(10-19-2020 02:36 PM)billymac Wrote:  Reportedly, football will reduce scholarships from 105 to 95 (four years) and Cross Country to lose 4 scholarships.

Not good.


For comparison, Elon doesn't support men's gymnastics, swimming or T&F. It doesn't support women's field hockey, gymnastics, or swimming but has softball.

Seems like adding softball is a viable option to get us compliant. Then, put fundraising at the feet of fans.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(10-19-2020 02:50 PM)Old tribe Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 02:47 PM)wml33t Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 02:36 PM)billymac Wrote:  Reportedly, football will reduce scholarships from 105 to 95 (four years) and Cross Country to lose 4 scholarships.

Is that to maintain the 4 men's sports that were cut, or in order to maintain the 4 men's sports that were cut?

If it's in addition to the men's sports that were cut, hoo boy...

I believe it's in addition to the men's sports that were cut.

Yes, my bad, I should have said roster spots reduced, as part of the equal participation.

(from a WY Daily article.)

That still affects walk-ons!

Some of our great players were walk-ons.

(10-19-2020 02:58 PM)wanm65 Wrote:  That still affects walk-ons!

Some of our great players were walk-ons.

How many walk-ons are needed though? Are 32 walk-ons per year enough? I'd say yes.

(10-19-2020 02:58 PM)wanm65 Wrote:  That still affects walk-ons!

Some our great players were walk-ons.

Yes it does. Also, I predict we'll start to see guys like Brandon Battle, Justin Dulaney, Will Barney, and Kareem Johnson being pushed out (not invited back) after 3 or 4 years.

More 2-deep players on special teams will lead to more injuries. Not good at all.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(10-19-2020 02:54 PM)Tribal Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 02:36 PM)billymac Wrote:  Reportedly, football will reduce scholarships from 105 to 95 (four years) and Cross Country to lose 4 scholarships.

Not good.


For comparison, Elon doesn't support men's gymnastics, swimming or T&F. It doesn't support women's field hockey, gymnastics, or swimming but has softball.

Seems like adding softball is a viable option to get us compliant. Then, put fundraising at the feet of fans.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

You mean add softball, keep football and cross country roster spots as is, and stay with 4 men's team being cut unless they can raise money for those teams?

So did they not realize ahead of time they could get sued for cutting the women's sports, or is this all part of a calculated plan to appear magnanimous but still end up reducing the number of teams? The former is hard to imagine, while it's also hard for me to believe a department that's been depicted as inept could pull off a complicated plan. I have questions, but I'm not sure I want answers.

When Arthur Bryant is involved, there are never threats to sue for men's programs. It's been his M.O. for decades when filing Title IX lawsuits.

(10-19-2020 02:15 PM)Old tribe Wrote:  It's the equal opportunities part. The part where one way you can be in compliance is by showing your male/female athletics participation numbers are within 2% of your male/female student population numbers. W&M is majority female as a school (58%) but has been at around 54% male athletes/46% female athletes. So to meet that 2% variance it needs more female athletes and less male athletes.

Please correct me if I'm wrong about this. Doesn't that just mean that the admin is completely punting on satisfying the equal opportunities part by other means? It was my understanding that most schools aren't able to meet the 2% variance and use the other ways.

(10-19-2020 03:12 PM)Old tribe Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 02:54 PM)Tribal Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 02:36 PM)billymac Wrote:  Reportedly, football will reduce scholarships from 105 to 95 (four years) and Cross Country to lose 4 scholarships.

Not good.


For comparison, Elon doesn't support men's gymnastics, swimming or T&F. It doesn't support women's field hockey, gymnastics, or swimming but has softball.

Seems like adding softball is a viable option to get us compliant. Then, put fundraising at the feet of fans.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

You mean add softball, keep football and cross country roster spots as is, and stay with 4 men's team being cut unless they can raise money for those teams?

Yes, add softball to be compliant (I also like softball and think it would do well at W&M) and reinstate all 7 sports with a clear mandate that each of the 7 must fully self fund. Small disclaimer, if WGYM doesn't raise enough money, both MGYM & WGYM will be cut to remain compliant. Same for swimming, t&f, xc, etc. I'd also add golf to the threatened chopping block. In other words, put up or shut up.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(10-19-2020 03:19 PM)Rocco Wrote:  So did they not realize ahead of time they could get sued for cutting the women's sports, or is this all part of a calculated plan to appear magnanimous but still end up reducing the number of teams? The former is hard to imagine, while it's also hard for me to believe a department that's been depicted as inept could pull off a complicated plan. I have questions, but I'm not sure I want answers.

They probably didn't think they'd be sued because cutting the 7 teams actually moved them closer towards compliance with Title IX's equal opportunities requirement than they were without the cuts. It's sort of a weird scenario. They were out of compliance for a long time, made cuts which resulted in moving closer to compliance, and then get threatened with a lawsuit. It shows that Title IX lawsuits aren't really used to bring schools into compliance much these days. Instead, they are often used as a threat to not cut women's teams or to restore them.

(10-19-2020 03:23 PM)zablenoise Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 02:15 PM)Old tribe Wrote:  It's the equal opportunities part. The part where one way you can be in compliance is by showing your male/female athletics participation numbers are within 2% of your male/female student population numbers. W&M is majority female as a school (58%) but has been at around 54% male athletes/46% female athletes. So to meet that 2% variance it needs more female athletes and less male athletes.

