It seems that many here think Title IX is a waste and that it infringes on the ability of football and MENS hoops to flourish in the way you want. So, I ask: do you want to abolish Title IX?

TBH, it's a ridiculous question. Title IX goes way beyond athletics and, without question, my daughter should have just as many opportunities as my son in academics, athletics and anything else in the education sphere.

I agree it's NOT JUST athletics, but that is the bulk of the focus (both the law and this message board)

(06-22-2021 03:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  TBH, it's a ridiculous question. Title IX goes way beyond athletics and, without question, my daughter should have just as many opportunities as my son in academics, athletics and anything else in the education sphere.

Yes in a non profit setting. Access should be equally available.

No in a for profit setting. No business should be impeded from hiring the best and no for profit should ever be incumbered with having to set up an equal access operation which loses revenue.

Remember equal opportunity and equal access is expected in a learning environment, especially one sponsored by the public. In a for profit set up the goal is not equal opportunity, or equal access, but revenue generation. In that setting your daughter has to generate more revenue than her competition to land the job. Quotas are anathema to this objective and should be ended.

And in this case the for profit sports should be able to set up adjunctly and operate solely on profits earned. Donations will no longer be tax deductible, programs no longer underwritten with tax dollars, and it all will have to exist on its own steam. We will be looking at the possibility that college affiliated football programs could go bankrupt, and likely will.

And even in sports competition she should be granted the opportunity to play (walk on) but given no guarantees beyond what her skillsets and performance earn her.

(06-22-2021 04:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 03:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  TBH, it's a ridiculous question. Title IX goes way beyond athletics and, without question, my daughter should have just as many opportunities as my son in academics, athletics and anything else in the education sphere.

Yes in a non profit setting. Access should be equally available.

No in a for profit setting. No business should be impeded from hiring the best and no for profit should ever be incumbered with having to set up an equal access operation which loses revenue.

Remember equal opportunity and equal access is expected in a learning environment, especially one sponsored by the public. In a for profit set up the goal is not equal opportunity, or equal access, but revenue generation. In that setting your daughter has to generate more revenue than her competition to land the job. Quotas are anathema to this objective and should be ended.

And in this case the for profit sports should be able to set up adjunctly and operate solely on profits earned. Donations will no longer be tax deductible, programs no longer underwritten with tax dollars, and it all will have to exist on its own steam. We will be looking at the possibility that college affiliated football programs could go bankrupt, and likely will.

And even in sports competition she should be granted the opportunity to play (walk on) but given no guarantees beyond what her skillsets and performance earn her.

This is why I voted no.

Let me be pedantic for a minute, here....Title IX doesn't explicitly say anything about sports or even specifically colleges.

Title IX isn't the problem as much as how it's applied to sports. Revenue sports should be exempted from it.

(06-22-2021 04:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And in this case the for profit sports should be able to set up adjunctly and operate solely on profits earned.

Schools can already do that if they want to. Let a for-profit corporation operate a football team, and have the university license its name, logos, and other branding to the corporation. Lease the use of the stadium and practice field to the corporation. Any benefits or compensation received by coaches, athletes, and other team personnel would be paid solely by the corporation and not by the university.

That's pretty much the same as when the university contracts with a private company to operate a bookstore on or near campus that is branded as "__________ University Campus Bookstore".

I think football should be exempted from the Title IX counts.

By all means, schools should sponsor women’s sports but I don’t like the insistence on a 1-for-1 equivalence

Abolished no, recalculated yes. Keep the equal/proportiononal opportunities with scholarships, travel expense for conference, and such.

Hopefully most of the other stuff can be funneled through NIL and and not be subject to it.

Keep the equal opportunities, but allow free market to determine the benefits.

It's really only an issue at Football schools because there is nothing comparable on the women's side. And even then it's only an issue because the US is seeing a lot more males than females drop out of the education system before college.

Muskie: I agree and Congress wanted to exempt football, but the amendment failed.

T9 is sacrosanct in the halls of higher ed and I'll even argue that without T9 plenty of colleges and universities in the North and West will drop out of college sports in protest (and because they're afraid of being on the wrong side of their significant others [and that's not a minor concern, by the way]).

(06-22-2021 03:43 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  It seems that many here think Title IX is a waste and that it infringes on the ability of football and MENS hoops to flourish in the way you want. So, I ask: do you want to abolish Title IX?

I'm a firm believer in parity within an individual sport. i.e. Nascar would be dumb if one team could just outspend the other, get the fastest car, and always win. Same reason I like a salary cap in the NFL.

With that in mind, I don't think billiards and bowling should get the same amount of resources as nascar, or football, because the latter are more watched and generate more revenue. Same goes for college sports for me. If a billion people were watching volleyball, then they should have the resources. It has less to do with gender to me than interest.

