KEEP THE SPORT. College sports do not make money unless you are one of the lucky 10 universities out there with a monster football program to subsidies the rest of the sports. Keep the sport and stop over analyzing. Stay above the minimum and do not make that an issue. Baseball is a sport that does not require major funds, once the grace period ends and we have to gain another sport, what do you do then? Just keep the program and maybe we should focus on it a bit more and get it out of the basement. Plus if you drop a men's sport you would have to figure out how to maintain title 9 compliance(not sure this would be a big issue).

(06-03-2020 03:20 PM)BusDriver Wrote:  KEEP THE SPORT. College sports do not make money unless you are one of the lucky 10 universities out there with a monster football program to subsidies the rest of the sports. Keep the sport and stop over analyzing. Stay above the minimum and do not make that an issue. Baseball is a sport that does not require major funds, once the grace period ends and we have to gain another sport, what do you do then? Just keep the program and maybe we should focus on it a bit more and get it out of the basement. Plus if you drop a men's sport you would have to figure out how to maintain title 9 compliance(not sure this would be a big issue).

Maybe the athletes that used to go to BG to play baseball will end up at UT instead. Will be some players looking for a home with BG canceling the program. This may be a chance to build the program up and be competitive in the MAC. Need to land the players first. Of all the guys I played with or against over the years - only Mike Rachuba (Start), Mike O'Reilly (Whitmer) and Ron Harris (Stritch) ended up at UT. Many others went to Kent State, BG, Ohio State, or got drafted out of high school (Mike Elders (Clay), Jeff Shaneck (Genoa), Jeff Little (Woodmore), et al.

BG has reinstated baseball after getting $1.5M in donations.

(06-03-2020 03:20 PM)BusDriver Wrote:  KEEP THE SPORT. College sports do not make money unless you are one of the lucky 10 universities out there with a monster football program to subsidies the rest of the sports. Keep the sport and stop over analyzing. Stay above the minimum and do not make that an issue. Baseball is a sport that does not require major funds, once the grace period ends and we have to gain another sport, what do you do then? Just keep the program and maybe we should focus on it a bit more and get it out of the basement. Plus if you drop a men's sport you would have to figure out how to maintain title 9 compliance(not sure this would be a big issue).

Title 9 compliance wouldnt be an issue at all, as the requirement is to maintain AT LEAST as much funding for womens sports as men...more for women is fine, got to love it, right?

And truthfully, I'd love to keep the sport...but when that $1.5M could be used to actually float the operations of departments and offices essential to the primary function of the University instead, you have to consider priorities.

Balbinot is really good at getting the baseball coach to do a podcast. I think this is like the third or fourth time. From this discussion the AD left it to the individual coaches to make the necessary cuts to make budget work. Props to MOB on that one. MOB has made the commitment to keep the sports they have.

One caveat mentioned. If football doesn't happen then that is a big problem. Coach Rob made a plea to buy football tickets.

Thanks for the update... GREAT NEWS!

Let’s play football in 2020!

Go Rockets!

(06-03-2020 08:15 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 03:20 PM)BusDriver Wrote:  KEEP THE SPORT. College sports do not make money unless you are one of the lucky 10 universities out there with a monster football program to subsidies the rest of the sports. Keep the sport and stop over analyzing. Stay above the minimum and do not make that an issue. Baseball is a sport that does not require major funds, once the grace period ends and we have to gain another sport, what do you do then? Just keep the program and maybe we should focus on it a bit more and get it out of the basement. Plus if you drop a men's sport you would have to figure out how to maintain title 9 compliance(not sure this would be a big issue).

Title 9 compliance wouldnt be an issue at all, as the requirement is to maintain AT LEAST as much funding for womens sports as men...more for women is fine, got to love it, right?

And truthfully, I'd love to keep the sport...but when that $1.5M could be used to actually float the operations of departments and offices essential to the primary function of the University instead, you have to consider priorities.

Highlighted by me. This is not true.

First off, Title IX never required equal participation or funding, it required substantially proportional participation and funding, to the same ratio as the enrollment at the school. So, if a school enrollment is 70/30 male-to-female, the men's teams should get 70% of the athletes and the scholarship funding. If it is 30/70 then the opposite would be required.

