(10-08-2020 09:44 AM)Old tribe Wrote:  

(10-07-2020 09:24 PM)Zorch Wrote:  I’m on record as not wanting to cut any sports; however, I don’t see the need to add any sports either. I would like to see a detailed analysis on exactly where we stand on male/female ratios for Title IX. If the gap is small (and, presumably, to the detriment of females) then perhaps it could be rectified by simply adding some more sprinters/middle distance/ long distance runners/swimmers and maybe just one or two players in the other women’s sports. They don’t have to be on scholarship to be counted as participants.

Here is what the EADA shows (the data used to analyze Title IX) with respect to male/female enrollment and male/female athletics participation.

Enrollment

Men: 2,662

Women: 3,635

42.3% male/57.7% female

Varsity Athletics Participation (prior to cuts)

Men: 344

Women: 296

53.75% men/46.25% women.

So there is a variance of 11.45% between enrollment and participation.

As I stated in a prior post, Title IX is a three part test (and all 3 parts need to be met to be in compliance). But when most people talk about Title IX they talk about the first test: whether a schools is providing equal athletics participation opportunities to its male and female students.

There are 3 ways you can meet this first prong. The safest way (as a result, it's called the safe harbor) is to show you have a variance of 2% or less between your enrollment and your athletics participation opportunities. Before the cuts, W&M was well outside of this 2% range. As shown above, the variance is 11.45%. This is a historical issue, not something Huge created (as I've seen some claim), based on W&M having majority female enrollment and having a football team.

After the cuts, W&M would have 220 male athletes and 235 female athletes, putting it closer to the 2% variance but still not within it. The variance drops to 6.1% in this scenario (51.6% female athletes/48.4% male athletes versus 57.7% enrollment/42.3% male enrollment).

But as I also said in my earlier post, W&M can show it's meeting this first prong of Title IX by demonstrating it has a history of adding women's sports. This is a fact intensive, subjective inquiry and W&M could satisfy the first prong of Title IX under this inquiry. Especially with the cuts, since it is reducing its variance range.

Hey man, I am attorney as well and have only done very limited Title IX work and never on the college athletics side but your post confuses me. You seem to say that there is a three-part test within a three-part test for Title IX. As far as I knew, there is only one three-part test for complying with Title IX in college athletics and you only need to met one of the three prongs to be considered compliant. Those three prongs are: 1) Proportionality, 2) Expansion, and 3) Accommodation. However, you seem to state that this is only the first part of a larger three part test. Can you provide some more context? Just curious for my own personal education.

(10-08-2020 01:06 PM)zablenoise Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 12:17 PM)Zorch Wrote:  A deeper dive into some of the numbers showed some very interesting trends. First, though, some housekeeping. You (Old tribe) have written several times that a school has to pass all 3 tests in order to be Title IX compliant. During these discussions I read an article saying that a school has to pass only one of the three tests to be compliant. Your statement about Test 1 being the "safe harbor" would actually seem to corroborate that (that is, in your scenario of needing all three then how would passing only one give you a safe harbor? It would give you safe harbor if you needed only one.).

I can actually answer this. Title IX has a "three part test" and requires all three parts to be met: 1) substantially proportionality between enrollment and participation in athletics, 2) a history and continuing practice of expanding participation opportunities, and 3) being fully and effectively accommodating. Then, additionally, there are three ways that a school can satisfy the first part of the test. That is where the "safe harbor" comes into play.

This is actually also not correct.

Title IX does have a 3 part test. And you have to pass all 3 parts to be in compliance with Title IX. The 3 parts are:

1. Are male and female athletes receiving their fair share of athletic scholarship money?
2. Is the school providing equal opportunities for/effectively accommodating the athletics interests of male and female students?
3. Is the school providing equivalent athletics benefits and services to male and female athletes?

Part 1 requires an examination of what percentage of athletic scholarship money is going to male and female athletes. To be in compliance, there can only be a 1% variance. So, for example, if 50% of a school's varsity athletes are female, then females must receive at least 49% of the total athletic scholarship money being awarded by the school.

