snoqueen wrote:Not being a fan, I'm hoping the liability over head injuries starts to put an end to the era when college football teams are such a big deal.
Sorry, I don't mean to piss on people's fun. But it's important, and young players are often lacking a long-term perspective on their lives and health.
We could have safer (and more sex-equal) sports programs and still have competition and excitement.
A couple smaller dominoes would have to fall first. As far as school-related sports acivities go, I believe that pole vaulting is the most dangerous. Not sure where downhill ski racing or gymnastics fall. Obviously, things like auto racing and extreme sports, while not generally sponsored by schools, are also probably in the same ballpark or worse.
College sports offerings are one thing, but I think that it was a mistake not to account for no-cut sports at the high school and middle school level. To me, if a high school offers:
- 8 "cut" sports for both boys and girls, which equal 400 spots for each
- 4 no-cut sports for both boys and girls
That should be considered an equal program. I think that most schools run into issues because more boys go out for the no-cut sports, and they can't drive the girl's participation high enough to balance that out.
I went back and looked at my HS yearbooks from the late 70's. The boys did have a slight edge in overall athletic numbers, probably 60/40. On the other hand, the girls had a 75/25 advantage for other extracurricular activities, as well as academic honors. It's probably just a matter of time before some enterprising attorney uses Title IX to sue a school district for not offering enough clubs that interest boys.