Should sports at all levels be desegregated?
 

That is women and mens sports combined?

These feminists argue "yes".

http://www.amazon.com/Playing-Boys-S...7476298&sr=8-1

Just as an aside, when I was in the 5th grade, we all ran the 50 yard dash, and if I'm not mistaken, I was first place, tied with a girl.

Meaning that girl ran faster than every boy in the school except me. Pretty exceptional.

Then boys hit puberty and the gap widens quite significantly.

I say bring it on, see what happens.

That would solve Title IX. Too bad the girls would be relegated to playing billiards, bowling and chess.

I'm with you.

It would have been fun to see Lisa Leslie try to battle Karl Malone for a rebound. She'd learn just what Karl's elbow is all about.

Let a woman get in the box and face a Randy Johnson slider or Nolan Ryan fastball.

Annika Sornestam found out why women have their own tour.

If you truly believe the feminist version of equality, this is the logical outcome. Otherwise, it is "separate but equal", just like the deep South was pre-1960s.

Oh, I don't know. I'm not sure men would dominate synchronized swimming or the balance beam....

But then I would like to see women try the rings. Total equality is stupid.

Of course Title 9 is a tool of the devil.

Men are better at women in all sports including sports that are dominated by women. For example Gymnastics men are better gymnasts, men are better dancers (ask SU) men are better at every sport. Thats just the way it is.

I have told this story before but I played at 24 hour fitness with 3 WNBA players. I had myself and 2 other guys that are average at best. We dominated them, they made a few shots but other than that they were highschool JV level if that.

Even before puberty, boys kill girls in all sports. Girls might be able to hang through 1st grade but that's about it. Even in track. The fastest boys are faster than the fastest girls.

My daughter can beat every boy in her school in basketball (she is in 6th grade). She and her friends routinely look for pickup games during recess just so that they can thump on some boys for fun. One day she and one friend took on seven fifth-grade boys and still beat the crap out of them. I tell her to get her licks in now, because it most certainly won't last forever.

At comparable levels boys or men will defeat girls or women. So what.

However, a great girl can defeat many a boy.

In our high school, we had a national, Olympic caliber girl runner who ran about a 2:02 in the 800. Our good guy runners could do that, but it wasn't easy.

I notice a big difference in the sprints, where muscle mass plays a distinct role.

Speaking of this, a few years ago I was having a discussion with a co-worker about the WNBA. He was wondering how much sexism and homophobia really play a part in the un-popularity of the WNBA. I argued that it was largely quality driven.

I then walked him through the following set of questions.

If the WNBA Champs and the NBA champs played each other, who would win? His answer was quick and unwavering...the NBA champs.

I then proceeded to lower the quality level of the potential WBNA Champs opponent, but his answer remained the same....

1. The WNBA Champs vs the last-place NBA team? (Men would win)
2. ...vs the NCAA Men's tourney champs?
3. ....vs the 64th seed in the Tournament?
4. ...vs the Indiana State Boys High School champs?
5. ....vs a boys high school varsity league champion?
6. ....vs an average boys high school varsity team?
7. .....vs a high school JV boys team?.....

It was only on the 7th question that he conceded that the women would have a good chance, simply because the boys' bodies would not all be fully developed quite yet.

So, in essence, the NBA is trying to promote a league that is "likely" about as good as a boys HS JV basketball team. well, take a look at a JV hoops game and see who attends....friends and family. No wonder the WNBA is on life support.

I doubt they couldn't compete against most high school teams, not necessarily league champs. I understand the point, but believe it's overstated.

WNBA wouldn't compete against any Pro, almost any college team and not the best high school teams. Beyond that I believe they'd compete.

The quality of women's basketball is poor.

yes, I agree. Sorry, I was not clear.

The point of our exercise was to determine a level at which you could say with little degree of uncertainty that the women would, over the course of say 5-10 games, win a fair share.

We were of the opinion that although WNBA champs would be competitive at the HS varsity level (as you state), neither one of us was 51% or more confident that they would win 5 or more of the 10 games. I still stand by that, but of course have zero basis for it, other than attending and watching a few WNBA games in person.

At the JV level, I could easily see it going 50-50, simply because many JV boys weigh 110 pounds, where some of the WNBA centers look like they are 200 pounds.

I don't follow high school basketball other than the tournaments they have here in Vegas.

