Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
Author Message
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable
*

Posts: 21,339
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 1943
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #141
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(03-24-2018 02:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-24-2018 02:13 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
Quote:Anyway, it's pretty sad when your justification for remaining in FBS is that this way you can get paid $900k to travel to real FBS schools so they can check off a box on their way to bowl eligibility or something.

What's USF's justification for remaining in FBS?

That's not really a relevant response to my statement. 07-coffee3

Why not? USF has just as good of a chance as EMU at a national title.

Just because the question makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it isn't valid.
03-24-2018 10:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 28,774
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 672
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #142
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(03-24-2018 10:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(03-24-2018 02:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-24-2018 02:13 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
Quote:Anyway, it's pretty sad when your justification for remaining in FBS is that this way you can get paid $900k to travel to real FBS schools so they can check off a box on their way to bowl eligibility or something.

What's USF's justification for remaining in FBS?

That's not really a relevant response to my statement. 07-coffee3

Why not? USF has just as good of a chance as EMU at a national title.

Just because the question makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it isn't valid.

It's not a valid question. It doesn't address the point I made about existing for paydays whatsoever.

That said, USF is playing a game that can't go on forever. Like other top G5, we are soaking are students for tens of millions in fees to keep up the appearances of a "Power-Ready" program, in hopes of getting a P5 invite. If we do get that invite, it will have been worth it, literally, as the huge Power income stream that Clemson enjoys will in the long run dwarf the money the university has spent to achieve it.

But we can't go on like this forever. If we don't get a Power bid reasonably soon, at a certain point we have to be willing to concede we're throwing good money after bad, and cut our losses (meaning, our athletics).
(This post was last modified: 03-24-2018 11:31 PM by quo vadis.)
03-24-2018 11:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NoDak Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,319
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 94
I Root For: UND
Location:
Post: #143
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
Here’s the sports that have been added and cut the most in the past decade. EMU has plenty of company. Those sports cut don’t bring in much revenue, additional enrollment, or much civic pride.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Here-A...ege/242951
04-14-2018 06:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chargeradio Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,079
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 82
I Root For: ALA, KY, USA
Location: Louisville, KY
Post: #144
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
Kind of surprising to see so many schools in Division I without women's soccer programs. It looks like the list includes the following:

American Athletic - Wichita State
Atlantic Coast - Georgia Tech
Big Sky - Montana State
MEAC - Coppin State, UMES, Morgan State, Norfolk State, Bethune-Cookman, Florida A&M, NC A&T, NC Central, Savannah State
MVC - Bradley, Southern Illinois
OVC - Tennessee State
Southland - New Orleans
Sun Belt - Texas-Arlington
04-15-2018 08:28 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 28,774
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 672
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #145
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(04-15-2018 08:28 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Kind of surprising to see so many schools in Division I without women's soccer programs. It looks like the list includes the following:

Let's face it: Despite all the Official Mission Statements that use flowery language about a commitment to gender-equality in athletics, most non-Power schools** are playing a desperate min-max game whereby they are doing their best to invest as much money as possible into football and/or men's hoops, while staying within the court-defined parameters of Title IX compliance, and an acceptable public-perception on that issue.

** Power schools of course strive to do the same thing, but their big cash makes it considerably easier to do.
(This post was last modified: 04-15-2018 02:10 PM by quo vadis.)
04-15-2018 08:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,532
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 407
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #146
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(04-15-2018 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-15-2018 08:28 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Kind of surprising to see so many schools in Division I without women's soccer programs. It looks like the list includes the following:

Let's face it: Despite all the Official Mission Statements that use flowery language about a commitment to gender-equality in athletics, most non-Power schools** are playing a desperate min-max game whereby they are doing their best to invest as much money as possible into football and/or men's hoops, while staying within the court-defined parameters of Title IX compliance, and an acceptable public-perception on that issue.