It seems like NIL should fix all this to a certain extent. If you can sponsor individual players, then you can shift your contribution dollars toward a specific sport and out of the general fund that gets divvied out to every sport.

(06-22-2021 04:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 03:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  TBH, it's a ridiculous question. Title IX goes way beyond athletics and, without question, my daughter should have just as many opportunities as my son in academics, athletics and anything else in the education sphere.

Yes in a non profit setting. Access should be equally available.

No in a for profit setting. No business should be impeded from hiring the best and no for profit should ever be incumbered with having to set up an equal access operation which loses revenue.

Remember equal opportunity and equal access is expected in a learning environment, especially one sponsored by the public. In a for profit set up the goal is not equal opportunity, or equal access, but revenue generation. In that setting your daughter has to generate more revenue than her competition to land the job. Quotas are anathema to this objective and should be ended.

And in this case the for profit sports should be able to set up adjunctly and operate solely on profits earned. Donations will no longer be tax deductible, programs no longer underwritten with tax dollars, and it all will have to exist on its own steam. We will be looking at the possibility that college affiliated football programs could go bankrupt, and likely will.

And even in sports competition she should be granted the opportunity to play (walk on) but given no guarantees beyond what her skillsets and performance earn her.

From the NCAA: Under Title IX there are no sport exclusions or exceptions. Individual participation opportunities (number of student-athletes participating rather than number of sports) in all men's and women's sports are counted in determining whether an institution meets Title IX participation standards. The basic philosophical underpinning of Title IX is that there cannot be an economic justification for discrimination. The institution cannot maintain that there are revenue productions or other considerations that mandate that certain sports receive better treatment or participation opportunities than other sports.

If pay for play becomes a reality in college sports, I could envision a compromise. Let scholarships only cover education-related expenses - that is, tuition, books and computers, fees, etc. Do away with all partial scholarships, and let Title IX dictate how many women must get them at each school.

Then, exempt taxable income for athletes, such as room and board and stipends from Title IX compliance, and let the marketplace decide how much athletes in each sport should get paid.

To comply with Title IX now, schools grant a lot of partial scholarships to women. If those women were in the future to get full tuition but no room and board, etc. they would come out essentially whole compared to what they now receive, and the current full scholarship women could still qualify based on need for other financial aid like Pell grants if they can't afford to attend without it. The same would be true for male athletes in the non-revenue sports.

(06-23-2021 06:13 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 04:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 03:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  TBH, it's a ridiculous question. Title IX goes way beyond athletics and, without question, my daughter should have just as many opportunities as my son in academics, athletics and anything else in the education sphere.

Yes in a non profit setting. Access should be equally available.

No in a for profit setting. No business should be impeded from hiring the best and no for profit should ever be incumbered with having to set up an equal access operation which loses revenue.

Remember equal opportunity and equal access is expected in a learning environment, especially one sponsored by the public. In a for profit set up the goal is not equal opportunity, or equal access, but revenue generation. In that setting your daughter has to generate more revenue than her competition to land the job. Quotas are anathema to this objective and should be ended.

And in this case the for profit sports should be able to set up adjunctly and operate solely on profits earned. Donations will no longer be tax deductible, programs no longer underwritten with tax dollars, and it all will have to exist on its own steam. We will be looking at the possibility that college affiliated football programs could go bankrupt, and likely will.

And even in sports competition she should be granted the opportunity to play (walk on) but given no guarantees beyond what her skillsets and performance earn her.

From the NCAA: Under Title IX there are no sport exclusions or exceptions. Individual participation opportunities (number of student-athletes participating rather than number of sports) in all men's and women's sports are counted in determining whether an institution meets Title IX participation standards. The basic philosophical underpinning of Title IX is that there cannot be an economic justification for discrimination. The institution cannot maintain that there are revenue productions or other considerations that mandate that certain sports receive better treatment or participation opportunities than other sports.

Right, when you are comparing student athlete to student athlete, but not when you are comparing paid employees to student athletes. Two sports can utilize student athletes while one is non revenue producing and another makes oodles of money. The sport's money making capability is not relevant. However, you are comparing student athletes to student athletes (or amateur to amateur). When you pay an athlete for their performance the nature of the relationship changes to employer / employee and the paying confers professional status. In that regard it is like pregnancy. You either are or aren't paid. You either are or aren't pregnant. If paid you aren't an amateur and the NCAA governs amateur sports. This is why pay for play is a really big deal for the NCAA. If football and men's basketball players are paid they really shouldn't be under NCAA control, will be employees, and will be subject to taxes, shouldn't be under scholarship but contract, and donations to those sports shouldn't be tax deductible.

