They exist on the backs of male sports, more specifically, football. In order to play the political correct game and keep the vampires (feminists) away we pander by allowing it to exist regardless of its ratings. Title IX allows Big Daddy government to dictate and not the free enterprise system. A rose by any other name still smells the same.

Cato, we're witnessing a tidal change in UA fund raising. White and the alumni foundation has out raised Coach Frank. Also Title XX (?) changed everything back in the 70s. It takes awhile to for change to trickle down but it will. But what you imply is true. The big bucks come in to see young adult men do a military style competition. American culture is built around it. But they can still share the state provided revenue.

Ark Blog: Check out the participation numbers between men and females in sports. Men overwhelmingly participate at much higher numbers than females. Title IX provides a pathetic attempt to equalize the two by cutting men's sports when the ladies aren't equally represented. Big Daddy government needs to stay out of the sports business and let the free market dictate.

"ARK. BLOG: Too much time spent around Frank."

Yeah, Max, we all spent too much time around Frank. Sho' nuff did, silly us. So sad, too, 'cause Frank was such a lazy, sorry excuse for an athletic director, lacking in ambition, imagination, creativity and all the other elements of success. Why, his UA coaching record was only 144-58-5. Imagine that! And his players won only one national football championship. What coach in America could not have done better, given the marvelous facilities we had at the time?

Frank also let us down when he increased the UA athletic budget from $900,000 a year to a mere $44.8 million. And raised only $250 million for new and renovated athletics facilities while at the same time making the UA athletic department profitable, something only 19 out of the 119 top Division I programs have been able to do.

And then, there was that library thing. You remember that, don't cha? You know, when the UA library was under fire? What did the white haired devil do? Why, he went out and raised a paltry $2.5 million to buy books to help save the library's accreditation. Anybody, Max (starting with you), could have done better than that!

And, gee, that unsightly old fire trap known as Old Main? Why, that aged monstrosity could have been razed and the ground it sat on used for a parking lot if only Frank hadn't stuck his oversized nose into everything and raised $10.5 million to restore it for classroom space. The nerve of the old fool!

Yep, ole Frank of the Ozarks was a pox on the UA and The Natural State, alright. Right up there with those despised Waltons. It's a wonder the former Land of Opportunity survived the toxins of his being here all those years, and that some of us have lived long enough to point out all his shortcomings. What a relief that the old goat is gone (!) and that we finally have the only thing we've EVER really wanted; something I never dreamed I'd live to see: The Razorback women!

Hogalooyah! GLORY, I say! GLORY be to God!

Our public schools are supported by taxes/fees; therefore every athlete, male or female, deserves an equal piece of the public fund. Sure men's sports are more popular...they've been around forever while women just moved into organized sports a few decades ago. It will take time for women to have the same athletic opportunities as men, but in the meantime our schools should be gender blind when divvying up their athletic budgets. Good thing our schools are supposed to be about equal opportunity for men AND women...not who can sell the most tickets.

"...Big Daddy government needs to stay out of the sports business and let the free market dictate.--Strange

Good god, man...our schools aren't private entities where the MYTHICAL free market is suppose to reign. They are created and run by the people (aka government). You goobers who are still screaming about how Title IX stole money away from real athletics (men's programs) to give it to women's programs are either sexist pigs or totally clueless about the state of women's athletics in our schools prior to its passage. (And things still are a long way from equal.)

Spare me the feminst histrionics, zelda. Women aren't interested at the same levels as men. That is the reason why their participation levels are much less. When Big Daddy gets involved he creates an artifical environment that doesn't reflect reality. Women simply don't have that high of interest in participatory sports. As a result of Title IX men's successful and established participation has been reduced at some schools. This is nonsense. The opportunity is there just not an equal interest. I noticed that you didn't address that fact.

As I said, zelda, if the tax payers had to pay for the bill for the ogre at the UofA known as athletics you would be screaming to do away with them all, male and female. The other state higher ed institutions are funded by taxes and student fees. The program at the UofA isn't. And you know the reason. Perhaps you should turn your passion into thumping the other institutions for not making their programs, male and female, self supporting rather than relying on the public trough.

Absolutely, cato...I'd be screaming if my tax money was supporting the Razorbacks or any other such entity. I've been thumping at em for some time, cato...still not making much headway when it comes to fiscally prioritizing athletics.