** Power schools of course strive to do the same thing, but their big cash makes it considerably easier to do.

I would be curious to know how many schools have been required to add women's sports teams (or eliminate men's sports teams) because of action by whoever it is that enforces Title IX compliance.
04-16-2018 03:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 28,774
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 672
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #147
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(04-16-2018 03:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-15-2018 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-15-2018 08:28 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Kind of surprising to see so many schools in Division I without women's soccer programs. It looks like the list includes the following:

Let's face it: Despite all the Official Mission Statements that use flowery language about a commitment to gender-equality in athletics, most non-Power schools** are playing a desperate min-max game whereby they are doing their best to invest as much money as possible into football and/or men's hoops, while staying within the court-defined parameters of Title IX compliance, and an acceptable public-perception on that issue.

** Power schools of course strive to do the same thing, but their big cash makes it considerably easier to do.

I would be curious to know how many schools have been required to add women's sports teams (or eliminate men's sports teams) because of action by whoever it is that enforces Title IX compliance.

Courts don't require schools to add women's or eliminate men's teams. They just say that the scholarships have to be roughly equal.

E.g., if a school has football, and currently gives 140 scholarships to men's teams, and 80 to women's teams, with 60 of the men's being football, then it has to either cut back men's sports to bring men down to in the ballpark of 80, or else add women's sports to bring women up to around 140.

So when a school with football claims that a court forced it to cut men's diving and soccer and cross-country, what it is really saying is that it chose to sacrifice those sports to preserve football.

Football creates the problem, because it involves way more scholarships than other sports, and they basically all go to men.
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2018 04:34 PM by quo vadis.)
04-16-2018 03:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,799
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 355
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #148
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(04-16-2018 03:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-15-2018 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-15-2018 08:28 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Kind of surprising to see so many schools in Division I without women's soccer programs. It looks like the list includes the following:

Let's face it: Despite all the Official Mission Statements that use flowery language about a commitment to gender-equality in athletics, most non-Power schools** are playing a desperate min-max game whereby they are doing their best to invest as much money as possible into football and/or men's hoops, while staying within the court-defined parameters of Title IX compliance, and an acceptable public-perception on that issue.

** Power schools of course strive to do the same thing, but their big cash makes it considerably easier to do.

I would be curious to know how many schools have been required to add women's sports teams (or eliminate men's sports teams) because of action by whoever it is that enforces Title IX compliance.

In the 80’s over 200 D-1 wrestling schools...by 2010 the number was in the 70’s. All schools cited title 9 for the reason they dropped it. Arizona, LSU, Syracuse were just some of the successful programs axed.
04-16-2018 06:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MU88 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,056
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 22
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #149
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(04-16-2018 03:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Courts don't require schools to add women's or eliminate men's teams. They just say that the scholarships have to be roughly equal.

No, there is no requirement for scholarships to be equal. Its a common misconception. There are 3 test for title ix compliance.

(1) The number of male and female athletes is substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or

(2) The institution has a history and continuing practice of expanding participation opportunities responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex; or

(3) The institution is fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

Point 1 deals with participants, not scholarships. For example, some schools have female crew teams with almost as many athletes as football. Notice how popular women's lacrosse has become.

To satisfy Point 2, schools can show that they have been adding additional women's sports over time.

Point 3 is the when schools argue there is no interest in adding additional women's sports.

Nowadays, I think Point 3 is an uphill battle. After 40 years of title ix, I am not sure Point 2 is all that applicable anymore, for most schools. That leaves Point 1 as a the de facto test for title ix compliance.
04-16-2018 09:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
agz Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 13
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 2
I Root For: N/A
Location:
Post: #150
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(04-16-2018 09:32 PM)MU88 Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 03:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Courts don't require schools to add women's or eliminate men's teams. They just say that the scholarships have to be roughly equal.

No, there is no requirement for scholarships to be equal. Its a common misconception. There are 3 test for title ix compliance.

(1) The number of male and female athletes is substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or

(2) The institution has a history and continuing practice of expanding participation opportunities responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex; or

(3) The institution is fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

Point 1 deals with participants, not scholarships. For example, some schools have female crew teams with almost as many athletes as football. Notice how popular women's lacrosse has become.

To satisfy Point 2, schools can show that they have been adding additional women's sports over time.

Point 3 is the when schools argue there is no interest in adding additional women's sports.