This changes the nature of college athletics, amateurism, and likely will seal the separation of some athletics and academics. Football and men's basketball will be operated extraneous to the Athletic Departments which will likely continue oversight of non revenue sports under the auspices of trustees and the presidents. Management of football and men's basketball will be a taxable business operated adjunctly under each university's name. This will not end Title IX but will likely end the counting of football and men's basketball players against it. This will even passively take place at schools which opt out of football.

What will likely happen is that a certain % of profit from the two sports will be paid to the school for brand association and that money will be used to continue to fund non revenue sports perhaps beyond a 1 to 1 ratio of women to men. At large schools with profitable football and men's basketball teams little will change but classifications. But, where football is dropped women's non revenue sports will likely also be reduced. That will be one of the unintended consequences of a ruling permitting pay for play.

(06-23-2021 06:57 AM)ken d Wrote:  If pay for play becomes a reality in college sports, I could envision a compromise. Let scholarships only cover education-related expenses - that is, tuition, books and computers, fees, etc. Do away with all partial scholarships, and let Title IX dictate how many women must get them at each school.

Then, exempt taxable income for athletes, such as room and board and stipends from Title IX compliance, and let the marketplace decide how much athletes in each sport should get paid.

To comply with Title IX now, schools grant a lot of partial scholarships to women. If those women were in the future to get full tuition but no room and board, etc. they would come out essentially whole compared to what they now receive, and the current full scholarship women could still qualify based on need for other financial aid like Pell grants if they can't afford to attend without it. The same would be true for male athletes in the non-revenue sports.

Three points:

1. All scholarships are equivalency (partials) outside the headcount sports (football, basketball).

2. Not all students qualify for Pell Grants, especially the middle class. Offering a scholarship without room and board would be like selling a car without tires.

3. Most people get partial scholarships to attend school even without athletics. Why is this wrong?

I would love to abolish Title IX as it applies to intercollegiate athletics. IMO it is absurd that schools are forced to fund scholarships for intercollegiate sports with no market demand in order to have intercollegiate sports that do have market demand. Makes zero sense to me. The market should decide that not liberal social policy.

But I also know there's no chance of that happening so it's just one of many things I would like to see happening that ain't happening, LOL.

(06-23-2021 08:59 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 06:57 AM)ken d Wrote:  If pay for play becomes a reality in college sports, I could envision a compromise. Let scholarships only cover education-related expenses - that is, tuition, books and computers, fees, etc. Do away with all partial scholarships, and let Title IX dictate how many women must get them at each school.

Then, exempt taxable income for athletes, such as room and board and stipends from Title IX compliance, and let the marketplace decide how much athletes in each sport should get paid.

To comply with Title IX now, schools grant a lot of partial scholarships to women. If those women were in the future to get full tuition but no room and board, etc. they would come out essentially whole compared to what they now receive, and the current full scholarship women could still qualify based on need for other financial aid like Pell grants if they can't afford to attend without it. The same would be true for male athletes in the non-revenue sports.

Three points:

1. All scholarships are equivalency (partials) outside the headcount sports (football, basketball).

2. Not all students qualify for Pell Grants, especially the middle class. Offering a scholarship without room and board would be like selling a car without tires.

3. Most people get partial scholarships to attend school even without athletics. Why is this wrong?

I don't know that "most people" get partial scholarships. In fact, I doubt that they do. If a field hockey player is on half-scholarship (or even less) she gets a 50% discount on her tuition and a 50% discount on other costs. If, instead, they got 100% of the tuition and 0% of the other costs, would she have more money left in her pocket or less? I'm guessing more, and at some schools, a lot more.

And from the school's point of view, the true cost of a tuition only scholarship is less than the nominal amount of the tuition. The school only incurs additional cost to the extent that it has to increase faculty and staff to accommodate that many students. In many cases they don't. They just have fewer empty seats in the classrooms.

What you could see happen is fewer foreign students taking up scholarship slots that would otherwise go to American student athletes, especially in non-revenue sports like Tennis and Golf. I don't see that as a bad thing.

The intent behind Title IX was and remains sound. There should be every opportunity given to both men and women to participate in sports, and no individual should be discriminated against on the basis of sex, race, religion, etc. However, the basis of Title IX has also encouraged schools to drop men's sports in order to help balance scholarship limits (wrestling is a sport that has been severely impacted from Title IX, as has cross country and track). Despite the number of D1 membership having been increased over the years, fewer men's sports are sponsored today in 2021 than in 1990.

There should always be a pursuit of increasing female participation in sports - but it should never come at the expense of male participation. They are not mutually exclusive. If the same standards were applied to high schools, there would be over a million male student-athletes that would be prevented from participating in athletic programs.