Again, strange, public schools by their very definition are big government...not merely training grounds for male athletes. Therefore male/female athletes should have equal opportunity and funding...period. And to argue that women athletics don't deserve the same level of funding because male athletics are more popular in the marketplace is to ensure that women athletes never have the opportunity to become marketable. (And it casts our schools in a different role than I envision...popularity is not suppose to determine academic opportunity/content.) It's a circular, unending argument you wage.

Exactly what 'fact' of yours did I fail to address?

Participation levels, zelda, do you not read? Women participate at significant levels less than men. Now, DO YOU GET IT? You are confusing OPPORTUNITY with PARTICIPATION levels. Big Daddy can't get women to participate at the same levels as men so they eliminate men's programs to make them equal to lesser participated women's programs. I don't know how to make this clearer. You need to unplug you ears. They must be full of estrogen.

Strange, you seem more interested in preserving the status quo as if it were some kind of absolute. The language we use changes the reality we deal with. It is high time this icon of sexism in language is swept away. Lady Backs, Sugar Bears? Give me a break.
Along the lines of Title IX, the NY Times had a neat article on injuries in women's sports. As former 'offensive' linemen w a center's knees it made me cringe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/magazine/11Girls-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin

Frankly, I am sick of the preoccumpation on euphemisms. Words are the concern of those who have nothing of substance to do. Attempts to manipulate by using such empty phrases such as 'icons of sexism' is tiring. Embracing change for the sake of change is of no interest to me. I'm not tied to an idealogy that demands change for the sake of change. You can call the women anything you want. I'm concerned about the unfair treatment of males in order to create an ARTIFICIAL environment to satisfy the gods of feminism. Schools are supposed to prepare our people for the real world. The real world deals with things like ratings and other free market conditions. Your Title IX Big Daddy doesn't have to cut it in the real world of business. Schools better start preparing you for that or you will be replaced by someone from Asia. They don't tolerate that nonsense there.

'Strange'- I understand that part of your handle, but not the 'love' part. Maybe 'loveless' would be closer?

You seem to have some real anger management problems, particularly regarding women but also re sports and other subjects. And you mentioned in an earlier thread something about Vietnam and military service.

I'm just curious. Do you suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome? Are you seeking/getting treatment?

You really need to get a handle on your anger. Your male histrionics are getting old. Dial that testosterone down a few notches, bub.

When you have no argument to counter someone's position a person usually resorts to personal attacks. Please don't try the manipulation approach. I have dealt with people far more adept than you. Yes, I served. However, you need to quit stereotyping vietnam veterans as having emotional problems. The overwhelming majority of us came back and adjusted well. I'm sure if I called you a typical woman you wouldn't like that kind of stereotyping. I believe in defending people who are being dealt with unfairly even when the people being dealt with unfairly are men.

Strange- you're the one who began the ad hominem attacks.

Nah, Strange, you've got issues. Nothing to do w vietnam. Maybe that big 5th grade girl that used to push you around at recess. Whatever it is, it won't change a women's right to equal treatment. And how we describe people is the beginning of equal protection, due process, and the end of pejorative semantics.

Since when was this all about equal treatment? Tell the men's sport teams that had to disband about equal treatment. Equal is in the eye of the beholder. I know something about power and what is going on in our society is not, nor has it ever been, about equality. It is the shift of power from white males to others. Power never seeks equalibrium. It always seeks to control. If you think that women are just trying to be equal with men in sports then you are somewhat naive.

Then why don't you counter my arguments? If they are so easily defeated then you should place your efforts at that endeavor.

Dude, you're not making any arguments. You're just saying the status quo is equality enough for you. You want to call someone nigger? You want to call someone a sugar bear? It's all on a continuum of disrespect. I have no trouble with calling for change for change's sake in a world as perverse as the one you seem so comfortable in preserving. And the most efficacious way to do that is to change the nominitive.

sorry, my spelling sucks

If we're choosing up teams, I'm with Zelda. However, what if we went further and just privatized ALL sports, removing them completely from schools. Here's my guess - the whole system would reconstitute itself in oh, two years. Why two years? So YOUR child can play. That's how long it takes to build any new athletic facility or to buy new equipment in any school. As soon as something new is to be had, is had to be had in a hurry so YOUR kid can have it before he or she graduates. All team sports could be played after school. All school athletic facilities could be used for .... wait for it... fitness and PLAY for everyone, equally.
Heads asplode.