Nowadays, I think Point 3 is an uphill battle. After 40 years of title ix, I am not sure Point 2 is all that applicable anymore, for most schools. That leaves Point 1 as a the de facto test for title ix compliance.

This has been discussed before and scholarships are required to be equal. From the CFR
Quote:(c ) Athletic scholarships. (1) To the extent that a recipient awards athletic scholarships or grants-in-aid, it must provide reasonable opportunities for such awards for members of each sex in proportion to the number of students of each sex participating in interscholastic or intercollegiate athletics.

Their is also other criteria. The test you're referring to only concerns itself with the first requirement.
Quote:(1) Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;

(2) The provision of equipment and supplies;

(3) Scheduling of games and practice time;

(4) Travel and per diem allowance;

(5) Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring;

(6) Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;

(7) Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;

(8) Provision of medical and training facilities and services;

(9) Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;

(10) Publicity.
04-17-2018 12:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 28,774
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 672
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #151
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(04-16-2018 09:32 PM)MU88 Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 03:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Courts don't require schools to add women's or eliminate men's teams. They just say that the scholarships have to be roughly equal.

No, there is no requirement for scholarships to be equal. Its a common misconception. There are 3 test for title ix compliance.

Right, but in practice, what that typically boils down to is that scholarships have to be roughly equal. Not exactly, but in the ball-park. Schools used to dodge this a bit by saying that males were 55% of the student population to justify more for men, but now that tables have turned, and females are typically the majority of students, that doesn't fly.

Basically, if you have significantly more men's scholarships than women's, you're in trouble.
(This post was last modified: 04-17-2018 11:31 AM by quo vadis.)
04-17-2018 11:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
beefcake0520 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 306
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 21
I Root For: marshall
Location:
Post: #152
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
If the NCAA had any balls to enforce its own rules, schools like EMU would have been forced out a long time ago. That wouldn't be a bad thing for the G5 or P5. Some schools just do not belong on this level of play. Enforce the attendance rule for pete's sake. When Marshall rejoined the MAC, its stadium was 28K, the school was forced to expand over 30k to fulfill its obligation to move up. Now there are no balls in the NCAA to "fix" whats broken with membership levels, and here we are.
04-17-2018 11:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bronco'14 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,153
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 13
I Root For: WMU Broncos
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Post: #153
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
It would help Eastern Michigan if 99% of the state wasn't always on the Michigan / Michigan St bandwagon/Walmarters

(04-15-2018 08:28 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Kind of surprising to see so many schools in Division I without women's soccer programs. It looks like the list includes the following:

American Athletic - Wichita State
Atlantic Coast - Georgia Tech
Big Sky - Montana State
MEAC - Coppin State, UMES, Morgan State, Norfolk State, Bethune-Cookman, Florida A&M, NC A&T, NC Central, Savannah State
MVC - Bradley, Southern Illinois
OVC - Tennessee State
Southland - New Orleans
Sun Belt - Texas-Arlington

I don't think Georgia Tech even has men's soccer, which I find baffling.

(04-17-2018 11:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 09:32 PM)MU88 Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 03:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Courts don't require schools to add women's or eliminate men's teams. They just say that the scholarships have to be roughly equal.

No, there is no requirement for scholarships to be equal. Its a common misconception. There are 3 test for title ix compliance.

Right, but in practice, what that typically boils down to is that scholarships have to be roughly equal. Not exactly, but in the ball-park. Schools used to dodge this a bit by saying that males were 55% of the student population to justify more for men, but now that tables have turned, and females are typically the majority of students, that doesn't fly.

Basically, if you have significantly more men's scholarships than women's, you're in trouble.

Quo Vadis is right.
(This post was last modified: 04-17-2018 04:44 PM by Bronco'14.)
04-17-2018 04:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fthechips Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 915
Joined: Jan 2018
Reputation: -17
I Root For: Western Mich
Location:
Post: #154
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(04-21-2018 11:22 AM)Fthechips Wrote:  
(04-17-2018 11:31 AM)beefcake0520 Wrote:  If the NCAA had any balls to enforce its own rules, schools like EMU would have been forced out a long time ago. That wouldn't be a bad thing for the G5 or P5. Some schools just do not belong on this level of play. Enforce the attendance rule for pete's sake. When Marshall rejoined the MAC, its stadium was 28K, the school was forced to expand over 30k to fulfill its obligation to move up. Now there are no balls in the NCAA to "fix" whats broken with membership levels, and here we are.