Please correct me if I'm wrong about this. Doesn't that just mean that the admin is completely punting on satisfying the equal opportunities part by other means? It was my understanding that most schools aren't able to meet the 2% variance and use the other ways.

Yes, that seems to be the case. It appears they don't want to go through the time, expense, and risk having to of prove to a court they are in compliance with the equal opportunities part through one of the other 2 available ways of doing so. Or they don't think they can make that proof.

(10-19-2020 02:15 PM)Old tribe Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 02:07 PM)zablenoise Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 01:48 PM)Old tribe Wrote:  News release apparently says it was in response to threatened Title IX lawsuit. Haven't seen the release yet.

I'm having trouble understanding what part of Title IX this is helping with.

It's the equal opportunities part. The part where one way you can be in compliance is by showing your male/female athletics participation numbers are within 2% of your male/female student population numbers. W&M is majority female as a school (58%) but has been at around 54% male athletes/46% female athletes. So to meet that 2% variance it needs more female athletes and less male athletes.

OR more male undergrads and less female undergrads.

I will be the contrarian.

I think it’s a brilliant first step.

The Title IX problem is off the table. The deck has been cleared in one fell swoop. It’s now all about money.

Now, all men’s sports have skin in the game ... roster spots, money, and individual teams. We’ll see if the men’s teams are truly One Tribe One Family. The formula has been spelled out today.

Put up or shut up time.

A good faith attempt is being made here. Let’s not blow it.

(10-19-2020 02:57 PM)billymac Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 02:50 PM)Old tribe Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 02:47 PM)wml33t Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 02:36 PM)billymac Wrote:  Reportedly, football will reduce scholarships from 105 to 95 (four years) and Cross Country to lose 4 scholarships.

Is that to maintain the 4 men's sports that were cut, or in order to maintain the 4 men's sports that were cut?

If it's in addition to the men's sports that were cut, hoo boy...

I believe it's in addition to the men's sports that were cut.

Yes, my bad, I should have said roster spots reduced, as part of the equal participation.

(from a WY Daily article.)

Actually, Men's XC would lose 6 roster spots, not 4. Also, where did you read that the football reductions would be over four years?

(10-19-2020 03:37 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 02:15 PM)Old tribe Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 02:07 PM)zablenoise Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 01:48 PM)Old tribe Wrote:  News release apparently says it was in response to threatened Title IX lawsuit. Haven't seen the release yet.

I'm having trouble understanding what part of Title IX this is helping with.

It's the equal opportunities part. The part where one way you can be in compliance is by showing your male/female athletics participation numbers are within 2% of your male/female student population numbers. W&M is majority female as a school (58%) but has been at around 54% male athletes/46% female athletes. So to meet that 2% variance it needs more female athletes and less male athletes.

OR more male undergrads and less female undergrads.

Yes, that would work too.

Bad interpretation on my part...carry on...

(10-19-2020 03:29 PM)Old tribe Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 03:19 PM)Rocco Wrote:  So did they not realize ahead of time they could get sued for cutting the women's sports, or is this all part of a calculated plan to appear magnanimous but still end up reducing the number of teams? The former is hard to imagine, while it's also hard for me to believe a department that's been depicted as inept could pull off a complicated plan. I have questions, but I'm not sure I want answers.

They probably didn't think they'd be sued because cutting the 7 teams actually moved them closer towards compliance with Title IX's equal opportunities requirement than they were without the cuts. It's sort of a weird scenario. They were out of compliance for a long time, made cuts which resulted in moving closer to compliance, and then get threatened with a lawsuit. It shows that Title IX lawsuits aren't really used to bring schools into compliance much these days. Instead, they are often used as a threat to not cut women's teams or to restore them.

By that logic, why isn't Martin just considering the lawsuit dropped? Why does he believe, or at least state, that "reduction in men’s participation via roster management and suspending teams, or a swift and significant increase in participation opportunities for women will be necessary." If he was to just restore thing to status quo ante Huge would we still be getting sued?

Has the administration been planning to gut several teams for a couple years but
they agreed among themselves to keep it all a secret until the Bold Billion had been collected?
What happened to their big talk about enhancing the football program?

(10-19-2020 04:03 PM)zablenoise Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 03:29 PM)Old tribe Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 03:19 PM)Rocco Wrote:  So did they not realize ahead of time they could get sued for cutting the women's sports, or is this all part of a calculated plan to appear magnanimous but still end up reducing the number of teams? The former is hard to imagine, while it's also hard for me to believe a department that's been depicted as inept could pull off a complicated plan. I have questions, but I'm not sure I want answers.

They probably didn't think they'd be sued because cutting the 7 teams actually moved them closer towards compliance with Title IX's equal opportunities requirement than they were without the cuts. It's sort of a weird scenario. They were out of compliance for a long time, made cuts which resulted in moving closer to compliance, and then get threatened with a lawsuit. It shows that Title IX lawsuits aren't really used to bring schools into compliance much these days. Instead, they are often used as a threat to not cut women's teams or to restore them.

By that logic, why isn't Martin just considering the lawsuit dropped? Why does he believe, or at least state, that "reduction in men’s participation via roster management and suspending teams, or a swift and significant increase in participation opportunities for women will be necessary." If he was to just restore thing to status quo ante Huge would we still be getting sued?

My impression was that the Tribe 7 said they'd drop the lawsuit if all the sports were reinstated. There would still be the possibility to be sued, however, meaning the athletic department would be vulnerable to this kind of response to any decisions they made. That threat is removed if they're in compliance.