After Atalanta

In a case of strange bedfellows, a Christian conservative editorialist has called the NCAA's decision to prevent member schools from eliminating or reducing a pregnant athlete's aid money a score for women's rights. Yeah, I thought so too but not for the reasons Thomas Ranson states . He's excited because it means fewer abortions. Female athletes win because they don't have to murder their innocent children or risk death and permanent damage by having an abortion. They can avoid, he writes, those blood clots that can afflict young women who get abortions. Not exactly the reasons I was thinking when I heard the news. I was more excited by the fact that coaches and athletic departments and unversities had to start actually following the law that prevents them from not penalizing pregnant women. A victory for women's rights generally but also a small step in curbing some of the insanity that exists in big-time (and more and more, little-time) college athletics and ...

In an article in the Lexington Herald-Leader (out of Kentucky), reprinted from a Florida paper, the author discusses the truth behind college scholarships. It is for all the parents sinking thousands of dollars into the children's sports in an effort to get them a "full ride" to let them know that that's not how college athletics work. Most scholarships are only partial ones. Most teams are allotted a certain number of scholarships and the coach divides them among players with not everyone getting an equal piece--or any piece at all. In some sports this does not happen--like football and men's and women's basketball--where full scholarships are awarded. But in other sports there are more limits, with, says the author, fewer limits on women's sports because of Title IX. In actuality, women in collegiate sports receive less scholarship dollars than male athletes. It may look like women's soccer has more scholarships than it's "equivalent" m...