(01-20-2015 06:56 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 06:32 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Nope. Title IX will be even more scrutinized with this stuff.

It's going to end up screwing a bunch of people.

Won't be surprised to see a lot of smaller schools scrap athletics.

Which would make all the bigger schools happy as hell.

(01-20-2015 06:56 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 06:32 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Nope. Title IX will be even more scrutinized with this stuff.

It's going to end up screwing a bunch of people.

Won't be surprised to see a lot of smaller schools scrap athletics.

I played division 3 athletics. We didn't have a single sport that produced any significant amount of revenue. Yet we had a full complement of sports.

It's odd how people think that sports are just gonna disappear. Maybe they should demand that this cartel's business practices are reevaluated so that students who produce ridiculous value aren't exploited while coaches, administrators and those close to the university like construction companies make significant money.

Were you all on full rides? Rhetorical question. By NCAA rule, D-III can not give athletic scholarships.

(01-20-2015 09:18 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Were you all on full rides? Rhetorical question. By NCAA rule, D-III can not give athletic scholarships.

Why should a swimmer be on a full ride? Why is it incumbent on the athlete in basketball or football to surrender his earning potential instead of a coach/administrator sacrificing some of his/her bloated salary?

Adjusted for current dollar value, what was tuition, room and board at that D-III school. North of 30k? Not a bad tax free payday for an 18 year old. Especially ones that might not have had the opportunity otherwise.

(01-20-2015 09:12 PM)Overrated Wrote:  I played division 3 athletics. We didn't have a single sport that produced any significant amount of revenue. Yet we had a full complement of sports.

It's odd how people think that sports are just gonna disappear. Maybe they should demand that this cartel's business practices are reevaluated so that students who produce ridiculous value aren't exploited while coaches, administrators and those close to the university like construction companies make significant money.

DIII is a completely different animal and using it as a comparison would be a waste of time.

Most athletic programs outside of football aren't profitable. In most cases, the football program subsidizes everything else. That's easy to do when you're Ohio State, Alabama, Texas and so on, but it's next to impossible when you are on the level of UAB.

(01-20-2015 05:30 PM)OregonBearcat Wrote:  I believe the women's rowing team at UC has varsity status, the men's is a club sport.

We have not had rowing as a varsity sport at UC in several years.

(01-20-2015 06:32 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Nope. Title IX will be even more scrutinized with this stuff.

How can they say to say school...if you want sports you have to pay students in every sport to keep it even? Can a school be forced to pay students this Cost of Attendance in sports that don't even generate revenue? It doesn't seem fair. The only fair way to offset this is to allow a school to pick what sports it wants (can afford to pay the Cost of Attendance) in an ala carte situation.

Fair? Pay 85 guys who play football 5 grand a year to augment an athletic scholarship. Now give the women's volleyball team, soccer team, track team and swim team those exact same same athletic scholarships without the additional 5k. The Title IX lawsuits almost write themselves. And all of those suits will come with all plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs paid by the schools. This is going to be the Wild West.

(01-21-2015 07:19 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Fair? Pay 85 guys who play football 5 grand a year to augment an athletic scholarship. Now give the women's volleyball team, soccer team, track team and swim team those exact same same athletic scholarships without the additional 5k. The Title IX lawsuits almost write themselves. And all of those suits will come with all plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs paid by the schools. This is going to be the Wild West.

But those sports aren't getting the same scholarship that football players get right now and it isn't the wild west. Why is this rule going to change that and create new lawsuits?

Title IX of the United States Education Amendments of 1972 is not just about scholarships (which most fans and members of the sports media get hung up on). By definition it requires equal benefits, access to support services, access to facility scheduling, etc. There are a lot of facets that get scrutinized when a Title IX argument rears its head.

The equal benefits portion of this is where the rubber will meet the road. Big programs get this and will dip into the coffers. It's the financially strapped athletic departments that will try to keep up with the Jonses that are going to have a migraine.

I am not a plaintiffs attorney...but there are very good ones across the country already looking into this. Trust me on that.

(01-20-2015 09:12 PM)Overrated Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 06:56 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 06:32 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Nope. Title IX will be even more scrutinized with this stuff.

