(08-06-2013 10:55 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/05/sports...html?_r=1&
Indeed, many of the bigger universities cannot agree on legislation among themselves. For instance, the Southeastern Conference is in favor of paying stipends to athletes, but the Atlantic Coast Conference is not. Ohio State did not want deregulation of recruiting, but Alabama did.
Pitt is in favor of it. Pitt's AD has publicly stated that he was in favor of stipends.
I can't cite any references but I believe Wake was the only ACC school opposed paying stipends.
(08-06-2013 06:21 PM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]I can't cite any references but I believe Wake was the only ACC school opposed paying stipends.
Wake's objection was one of wanting to explore the ramifications in regards to title ix more completely wasn't it?
(08-06-2013 06:55 PM)4x4hokies Wrote: [ -> ] (08-06-2013 06:21 PM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]I can't cite any references but I believe Wake was the only ACC school opposed paying stipends.
Wake's objection was one of wanting to explore the ramifications in regards to title ix more completely wasn't it?
That's what some have said, but I have no idea if it's accurate. I haven't seen anything to support the claim, nor have I looked.
(08-07-2013 11:44 AM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ] (08-06-2013 06:55 PM)4x4hokies Wrote: [ -> ] (08-06-2013 06:21 PM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]I can't cite any references but I believe Wake was the only ACC school opposed paying stipends.
Wake's objection was one of wanting to explore the ramifications in regards to title ix more completely wasn't it?
That's what some have said, but I have no idea if it's accurate. I haven't seen anything to support the claim, nor have I looked.
I read the list of schools and the comments they gave. Wake's was something along those lines. Some complained about being able to afford it, others complained it wasn't proper procedure because it wasn't emergency, others claimed they needed to outline it in more detail, others said they were worried about Title IX.