UT, as far as I know, is pretty much 50-50 enrollment of late, so yes in this case, close to half of the participating athletes should be men and half women. If that is the case now (as it better be), and you cut a male sport, it would not be and it wouldn't meet the Title IX requirements. Same thing with scholarship money. Although you could play games with not offering all scholarships in some other sports like soccer or softball, but that would become a mess quickly.

Other things Title IX require include that similar sports have to have substantially equal spending for things like equipment, travel, publicity, etc. So, it's ok that it costs more to outfit a male football player than maybe a female soccer player. But you can't spend twice as much to outfit a male baseball player than a female softball player, or vice versa.

(06-25-2020 04:56 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 08:15 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 03:20 PM)BusDriver Wrote:  KEEP THE SPORT. College sports do not make money unless you are one of the lucky 10 universities out there with a monster football program to subsidies the rest of the sports. Keep the sport and stop over analyzing. Stay above the minimum and do not make that an issue. Baseball is a sport that does not require major funds, once the grace period ends and we have to gain another sport, what do you do then? Just keep the program and maybe we should focus on it a bit more and get it out of the basement. Plus if you drop a men's sport you would have to figure out how to maintain title 9 compliance(not sure this would be a big issue).

Title 9 compliance wouldnt be an issue at all, as the requirement is to maintain AT LEAST as much funding for womens sports as men...more for women is fine, got to love it, right?

And truthfully, I'd love to keep the sport...but when that $1.5M could be used to actually float the operations of departments and offices essential to the primary function of the University instead, you have to consider priorities.

Highlighted by me. This is not true.

First off, Title IX never required equal participation or funding, it required substantially proportional participation and funding, to the same ratio as the enrollment at the school. So, if a school enrollment is 70/30 male-to-female, the men's teams should get 70% of the athletes and the scholarship funding. If it is 30/70 then the opposite would be required.

UT, as far as I know, is pretty much 50-50 enrollment of late, so yes in this case, close to half of the participating athletes should be men and half women. If that is the case now (as it better be), and you cut a male sport, it would not be and it wouldn't meet the Title IX requirements. Same thing with scholarship money. Although you could play games with not offering all scholarships in some other sports like soccer or softball, but that would become a mess quickly.

Other things Title IX require include that similar sports have to have substantially equal spending for things like equipment, travel, publicity, etc. So, it's ok that it costs more to outfit a male football player than maybe a female soccer player. But you can't spend twice as much to outfit a male baseball player than a female softball player, or vice versa.

As I was stating specifically for UT's situation (being that we are a 51.2% F/48.8% M campus, we would have to maintain an equal or above per S/A funding level and number of student scholarships (in gross count, not dollar amount) and there is a specific "allowance" for any athletics department that has a slight discrepancy/imbalance towards women's scholarship count [no more than 5%], as has been the case through both T9 and the NCAA regs....in other words, my statement was not incorrect as you stated, however, the added context was enlightening for those unaware of the nuances of compliance, as I did not clearly articulate why my statement was correct in the prior post. Thank you for your insight, you clearly know your stuff.

(06-25-2020 11:18 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-25-2020 04:56 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 08:15 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 03:20 PM)BusDriver Wrote:  KEEP THE SPORT. College sports do not make money unless you are one of the lucky 10 universities out there with a monster football program to subsidies the rest of the sports. Keep the sport and stop over analyzing. Stay above the minimum and do not make that an issue. Baseball is a sport that does not require major funds, once the grace period ends and we have to gain another sport, what do you do then? Just keep the program and maybe we should focus on it a bit more and get it out of the basement. Plus if you drop a men's sport you would have to figure out how to maintain title 9 compliance(not sure this would be a big issue).

Title 9 compliance wouldnt be an issue at all, as the requirement is to maintain AT LEAST as much funding for womens sports as men...more for women is fine, got to love it, right?

And truthfully, I'd love to keep the sport...but when that $1.5M could be used to actually float the operations of departments and offices essential to the primary function of the University instead, you have to consider priorities.

Highlighted by me. This is not true.

First off, Title IX never required equal participation or funding, it required substantially proportional participation and funding, to the same ratio as the enrollment at the school. So, if a school enrollment is 70/30 male-to-female, the men's teams should get 70% of the athletes and the scholarship funding. If it is 30/70 then the opposite would be required.