On part 2, there are three potential ways you can meet it. Those are the 3 items/tests listed by zablenoise. You only have to pass one of them to be in compliance with part 2. Substantial proportionality between enrollment and participation in athletics is what is known as the safe harbor because it's an objective test. If you are within the 2% variance range, you pass part 2. Part 2 is the part of Title IX we have been discussing in this thread.

Part 3 requires an examination of 11 different factors to see if those factors are equal for men and women athletes. Some of those factors are: equipment and supplies, scheduling of games and practice times, travel and per diem allowance, tutoring, coaching, locker rooms and practice and competition facilities.

Now you are all Title IX experts.

Thanks Old Tribe!

(10-08-2020 01:39 PM)Old tribe Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 01:06 PM)zablenoise Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 12:17 PM)Zorch Wrote:  A deeper dive into some of the numbers showed some very interesting trends. First, though, some housekeeping. You (Old tribe) have written several times that a school has to pass all 3 tests in order to be Title IX compliant. During these discussions I read an article saying that a school has to pass only one of the three tests to be compliant. Your statement about Test 1 being the "safe harbor" would actually seem to corroborate that (that is, in your scenario of needing all three then how would passing only one give you a safe harbor? It would give you safe harbor if you needed only one.).

I can actually answer this. Title IX has a "three part test" and requires all three parts to be met: 1) substantially proportionality between enrollment and participation in athletics, 2) a history and continuing practice of expanding participation opportunities, and 3) being fully and effectively accommodating. Then, additionally, there are three ways that a school can satisfy the first part of the test. That is where the "safe harbor" comes into play.

This is actually also not correct.

Title IX does have a 3 part test. And you have to pass all 3 parts to be in compliance with Title IX. The 3 parts are:

1. Are male and female athletes receiving their fair share of athletic scholarship money?
2. Is the school providing equal opportunities for/effectively accommodating the athletics interests of male and female students?
3. Is the school providing equivalent athletics benefits and services to male and female athletes?

Part 1 requires an examination of what percentage of athletic scholarship money is going to male and female athletes. To be in compliance, there can only be a 1% variance. So, for example, if 50% of a school's varsity athletes are female, then females must receive at least 49% of the total athletic scholarship money being awarded by the school.

On part 2, there are three potential ways you can meet it. Those are the 3 items/tests listed by zablenoise. You only have to pass one of them to be in compliance with part 2. Substantial proportionality between enrollment and participation in athletics is what is known as the safe harbor because it's an objective test. If you are within the 2% variance range, you pass part 2. Part 2 is the part of Title IX we have been discussing in this thread.

Part 3 requires an examination of 11 different factors to see if those factors are equal for men and women athletes. Some of those factors are: equipment and supplies, scheduling of games and practice times, travel and per diem allowance, tutoring, coaching, locker rooms and practice and competition facilities.

Now you are all Title IX experts.

Yes, it is a lot clearer now. Thanks!

I thought you only had to meet one of the prongs. See attached article.

http://www.espn.com/gen/womenandsports/0...force.html

Anyone else **** themselves when he mentioned going D3?

Here's the link if you weren't able to watch live

Not able to watch live - what did he say about D3?

(10-08-2020 07:00 PM)wml33t Wrote:  Not able to watch live - what did he say about D3?

Nothing really. The commitment is to D1.

(10-08-2020 07:11 PM)Tribe4SF Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 07:00 PM)wml33t Wrote:  Not able to watch live - what did he say about D3?

Nothing really. The commitment is to D1.

I should hope so. I'm fine with W&M offering a wide range of sports, but if it means dropping down a classification to do it, I'm not sure I can get behind it.

(10-08-2020 07:22 PM)mrjoolius Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 07:11 PM)Tribe4SF Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 07:00 PM)wml33t Wrote:  Not able to watch live - what did he say about D3?

Nothing really. The commitment is to D1.

I should hope so. I'm fine with W&M offering a wide range of sports, but if it means dropping down a classification to do it, I'm not sure I can get behind it.

Yeah, PL talk is bad enough

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk