But it could happen if the sports were funded by the players and their parents through fundraising and sponsorship
This is done all the time. They're called travel teams.
Then again, looking at my son's school system I don't know how they're balancing it given the number of students and the money it costs to run a V and JV football program.
Don't know how this balances with Title IX (from the systems website):
Fall: Football; JV Football; M-Cross Country; W-Cross Country; M-Soccer; M-JV Soccer; W-Tennis; W-Volleyball; W-JV Volleyball; Cheerleading; JV-Cheerleading; W-Golf
Winter: M-Basketball; M-JV Basketball; W-Basketball; W-JV Basketball; Swimming; Wrestling; Cheerleading; JV-Cheerleading; Indoor Track
Spring: Baseball; JV Baseball; W-Soccer; W-JV Soccer; W-Softball; W-JV Softball; M-Tennis; M-Golf; M-Track; W-Track
Many females want to play baseball, and they won't accept anything as a substitute. It's about what people choose to do and not about what they *should* settle for.
The only thing I'm bitter about is the dominance of the male throughout history, and the continued thinking of some males that they have the right to dominate. It's such a lowly-evolved concept.
So, I ask you this... how differently do you think the picture would be now, if females had been allowed to play sports since the inception of sporting competition and the inception of sporting competition in schools and colleges?
I KNOW the picture would be COMPLETELY different.
Some other sports might not be played at HS level so some different sports could be played.
I'll agree that if things had been even, for opportunities, from the beginning that you'd have a girls baseball and boys baseball (like basketball) instead of softball.
Don't know about football or what it would replace. Takes a lot of money, equipment, insurance to have football. Something else would have to go.
It also takes a lot of money... maybe more than football, considering the high cost of ice time... equipment, and insurance to have H.S. ice hockey teams, but they exist all over the place in cold weather climates... for both girls and boys.
It doesn't matter if hockey is a more regional sport. The point is that it could be even more expensive than football is, yet a lot of schools in cold weather states have it. Therefore, regardless of how expensive it is, the schools support it.
Again, everyone can't have everything.
We're in a large school district that covers a good sized city and surrounding area. Schools are in affluent neighborhoods and poor neighborhoods. The same sports are offered at all schools, though some schools don't have enough players for some JV teams.
Well you do need an opponent. So some consistency in an area is helpful.
But my other point came back to the fact that funds are limited. To have the expensive sports something else will have to go. Add a girl's football team, assuming there are 30 or more interested girls at a school and something else will have to be dropped.
And maybe it becomes a niche sport like lacrosse. Played in some areas where funding is not an issue. That doesn't help in the rest of the country.
Where I live, there are a lot of wealthy school districts. Their campuses look more like 5-star resorts than high school campuses. Even the not-so-wealthy ones pay their teachers handsomely (I know one personally who used to play on my women's team, and she was pulling down $80,000/yr... and that was at least 5 years ago), so there is some money floating around. One of my mom's best friends is a teacher in the Detroit Public School System... a very poor and dilapidated district. She makes $50,000+ as a teacher there.
I remember when I was a kid... 8 or 9 years old. Soccer wasn't a popular sport for anyone in the country. My school district started a soccer program, starting with the elementary students. Now, soccer is very popular amongst high schools kids and younger kids throughout the country. The money had to have come from somewhere to build the programs and soccer fields.
Also, sports like soccer took off because people who love the sport started leagues for young kids to play. Schools offered it when there was a demand.
My high school didn't have soccer (all those many years ago), now it does.
It would be up to each school to pick and choose which sports they offer, and that would be based in part on interest and budget
The more you post the more you demonstrate a lack of understanding of high school sports. Schools don't just need teams. They need conferences to play in. That's why you see mostly the same sports across the board by region.
In our youth football league we actively recruit girls to play and so do many other teams in the league. At most we might get three and that's rare. Two or three times since I've been involved in the league (about 15 years) we have tried to form an all girls league just in case it brought more participation. It never did. The team with the largest population of players to pull from ( a town of about 50,000) only got 7 signed up for one age group most only got 0-2. So I would have to say the interest being described isn't there for football, maybe baseball, but not football.
As for title IX its not just equal spending but equal participation based on enrollment. It's not about how many teams you have but the percentage of athletes vs student enrollment. So if you have a school of 1000 kids, 500 boys, and 500 girls and 100 boys play football then you have to offer enough female sports to cover 100 athletes IF there is interest (which is about 5 sports). Before title IX my old high school had football, basketball, and baseball for boys and basketball and softball for girls. Now it has football, basketball, and baseball for boys and volleyball, soccer, tennis, golf, cross country, basketball, and softball for girls. Now does this provide more opportunities for the girls YES but it destroys their ability to compete. This is a school of 400 so you can imagine how the talent is spread out. The problem is it's a football town and 94 of the 187 boys enrolled this year played football.
I read a lot, and listen a lot to what you, Not About Ego, and Metfan have to say, trying to see both sides of the issue. I have strong feeling about promoting women in non-traditional athletic programs, but I feel like I can listen and learn in areas of Title IX I may not fully understand. HOWEVER, this quote above is off-base, mean-spirited and offensive. Please remove it immediately or edit your response. Spirited argument and polite dissension is a good thing, but when it turns discriminatory, it turns ugly, and when it turns ugly, it also turns stupid. I doubt you're stupid from the content of many of your responses, but I think this quote was a mistake that you should deal with quickly.