And some of those teams could defeat some low level college teams. If a Lebron James high school team played the WNBA, I'd take that team as on WNBA has that level of athleticism.

The question of teamwork and knowledge of the game and at what level, disparate athleticism would make a difference. In high school, many players still play stupidly. By college the physicality and knowledge would be far superior.

It is rare for a high school boys team with a winning record to lack several players who can and do dunk. That is not the sole measure, but it would also show what would happen in terms of rebounding.

I know we've been through this before. Where we live, I have a good handle on the athletes both boys and girls in that age range that cover a high school boundary, through my kids involvement on super league teams and through coaching myself. There's not a single girl in the 7th grade that would contribute on the boys 6th grade super league teams--basketball and soccer. The 5th grade boys soccer team played the 7th grade girls soccer team and hammered them. A team of 7th grade girls would struggle to ever get the ball past the half court line against the 6th grade boys team. Tackle football would be a slaughter. This difference became apparent much younger. The strength difference kicks in about 3rd grade. I'm really not partial because I have both a son and a daughter that are on the super league teams. Maybe we should have our teams scrimmage sometime. ;)

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I would never contend that girls can routinely compete with boys, especially if you try to frame the argument around "super league teams". I am just saying that your statement earlier in the thread about boys dominating girls at first grade and beyond (3rd grade now?) has exceptions.

In fairness, I should state that the boys in my daughter's school around her age aren't particularly athletic for some reason. I kind of doubt any of them would make it on an elite b-ball team. And my daughter is probably one of the top five girls in the state at her age. So that probably explains the phenomenon.

That being said, if I took the top three girls on my AAU team against three random boys from your team, the girls would probably lose, but I am confident that they would get the ball past half-court plenty of times.

When I worked at FranklinCovey we used to play bball in their gym all the time.

The Jazz used to practice there before they built the Zion's Bank Basketball Center.

Back in the day when the WNBA Utah Starzz were in town their players used to come out all the time and on occasion would scrimmage with us,,,,until they got in trouble for doing so...anyway.......it rarely took little effort to beat them.

The only one who would get really physical and upset is Natalie Williams...that girl is a brutish amazon....having said that,,,with her being one of the "WNBA Elite" at the time....even she wasn't that good.

I gotcha. I thought you were contending my point that boys are better than girls at that age. The difference starts, IMO, at about K or 1st grade and the gap widens from there, but I agree the gap is narrow enough at that age that the distributions of skill level will have plenty of overlap to find cases like your girls. Top five in the state. That is very impressive. We have brothers and sons of former college players, but we don't have anyone like that on our team. But we could still take the girls. :)

I've never played against WNBA but I played against women college players before, and they had no chance to compete with the guys at my level. I was a starter but not a star for an average 5A Utah HS team. Due to the strength and athleticism difference, a female center would need to be at least 3-4" taller than the male counterpart to matchup in the paint. A solid 6'6" athletic, buff male center would dominate. So based on that, I agree with DDD and infer that a decent HS team could handle the WNBA champions.

Would it be depressing to have a daughter who was best in state in basketball. Then you attend her college games and there are 200 people in the stands?

I think it would be depressing. Is there a women's sport that is appreciated and supported? I would steer her towards those sports.

Girls soccer is pretty big in Utah. But kids play what brings them enjoyment and fulfillment.

Girls that go in to sports don't do it for popularity like some boys might. They'd go into cheerleading if that's what they were after.

Female pole vaulting is getting LOTS of support in Cal thanks to Allison Stokke. I hear she is quite talented...

http://www.mrdaz.com/wp-content/uplo...y070601026.jpg

I suppose if your primary motivation was to play in front of a lot of people and hear a crowd cheer for you, then yes, it would be depressing. But if you are playing because you love the game and enjoy competing, then it is not that big of a deal.

When I was in grad school at Texas, the Lady Longhorns had gone something like 12 years without a conference loss. They were averaging 13-14000 fans per game. More than the mens' team at the time.

200 fans per game might be a bit of a stretch. I don't really know. It certainly depends on the program. Here are the top 20 programs from last year. Note that New Mexico averages almost 10,000.