Agreed, I just don’t see how you can build and maintain a program when you’re right on top of the biggest college football program in the country. EMU, Kent, Ball St should all cut football and move to a basketball conference, and then the MAC bring in Marshal, JMU, and ODU.(Hell, bring in Appalachian st for all I care).That expands the MAC’s footprint, declutters the saturated Michigan and Ohio markets, and brings in 3 solid programs with room for growth. The MAC is just way too closely knit, Buffalo is probably the only exception, but every other school is somewhat close to somebody, Akron/Kent St, UofM/EMU, Toledo/BG, Miami/Cinci.
04-21-2018 11:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,925
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 110
I Root For: tOSU SJSU
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #155
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
I am surprised Frank teh Tank has not commented on the Forbes Article about Illinois. While a different State many of the same trends are in place for Directional schools throughout the Midwest, bringing into question why they are spending more and more public funds to keep athletics at D-1. It is amazing how many fewer students there are at schools like EIU, SIU, and others. This means the redundancy of campuses and costs of athletics are growing burdens.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzej...0b99c81018
04-21-2018 11:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bogg Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,213
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 67
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #156
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(03-24-2018 10:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(03-24-2018 02:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-24-2018 02:13 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
Quote:Anyway, it's pretty sad when your justification for remaining in FBS is that this way you can get paid $900k to travel to real FBS schools so they can check off a box on their way to bowl eligibility or something.

What's USF's justification for remaining in FBS?

That's not really a relevant response to my statement. 07-coffee3

Why not? USF has just as good of a chance as EMU at a national title.

Just because the question makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it isn't valid.

If UCF can win a national championship I don't see why USF couldn't as well.
04-21-2018 11:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ohio Poly Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 942
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Ohio Poly
Location:
Post: #157
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(04-21-2018 11:22 AM)Fthechips Wrote:  
(04-17-2018 11:31 AM)beefcake0520 Wrote:  If the NCAA had any balls to enforce its own rules, schools like EMU would have been forced out a long time ago. That wouldn't be a bad thing for the G5 or P5. Some schools just do not belong on this level of play. Enforce the attendance rule for pete's sake. When Marshall rejoined the MAC, its stadium was 28K, the school was forced to expand over 30k to fulfill its obligation to move up. Now there are no balls in the NCAA to "fix" whats broken with membership levels, and here we are.

Agreed, I just don’t see how you can build and maintain a program when you’re right on top of the biggest college football program in the country. EMU, Kent, Ball St should all cut football and move to a basketball conference, and then the MAC bring in Marshal, JMU, and ODU.(Hell, bring in Appalachian st for all I care).That expands the MAC’s footprint, declutters the saturated Michigan and Ohio markets, and brings in 3 solid programs with room for growth. The MAC is just way too closely knit, Buffalo is probably the only exception, but every other school is somewhat close to somebody, Akron/Kent St, UofM/EMU, Toledo/BG, Miami/Cinci.

I like it.
04-21-2018 12:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,728
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #158
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(04-21-2018 11:27 AM)Fthechips Wrote:  
(04-21-2018 11:22 AM)Fthechips Wrote:  
(04-17-2018 11:31 AM)beefcake0520 Wrote:  If the NCAA had any balls to enforce its own rules, schools like EMU would have been forced out a long time ago. That wouldn't be a bad thing for the G5 or P5. Some schools just do not belong on this level of play. Enforce the attendance rule for pete's sake. When Marshall rejoined the MAC, its stadium was 28K, the school was forced to expand over 30k to fulfill its obligation to move up. Now there are no balls in the NCAA to "fix" whats broken with membership levels, and here we are.