It's going to end up screwing a bunch of people.

Won't be surprised to see a lot of smaller schools scrap athletics.

I played division 3 athletics. We didn't have a single sport that produced any significant amount of revenue. Yet we had a full complement of sports.

It's odd how people think that sports are just gonna disappear. Maybe they should demand that this cartel's business practices are reevaluated so that students who produce ridiculous value aren't exploited while coaches, administrators and those close to the university like construction companies make significant money.

Division 3 athletics are different. You guys don't cost much either, seeing as how there are no athletic scholarships offered in Division 3, sure they earmark "academic" scholarships for some people, but they don't lose $10,000-$30,000 per athlete like the big boys do.

(01-21-2015 10:13 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Title IX of the United States Education Amendments of 1972 is not just about scholarships (which most fans and members of the sports media get hung up on). By definition it requires equal benefits, access to support services, access to facility scheduling, etc. There are a lot of facets that get scrutinized when a Title IX argument rears its head.

The equal benefits portion of this is where the rubber will meet the road. Big programs get this and will dip into the coffers. It's the financially strapped athletic departments that will try to keep up with the Jonses that are going to have a migraine.

I am not a plaintiffs attorney...but there are very good ones across the country already looking into this. Trust me on that.

Right but again why haven't they been looking into this for 20 years. The benefits are already hugely lopsided in favor of football. Equivalency scholarships are not new and are heavily skewed towards women's sports on any campus with a football program.

There are subjective standards related to access and benefits that get challenged under Title IX, and there there are objective standards that rarely do because it is a lay down hand. Dollars are not subjective.

You don't have to like it, but every woman on athletic scholarship is going to get the same $$ as the star quarterback. And if the revenue teams and women's student athletes do, so will the non revenue mens teams or you will see a whole other set of arguments levied.

Schools are going to start following Kent State's lead and will be doing feasibility studies all over the place (if they have not done so) to see what programs can be cut or which ones may go to non athletic scholarships.. UC will not be exempt from doing the same thing.

(01-21-2015 01:15 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  There are subjective standards related to access and benefits that get challenged under Title IX, and there there are objective standards that rarely do because it is a lay down hand. Dollars are not subjective.

You don't have to like it, but every woman on athletic scholarship is going to get the same $$ as the star quarterback. And if the revenue teams and women's student athletes do, so will the non revenue mens teams or you will see a whole other set of arguments levied.

Schools are going to start following Kent State's lead and will be doing feasibility studies all over the place (if they have not done so) to see what programs can be cut or which ones may go to non athletic scholarships.. UC will not be exempt from doing the same thing.

It has nothing to do with what I like or don't like. I'm still not clear why tuition dollars would be treated differently than cost of living dollars for the purposes of title IX. Tuition is not subjective and every female athlete currently does not get the same $$ as the star quarterback.

If a school elects to provide full cost of attendance to football players they'll have to cover basketball, tennis, gymnastics and volleyball players (the other head count sports) as well (the cost for those four programs will still be significantly less than the cost of just the increase to the football program). They won't suddenly have to pay full cost of attendance to soccer players, swimmers, rowers, lacrosse players, track and field athletes or anything other sport they choose to field at the D1 level. The most likely result for schools like Kent State (and UC to a lesser extent) is that they keep the minimum number of D1 programs alive and drastically cut the coaching budgets (especially assistant coaches) and possibly the scholarship budgets of the men's equivalency programs they choose to keep in order to help fund the head count sports.

(01-21-2015 01:15 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  There are subjective standards related to access and benefits that get challenged under Title IX, and there there are objective standards that rarely do because it is a lay down hand. Dollars are not subjective.

You don't have to like it, but every woman on athletic scholarship is going to get the same $$ as the star quarterback. And if the revenue teams and women's student athletes do, so will the non revenue mens teams or you will see a whole other set of arguments levied.

Schools are going to start following Kent State's lead and will be doing feasibility studies all over the place (if they have not done so) to see what programs can be cut or which ones may go to non athletic scholarships.. UC will not be exempt from doing the same thing.

We are already at the minimum number of sports required for conference membership.