What do you know …

… jocks really ARE dumb. Even female jocks.

Some dozen female students are suing (of course) Slippery Rock University because of recent cost-saving cuts in the athletic program there.

The lawsuit, filed under Title IX, alleges that the university does not offer equal athletic opportunities for its women as compared to the men who attend school there.

This suit is being filed because SRU is cutting three women’s teams: water polo, swimming, and field hockey.

However, and that’s a big fat however, FIVE men’s teams are getting cut: water polo, swimming, golf, wrestling, and tennis!

Five men’s teams cut.

Versus three women’s teams cut.

Ladies? Five is greater than three. The men are seeing bigger cuts!

If field hockey is reinstated, that will leave Slippery Rock with eight women’s sports teams. There will be six men’s teams.

8 > 6!

Why is EVERYTHING a lawsuit?! I want to play competitive water polo! Federal court, here I come!

I absolutely have got to be missing a puzzle piece here.


  1. Rob
    May 10, 2006 1:31 pm

    How many sports were there for men and women (and how many positions for each?)

    For example, if there were 20 mens sports and 5 were cut, versus 4 womens sports and 3 were cut, there’s still a problem at the school. Similar situations could arise with the numbers.

    On the other hand, if there were 6 men’s teams, 5 cut and 4 women’s teams, 3 cut, there’s not nearly as much of a complaint.

    How much the women made use of the female teams is another question. The cuts are very different if they couldn’t field teams in those sports than if they also had JV teams and still didn’t have room for them. Of course, if the teams were not popular, did they try publicizing them? A classic trick against Title IX is to pick some really sucky women’s sports and then make them hard to participate in.

    I guess the question is “How much in compliance was the school before the cuts?”

    Rob of UnSpace

  2. PHD
    May 10, 2006 1:33 pm

    My guess is that there are more female teams because more money is spent on the remaining male teams?

    I don’t know the specifics, but after reading the article, you know it has to be pretty bad when the university acknowledges that they may not be in compliance with the law but they are hoping to boost compliance eventually.

    It’s not like Congress just sprang this law on them.

  3. Anonymous
    May 11, 2006 8:08 pm

    What you’re missing is it’s not about # of teams. It’s about % of women in the student poplulation. In this case there are 53% female population so they are saying that you must have an equal opportunity for women to compete as the men. If there are lets say 7 men’s teams and 9 women’s teams but the men’s teams are hypothetically Football, men’s lacrosse, soccer, baseball, etc. You are looking at rosters that have 30-100 guys on them and then it doesn’t create enough opportunity for women. If the women’s sports are lets say soccer, softball, volleyball, tennis etc. then youare looking at rosters of about 20-30 max.
    Football programs usually have 80-100 guys on the roster alone.
    Plus these women at Slippery Rock are also claiming that women’s sports don’t get the same budgets, equiptment, locker rooms etc. Title IX is not only about #s but total opportunity including the coaching, and facilities. This is a law passed by congress to help women in general. Not only athletes. This law protects women at institutions that are being provided federal aid so that they have the same opportunities as men.