The only thing that you want is to see one group take away power from another group. You are not anymore for equality than someone who has power and doesn't want to give it up. Equality is a ruse. That is your reason for getting so exercised when I challenged you to produce. When someone holds a mirror up people usually react quite strongly. Thanks, you just confirmed the obvious.

Why don't you just leave things alone. Guys love to participate in sports. Ladies like to think up ways to look sexy. Its basic but its true.

By the way---'Thus spake, Z'----you need to lay off of the sweets.

We've not yet reached the day when colleges are sports programs with annoying little educational endeavors attached.

Title IX just says that the colleges soaking up federal money have to take care to accomodate the interests of their women students in sports (whatever that interest level might be) and give them an chance to compete against a similar level of competition (same NCAA division) and a chance to receive a proportionate number of scholarships throughout the sports programs.

So UA can't help 300 men achieve a free education while offering that to only 47 women, assuming there are another 253 women out there interested in a sport that could help fund their educations. That's terrible! Why, those officious intermeddlers in government!

Having learned much of what I know about Title IX in the last 30 minutes, I sure don't claim to be an expert. But it does appear that the DOE page (at the link) skewers some Title IX myths--

"Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. .1681 et seq.) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs receiving Federal financial assistance. Athletics are considered an integral part of an institution's education program and are therefore covered by this law. It is the responsibility of the Department of Education (ED), Office for Civil Rights (OCR), to assure that athletic programs are operated in a manner that is free from discrimination on the basis of sex.

...

To clarify the athletic requirements contained in the Title IX regulation, a Policy Interpretation was issued to provide colleges and universities with more guidance on how to comply with the law. The Policy Interpretation, which explains the standards of the regulation, clarifies the obligations of colleges and universities in three basic areas:

* student interests and abilities;

* athletic benefits and opportunities; and

* financial assistance.

...

The athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally and effectively accommodated. Compliance with this factor is assessed by examining a school's: (a) determination of the athletic interests and abilities of its students; (b) selection of the sports that are offered; and (c) levels of competition, including opportunity for team competition.

. . .

A college or university is not required to offer particular sports or the same sports for each sex. Also, an institution is not required to offer an equal number of sports for each sex. However, an institution must accommodate to the same degree the athletic interests and abilities of each sex in the selection of sports.

. . .

Colleges and universities must provide opportunity for intercollegiate competition as well as team schedules which equally reflect the competitive abilities of male and female athletes. An institution's compliance in this area may be assessed in any one of the following ways:

the numbers of men and women participating in intercollegiate athletics are substantially proportionate to their overall enrollment; or

where members of one sex are underrepresented in the athletics program, whether the institution can show a continuing practice of program expansion responsive to the developing interests and abilities of that sex; or

the present program accommodates the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

Colleges and universities are not required to develop or upgrade an intercollegiate team if there is no reasonable expectation that competition will be available for that team within the institution's normal competitive region. However, an institution may be required to encourage development of such competition when overall athletic opportunities within that region have been historically limited for the members of one sex.

......"

Equality is a ruse?
Enough said, sugar bear.

"Therefore male/female athletes should have equal opportunity.."

Oh, I agree, zelda. I never said I didn't. My points were to explain the facts as they exist. But understand the word "equality" has different meanings to different people. Jesus, Marx and Jefferson all used the word but it had different meanings to each. But equal opportunity doesn't mean automatic equal success and the revenue brought in and generated by the two entities is a shining example of how "equality" is applied in only one facet of the issue that you are using. Complete equality means women sports brings in revenue equal to what male sports brings in. It doesn't. You can knock and condemn the reasons but it won't change the facts or change reality. In this example the male sports is having to support the female sports and not vice versa. That fact alone is a shining example of an inequity that is shoved under the bed and not discussed.

"Exactly what 'fact' of yours did I fail to address?"

Was that addressed to me? If so, I am lost on that one.

I used to work in Washington, D.C. for the federal government. I have no confidence in a Washington Beauracrat making decisions about what makes sense in Little Rock, Arkansas. If you have that much confidence in Washington doing your thinking for you then you should pursue any opportunity to turn power over to them. You are going to love it.