Agreed, I just don’t see how you can build and maintain a program when you’re right on top of the biggest college football program in the country. EMU, Kent, Ball St should all cut football and move to a basketball conference, and then the MAC bring in Marshal, JMU, and ODU.(Hell, bring in Appalachian st for all I care).That expands the MAC’s footprint, declutters the saturated Michigan and Ohio markets, and brings in 3 solid programs with room for growth. The MAC is just way too closely knit, Buffalo is probably the only exception, but every other school is somewhat close to somebody, Akron/Kent St, UofM/EMU, Toledo/BG, Miami/Cinci.

I don't see the point in bringing in Virginia schools to the MAC. It was discussed before to bring in JMU/ODU by the MAC but at the end of the day they didn't see it helping the conference.

What would make more sense the next time the MAC has an opening to bring in Illinois State and take another bite out of the MVC. Then it makes for a bridge to Missouri St or SIU down the road.
04-21-2018 01:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fthechips Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 915
Joined: Jan 2018
Reputation: -17
I Root For: Western Mich
Location:
Post: #159
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(04-21-2018 01:04 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(04-21-2018 11:27 AM)Fthechips Wrote:  
(04-21-2018 11:22 AM)Fthechips Wrote:  
(04-17-2018 11:31 AM)beefcake0520 Wrote:  If the NCAA had any balls to enforce its own rules, schools like EMU would have been forced out a long time ago. That wouldn't be a bad thing for the G5 or P5. Some schools just do not belong on this level of play. Enforce the attendance rule for pete's sake. When Marshall rejoined the MAC, its stadium was 28K, the school was forced to expand over 30k to fulfill its obligation to move up. Now there are no balls in the NCAA to "fix" whats broken with membership levels, and here we are.

Agreed, I just don’t see how you can build and maintain a program when you’re right on top of the biggest college football program in the country. EMU, Kent, Ball St should all cut football and move to a basketball conference, and then the MAC bring in Marshal, JMU, and ODU.(Hell, bring in Appalachian st for all I care).That expands the MAC’s footprint, declutters the saturated Michigan and Ohio markets, and brings in 3 solid programs with room for growth. The MAC is just way too closely knit, Buffalo is probably the only exception, but every other school is somewhat close to somebody, Akron/Kent St, UofM/EMU, Toledo/BG, Miami/Cinci.

I don't see the point in bringing in Virginia schools to the MAC. It was discussed before to bring in JMU/ODU by the MAC but at the end of the day they didn't see it helping the conference.

What would make more sense the next time the MAC has an opening to bring in Illinois State and take another bite out of the MVC. Then it makes for a bridge to Missouri St or SIU down the road.

James Madison brings so much more to the table than Illinois St does. Football program is leagues above, better academics, basketball programs are about equal, I think adding Illinois St would just be adding more deadweight. However, I would be ok with bringing in Illinois St if it meant EMU got the boot. Replacing EMU with JMU would be an immediate boost to the conference.

East

Akron
Bowling Green
Buffalo
JMU
Miami(OH)
Marshal

West

Toledo
NIU
WMU
CMU
Middle Tenn
Western Kentucky

Now that would be a fun conference, the West would be loaded...
(This post was last modified: 04-21-2018 01:46 PM by Fthechips.)
04-21-2018 01:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,073
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 735
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #160
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(04-16-2018 09:32 PM)MU88 Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 03:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Courts don't require schools to add women's or eliminate men's teams. They just say that the scholarships have to be roughly equal.

No, there is no requirement for scholarships to be equal. Its a common misconception. There are 3 test for title ix compliance.

(1) The number of male and female athletes is substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or

(2) The institution has a history and continuing practice of expanding participation opportunities responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex; or

(3) The institution is fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

Point 1 deals with participants, not scholarships. For example, some schools have female crew teams with almost as many athletes as football. Notice how popular women's lacrosse has become.

To satisfy Point 2, schools can show that they have been adding additional women's sports over time.

Point 3 is the when schools argue there is no interest in adding additional women's sports.

Nowadays, I think Point 3 is an uphill battle. After 40 years of title ix, I am not sure Point 2 is all that applicable anymore, for most schools. That leaves Point 1 as a the de facto test for title ix compliance.

Nobody is willing to risk court on point 3.
04-21-2018 01:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.