(04-14-2020 05:07 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 04:47 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 03:53 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 02:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If the NCAA waives minimum teams requirements, expect men's sports to be on the chop-block because (a) Title IX still protects women's sports, and (b) football is the Sacred Cow that the other sports will be sacrificed to.

Title IX protects gender equity; it won't provide protection for a school that goes to two men's sports and nine women's sports. Title IX has the "women's sports law" connotation because schools were out of compliance because of disproportionate men's sports, but make no mistake: if there's deep cuts to be had in athletic departments, while women's sports won't be the first to go, they won't be immune.

It could if the two men's sports receive resources and scholarships equivalent to the nine women's sports. Raw number of sports does not matter.

No, but unless the women's sports are mostly non-scholarship, or that nine of every 11 students are female, the discrepancy would still exist. I'm just pushing back on the notion that Title IX is exclusively a women's sports rule; it's a gender equity rule that is mostly called on for athletic departments that do not have a balance that meets the standard that it sets.

You can have 9 women's sports with 10 scholarships each (on average), and then football and men's basketball fully funded, and you would still owe the women some slots. Football swallows men's athletic opportunities whole.

(04-15-2020 09:55 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 05:07 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 04:47 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 03:53 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 02:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If the NCAA waives minimum teams requirements, expect men's sports to be on the chop-block because (a) Title IX still protects women's sports, and (b) football is the Sacred Cow that the other sports will be sacrificed to.

Title IX protects gender equity; it won't provide protection for a school that goes to two men's sports and nine women's sports. Title IX has the "women's sports law" connotation because schools were out of compliance because of disproportionate men's sports, but make no mistake: if there's deep cuts to be had in athletic departments, while women's sports won't be the first to go, they won't be immune.

It could if the two men's sports receive resources and scholarships equivalent to the nine women's sports. Raw number of sports does not matter.

No, but unless the women's sports are mostly non-scholarship, or that nine of every 11 students are female, the discrepancy would still exist. I'm just pushing back on the notion that Title IX is exclusively a women's sports rule; it's a gender equity rule that is mostly called on for athletic departments that do not have a balance that meets the standard that it sets.

You can have 9 women's sports with 10 scholarships each (on average), and then football and men's basketball fully funded, and you would still owe the women some slots. Football swallows men's athletic opportunities whole.

Volleyball and women's hoops are full funded sports.

(04-14-2020 02:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 01:10 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  @PeteThamel

@YahooSports
obtained a letter from Group of 5 Commissioners to NCAA President Mark Emmert asking for "temporary relief from several regulatory (NCAA) requirements for a period of up to 4 years." Among them are sports sponsorships minimums, which hints at more sports cuts.

More detail:

Quote:Pete Thamel
@PeteThamel

The "regulatory requirements" that Group of 5 Commissioners are looking from relief from include: Sports Sponsorships, Football Attendance requirements, Football Scheduling requirements, Additional Financial Aid Requirements and minimum contests that sports must play.

10:41 AM · Apr 14, 2020·Twitter Web App

They are asking the NCAA to waive every significant FBS/D-I requirement for athletic departments.

-- Minimum number of varsity sports (requirements are at least 6 men's sports, at least 8 women's sports, total of at least 16 varsity sports)
-- Minimum football attendance
-- Minimum number of games required in each sport
-- Minimum number of FBS opponents (in football) or D-I opponents (in other sports)
-- Minimum number of athletic scholarships each school has to award

And although not mentioned in Thamel's report, no doubt they also want the NCAA to waive academic progress (APR) rules, based on the argument that it will be difficult to monitor athletes' academic progress if they are taking online classes.

This last point you make is total BS. It's actually easier to monitor online. Every quiz score, every HW is recorded. I've taken a few grad classes online (mostly for fun) and it's surprisingly secure, from photo ID (they take a picture of your face when you take a test or quiz) to scoring. You know exactly where you are in seconds. Only Essays take longer to grade, since they need professional review. So you don't get the delays of flaky Profs who take two weeks to get their grades done. (English Lit type classes excepted)


Certainly a compliance officer would be given access to the scores and updates, as they fit the "need to know" that information in their job description. Nearly every FBS level college has (or should have) a uniform system for online classes, including recording of scores. IMO any school would have to make an individual appeal for this compliance to be waived, explaining why their school lacks the systems for instant monitoring.

(04-15-2020 10:13 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 09:55 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 05:07 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 04:47 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 03:53 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  Title IX protects gender equity; it won't provide protection for a school that goes to two men's sports and nine women's sports. Title IX has the "women's sports law" connotation because schools were out of compliance because of disproportionate men's sports, but make no mistake: if there's deep cuts to be had in athletic departments, while women's sports won't be the first to go, they won't be immune.

It could if the two men's sports receive resources and scholarships equivalent to the nine women's sports. Raw number of sports does not matter.

No, but unless the women's sports are mostly non-scholarship, or that nine of every 11 students are female, the discrepancy would still exist. I'm just pushing back on the notion that Title IX is exclusively a women's sports rule; it's a gender equity rule that is mostly called on for athletic departments that do not have a balance that meets the standard that it sets.

You can have 9 women's sports with 10 scholarships each (on average), and then football and men's basketball fully funded, and you would still owe the women some slots. Football swallows men's athletic opportunities whole.

Volleyball and women's hoops are full funded sports.

Great, but if you only have 4 cross country scholarships, you are still averaging about 10 women's scholarships per sport. And a "fully funded" volleyball team's budget is a rounding error in the football budget.

(04-14-2020 03:53 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  Title IX protects gender equity; it won't provide protection for a school that goes to two men's sports and nine women's sports.

Title IX protects women's gender equity.

(04-16-2020 11:38 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 03:53 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  Title IX protects gender equity; it won't provide protection for a school that goes to two men's sports and nine women's sports.

Title IX protects women's gender equity.

Not true.

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Now, is there really any scenario in which a school (particularly one with football) will not be offering enough opportunity to a male athlete? Probably not. But the law itself is facially neutral.