2007 Women’s Basketball Attendance Leaders
DIVISION I

Rk. School G Attendance Average

1. Tennessee 16 234,845 14,678
2. Connecticut 22 237,642 10,802
3. Texas Tech 14 149,351 10,668
4. Oklahoma 12 125,247 10,437
5. New Mexico 15 143,729 9,582
6. Maryland 16 152,523 9,533
7. Iowa St. 16 142,498 8,906
8. Purdue 14 106,184 7,585
9. Michigan St. 18 115,001 6,389
10. Notre Dame 16 101,818 6,364
11. Baylor 19 119,603 6,295
12. Minnesota 17 101,030 5,943
13. Duke 14 81,921 5,852
14. Kentucky 15 86,941 5,796
15. Penn St. 13 75,102 5,777
16. Wisconsin 20 114,406 5,720
17. LSU 15 83,593 5,573
18. Missouri St. 15 81,286 5,419
19. Texas 18 90,783 5,044
20. Ohio St. 17 85,011 5,001

Well, I am basing that on the fact that she plays in the top league in the state and I would rank her as one of the top five players in the league. But she is only in 6th grade. There are probably lots of other good players out there that just haven't started competing yet. Time will tell. But she is having a blast, and that is the main thing.

If she lived in Texas, when school basketball started, she would be blown away by all the poor kids that never played in any leagues.

I read some articles about rich daddy's in Texas and other places with wannabe kids that suck that start AAU teams and stack the team with said poor kids and "pay" them and their parents with all kind of perks.

No doubt about it. Everything is bigger and better in Texas.

I'm saying that Utah doesn't have a large poor black community that doesn't participate in all the rich-kids' leagues.

Which is why Utah, for the most part, does not produce standout athletes on a national level.

Where do you go to harvest the best athletes in the nation? Florida, California, Texas.

Oh we all get your point, Mike. No need to clarify.

And FWIW, the cost for playing on my team is about $50 per kid. Plus $24 for the uniform. It's hardly a "rich-kids' league".

$74 is a lot of money for someone getting $600 a month with SSI.

Or someone working minimum wage with 3 kids.

I played in most of the city soccer leagues and little league when I was young. Demographics were almost all-white, despite there being a sizeable minority population in College Station.

Taking the family to a nice restaurant is a luxury that many people can't afford. Putting your kid in a basketball league is the same for many.

Sure. And if you lived in Haiti, then $20 would probably be beyond your rich. Or if you lived in Western China, $6 would be a deal-breaker.

But to characterize our league as a rich-kid league is funny. Feel free to call it a "middle-class" league if that makes you feel better.

Many of the local soccer and volleyball elite teams charge $700 per kid. Our b-ball league (and my assistant and I) goes the extra mile to keep costs down.

Call it whatever you want. The fact is when you are a have-not, everyone that is not a have-not is a "have". It's a dichotomous world for the poor.

Many have-nots cannot afford $74 for a basketball league. How many have-nots are in your league? Probably few if any.

The point is, at least in Texas, it would be folly to rate your kid based on a league or system that tended to exclude anyone below the middle class.

Your theory makes sense but I'm not sure that's how it happens in the real world. I guarantee you the next Lebron James that's in 6th grade right now is playing on an AAU team.

Amare Stoudemire didn't start playing until he was 14.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amare_Stoudemire

Hakeem Olajuwon didn't start until he was 15.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakeem_Olajuwon

I would take that bet. AAU leagues are a step above city leagues in terms of cost and availability.

Believe it or not, many 6th graders now in the NBA were playing on playgrounds and local park gyms as kids.

Maybe in white-bread Utah it is different.

LOL. Ya think?

Mike, it is fun to see how earnest you are about convincing us that Texas is different from Utah. I am not sure why you think we need convincing, but thanks anyway.

Check it out yourself.

http://www.aauboysbasketball.org/blue/index.asp

Star kids nowadays get identified early and get put on AAU teams no matter how poor they are. Exceptions are those that develop late or aren't interested in sports at young age.

Please don't accuse us white-bread Utahns of not understanding the world we live in. We have internet and TV out here in Utah. And sometimes those from outside the borders visit her and tell us how life is out there. Sometimes we even venture outside the borders.

One thing to consider is that in Utah, a lot of the kids that play super-league of any sport really aren't good enough to play at that level, but do so because their parents sponsor a team. Super-league is one of the most political youth activities out there.

You all see the world through the lens of the entitled and educated.

There is a whole different world outside of Happy Valley.

I was a national champion in the AAU. But I had no illusions that I was even top 20 in my state. Because I knew that AAU was just a thin slice of a very big pie.

National AAU champion of what?