UT, as far as I know, is pretty much 50-50 enrollment of late, so yes in this case, close to half of the participating athletes should be men and half women. If that is the case now (as it better be), and you cut a male sport, it would not be and it wouldn't meet the Title IX requirements. Same thing with scholarship money. Although you could play games with not offering all scholarships in some other sports like soccer or softball, but that would become a mess quickly.

Other things Title IX require include that similar sports have to have substantially equal spending for things like equipment, travel, publicity, etc. So, it's ok that it costs more to outfit a male football player than maybe a female soccer player. But you can't spend twice as much to outfit a male baseball player than a female softball player, or vice versa.

As I was stating specifically for UT's situation (being that we are a 51.2% F/48.8% M campus, we would have to maintain an equal or above per S/A funding level and number of student scholarships (in gross count, not dollar amount) and there is a specific "allowance" for any athletics department that has a slight discrepancy/imbalance towards women's scholarship count [no more than 5%], as has been the case through both T9 and the NCAA regs....in other words, my statement was not incorrect as you stated, however, the added context was enlightening for those unaware of the nuances of compliance, as I did not clearly articulate why my statement was correct in the prior post. Thank you for your insight, you clearly know your stuff.

Thanks for the clarification, but it seems like you are still maybe implying that Title IX allows slightly favoring women's sports but not men's. Just want to make it clear to others that it doesn't ever say that.

The 5% number doesn't appear anywhere in the statute or the federal guidance as far as I understand. That has become a "de facto" level based on how various lawsuits have been settled over the years to determine when certain schools could declare they were close enough to meeting the proportionality test, since the original federal guidance was intentionally vague on setting a specific value for close enough.

Sorry if I am being pedantic, but almost 50 years on, you still sometimes see people complaining that Title IX was created as a way to explicitly favor women's sports over men's and that has never been the case. Not saying that's you, just wanted to be clear. I'm no Title IX expert, but have read a lot on it over the years after I started becoming a fan of women's college sports - particularly UT WBB and soccer.

(06-26-2020 05:08 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  

(06-25-2020 11:18 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-25-2020 04:56 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 08:15 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 03:20 PM)BusDriver Wrote:  KEEP THE SPORT. College sports do not make money unless you are one of the lucky 10 universities out there with a monster football program to subsidies the rest of the sports. Keep the sport and stop over analyzing. Stay above the minimum and do not make that an issue. Baseball is a sport that does not require major funds, once the grace period ends and we have to gain another sport, what do you do then? Just keep the program and maybe we should focus on it a bit more and get it out of the basement. Plus if you drop a men's sport you would have to figure out how to maintain title 9 compliance(not sure this would be a big issue).

Title 9 compliance wouldnt be an issue at all, as the requirement is to maintain AT LEAST as much funding for womens sports as men...more for women is fine, got to love it, right?

And truthfully, I'd love to keep the sport...but when that $1.5M could be used to actually float the operations of departments and offices essential to the primary function of the University instead, you have to consider priorities.

Highlighted by me. This is not true.

First off, Title IX never required equal participation or funding, it required substantially proportional participation and funding, to the same ratio as the enrollment at the school. So, if a school enrollment is 70/30 male-to-female, the men's teams should get 70% of the athletes and the scholarship funding. If it is 30/70 then the opposite would be required.

UT, as far as I know, is pretty much 50-50 enrollment of late, so yes in this case, close to half of the participating athletes should be men and half women. If that is the case now (as it better be), and you cut a male sport, it would not be and it wouldn't meet the Title IX requirements. Same thing with scholarship money. Although you could play games with not offering all scholarships in some other sports like soccer or softball, but that would become a mess quickly.

Other things Title IX require include that similar sports have to have substantially equal spending for things like equipment, travel, publicity, etc. So, it's ok that it costs more to outfit a male football player than maybe a female soccer player. But you can't spend twice as much to outfit a male baseball player than a female softball player, or vice versa.

As I was stating specifically for UT's situation (being that we are a 51.2% F/48.8% M campus, we would have to maintain an equal or above per S/A funding level and number of student scholarships (in gross count, not dollar amount) and there is a specific "allowance" for any athletics department that has a slight discrepancy/imbalance towards women's scholarship count [no more than 5%], as has been the case through both T9 and the NCAA regs....in other words, my statement was not incorrect as you stated, however, the added context was enlightening for those unaware of the nuances of compliance, as I did not clearly articulate why my statement was correct in the prior post. Thank you for your insight, you clearly know your stuff.