"I used to work in Washington, D.C. for the federal government."
by: strangelove

What a SHOCKER!

Yes, what I saw in Washington was quite a shocker for me. When I saw the abuse and waste I decided that my career aspirations were somwhere else. I wanted to feel like I was doing something worthwhile and earning my money. Putting your faith in incompetents amazes me. I would require every adult American to spend one year in Washington working for the federal government. You would be changed forever.

I was talking to strange, cato, guess it wasn't clear...sorry. For me, cato, it's all about our athletic girls getting equal resources from the school. Now (and I'm mainly referencing high school...'cause it's what I know first hand) it's usually bright shiny new stuff for the guy's basketball team and...whatever is left over for the gals. That ain't right.

"Why don't you just leave things alone. Guys love to participate in sports. Ladies like to think up ways to look sexy. Its basic but its true."--Strange

If you're really believe that crap, I'm not wasting time talking to a sexist Neanderthal about gender equality in our PUBLIC schools. It's all about equality and you're threatened by it all.

Look, zelda, if anyone deserves the moniker of bigoted it is you. You push that 'equality' and 'sexism' nonsense with total disregard for what you are saying. Deep down inside where you don't go, you have absolutely no desire to be equal with men. Even if 'equality' were obtainable who is to say when it has been attained----you? I have lived much longer than you and I have seen much but I have NEVER seen equality. One person wants what the other person has. That is what it is REALLY about. Join the rest of us adults. Men aren't going to continue to hand over power to women until women decide that it is equal. Like most groups who are seeking to upset the applecart of power, they usually go overboard and become abusive. Men have finally gotten the message. I don't think even today's men are that emasculated.

"I have no confidence in a Washington Beauracrat making decisions about what makes sense in Little Rock, Arkansas. "....strangelove

I agree but I not so sure state officials in Little Rock, Arkansas, make sense in Arkansas. As proof, I offer the Arkansas General Assembly.

Of course Wally already put his strange spin on the name by referring to them as Razorbacks women.

wally, are you also going to refer to Razorbacks men? If you write about football, we might not know whether you mean women or men. then again, does anyone ever waste time trying to figure out what Wally's trying to say?

Look, strange...you are certifiable. My goodness...world domination on the backs of white men. Yeehaw! Just curious, but is it feminists against white men or feminists against men of every shade. I mean, where does the conquer-line go...does gender trump ethnicity/family (which will be messy, given that feminists are the moms/sisters/daughters/wives of those guys...and the heart of those families) or is it secondary to those divisions. I never thought about it much...thinking in equality we'd all rise/play accordingly...but if we're gonna rule, I gotta have battle lines. My 'white' hubby/son are toast...mine to dominate.

Oh yeah...regarding this piece of enlightenment: '...Men aren't going to continue to hand over power to women until women decide that it is equal.'

You can't 'hand over' what isn't yours to hand over. Public resources belong to all of us...equally; and we're greater in numbers...so you're screwed...and not pleasantly.

And I thought the seventies in Bald Knob were, well, gender challenged.

As Paul Harvey is somewhat fond of saying, here is the Rest Of The Story:

In 1973 JF Broyles after becoming "El Presidente Razorback" realized the way he could get the NCAA off his **s about Title IX was to get extra money. Hog Basketball up to that time was a backwater, much like KATV's current attitude toward HDTV/Digital Television (well, we have to have it so we will play the schedule and spend as little as possible). The Men's BB coach at the time Lanny Van Eman (?) was the fall guy, but in reality it was the athletic department that allowed Men's BB to be a backwater since the 1940's. JFB decides to bring in a Sutton, and gambles that folks would support basketball as football was at that time and the rest is history. Its debatable if Title IX had not come into being in 1972 that Razorback Men's Basketball would have the funding, University support and fan base it has now.

"where does the conquer-line go...does gender trump ethnicity/family (which will be messy, given that feminists are the moms/sisters/daughters/wives of those guys...and the heart of those families) or is it secondary to those divisions."
by: zelda

You gonna make Strangenesses!! head-Sp-lode zelda...you know he's "Me Tarzan, you Jane" 'man-up' kinda GUY.

The decision as to which group trumps which group is dependant upon the political power of the 'offended' group. Whoever can flex the most muscle wins and is considered worthy of Big Daddy's correction of all the others. The only exception to that are the 'twofers'.