Thanks for the clarification, but it seems like you are still maybe implying that Title IX allows slightly favoring women's sports but not men's. Just want to make it clear to others that it doesn't ever say that.

The 5% number doesn't appear anywhere in the statute or the federal guidance as far as I understand. That has become a "de facto" level based on how various lawsuits have been settled over the years to determine when certain schools could declare they were close enough to meeting the proportionality test, since the original federal guidance was intentionally vague on setting a specific value for close enough.

Sorry if I am being pedantic, but almost 50 years on, you still sometimes see people complaining that Title IX was created as a way to explicitly favor women's sports over men's and that has never been the case. Not saying that's you, just wanted to be clear. I'm no Title IX expert, but have read a lot on it over the years after I started becoming a fan of women's college sports - particularly UT WBB and soccer.

There are more female than male college students nationally. Since women are paying more in fees to support athletics, I guess they deserve at least equal treatment.

(06-26-2020 05:48 PM)DetroitRocket Wrote:  

(06-26-2020 05:08 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  

(06-25-2020 11:18 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-25-2020 04:56 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 08:15 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Title 9 compliance wouldnt be an issue at all, as the requirement is to maintain AT LEAST as much funding for womens sports as men...more for women is fine, got to love it, right?

And truthfully, I'd love to keep the sport...but when that $1.5M could be used to actually float the operations of departments and offices essential to the primary function of the University instead, you have to consider priorities.

Highlighted by me. This is not true.

First off, Title IX never required equal participation or funding, it required substantially proportional participation and funding, to the same ratio as the enrollment at the school. So, if a school enrollment is 70/30 male-to-female, the men's teams should get 70% of the athletes and the scholarship funding. If it is 30/70 then the opposite would be required.

UT, as far as I know, is pretty much 50-50 enrollment of late, so yes in this case, close to half of the participating athletes should be men and half women. If that is the case now (as it better be), and you cut a male sport, it would not be and it wouldn't meet the Title IX requirements. Same thing with scholarship money. Although you could play games with not offering all scholarships in some other sports like soccer or softball, but that would become a mess quickly.

Other things Title IX require include that similar sports have to have substantially equal spending for things like equipment, travel, publicity, etc. So, it's ok that it costs more to outfit a male football player than maybe a female soccer player. But you can't spend twice as much to outfit a male baseball player than a female softball player, or vice versa.

As I was stating specifically for UT's situation (being that we are a 51.2% F/48.8% M campus, we would have to maintain an equal or above per S/A funding level and number of student scholarships (in gross count, not dollar amount) and there is a specific "allowance" for any athletics department that has a slight discrepancy/imbalance towards women's scholarship count [no more than 5%], as has been the case through both T9 and the NCAA regs....in other words, my statement was not incorrect as you stated, however, the added context was enlightening for those unaware of the nuances of compliance, as I did not clearly articulate why my statement was correct in the prior post. Thank you for your insight, you clearly know your stuff.

Thanks for the clarification, but it seems like you are still maybe implying that Title IX allows slightly favoring women's sports but not men's. Just want to make it clear to others that it doesn't ever say that.

The 5% number doesn't appear anywhere in the statute or the federal guidance as far as I understand. That has become a "de facto" level based on how various lawsuits have been settled over the years to determine when certain schools could declare they were close enough to meeting the proportionality test, since the original federal guidance was intentionally vague on setting a specific value for close enough.

Sorry if I am being pedantic, but almost 50 years on, you still sometimes see people complaining that Title IX was created as a way to explicitly favor women's sports over men's and that has never been the case. Not saying that's you, just wanted to be clear. I'm no Title IX expert, but have read a lot on it over the years after I started becoming a fan of women's college sports - particularly UT WBB and soccer.

There are more female than male college students nationally. Since women are paying more in fees to support athletics, I guess they deserve at least equal treatment.

Oh I absolutely agree...if anything, I'm of the mindset that the only men's sports that should exist at a school like UT's is Football and Basketball, and after that, we should support as many women's sports to balance everything out to ensure fairness and an equal playing field. I was simply clarifying my previous comment, and I'm in no way anti-women's sports at all, I appreciate giving as many opportunities to anyone who wants them as long as it makes sense.