- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
I know a lot of you hate Title IX, but your blame is misplaced...
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:06 pm
LINK
Basically, the problem is not with Title IX. Rather, it's with the per sport scholarship limit imposed by the NCAA. Eliminate that while keeping the overall scholarship limit and perhaps impose a minimum for certain sports, and the problems that people think are caused by Title IX will go away.
and
Any thoughts?
Basically, the problem is not with Title IX. Rather, it's with the per sport scholarship limit imposed by the NCAA. Eliminate that while keeping the overall scholarship limit and perhaps impose a minimum for certain sports, and the problems that people think are caused by Title IX will go away.
quote:
Opponents of Title IX routinely mock the emergence of women's rowing and sand volleyball programs, as if they're required by federal mandates. But those voices never mention that NCAA rules, not Title IX, forbid colleges from giving more scholarships to cross country runners and softball players.
The truth is, it will never be possible for the NCAA to allot scholarships efficiently with top-down edicts. Over time, some sports will surge in popularity while others will fade, and any bureaucracy as centralized as the NCAA will struggle to keep up. Plus, one size doesn't fit all. Different schools have different cultures and traditions, so why should the NCAA impose the same model on everyone?
Instead, the NCAA could aid both women's and men's sports with one simple move: cast off these sport-specific scholarship limits and let schools decide for themselves how best to allocate their resources.
and
quote:
This change would instantly make athletic directors more accountable. As things stand now, it's easy for programs to blame absurdities in their priorities on factors beyond their control, including Title IX. But take away the sport-specific limits, and give each school the total number of scholarships (about 225 apiece for men and women) to hand out as they see fit, and athletic directors would have to justify the choices they make....
Of course, some schools might very well pour even more money into football. But they'd be doing themselves a disservice. Only 69 FBS teams turned a profit last year. The typical FBS athletic department, though, lost $9.4 million in 2010, and that figure was higher than for FCS colleges ($9.2 million), which in turn was higher than for Division I schools that don't offer football ($8.6 million). Yes, football leads to bigger revenues. It also leads to bigger expenses.
So here's another idea: The NCAA could let schools allocate scholarships within certain ranges for each sport. The minimum would guarantee high-quality competition, and the maximum would make sure schools don't turn into single-sport factories.
Any thoughts?
6
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:08 pm to Sophandros
I'm pretty much an expert on Title IX. There's not just one single thing wrong with how it is enforced.
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:09 pm to Sophandros
Total # of scholarships would just satisify one of the three prongs of Title IX.
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:10 pm to Sophandros
Title IX should be equal sports, not equal scholarships. Football pays for every other sport.
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:10 pm to JJ27
Love how no one is reading...
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:11 pm to Sophandros
I read it, bro.
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:11 pm to BayouBengals03
Not really talking about you as much as the others who chimed in with the age old answers...
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:14 pm to Sophandros
Proportionality is a big problem.
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:14 pm to Sophandros
I read. 225 for both men and women. Football would eat up a huge chunk of Men's scholarships. I think Title IX would be perfect if they excluded football from the equation.
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:23 pm to Sophandros
quote:
Any thoughts?
I wish more people would understand this about a lot of things.
That said, Title IX is often a scapegoat.
quote:
it will never be possible for the NCAA to allot scholarships efficiently with top-down edicts
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:24 pm to H-Town Tiger
Title IX is definitely a scapegoat at the same time.
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:24 pm to Sophandros
I like the idea, even if I have to point out that our enforcement of Title IX is actually illegal. The Bayh Amendment clearly rejected proportionality as a test for compliance and here we are – with a three part test in which the first prong is proportionality (which no one meets). It’s absurd.
No one would seriously argue that the engineering school was being discriminatory if it gave more scholarships to men than women. Demanding strict 50-50 spending is ridiculous, and probably unconstitutional, given enforcement of admission quotas.
Why not, to take this idea further – abolish caps altogether (though kept the 85 football cap to prevent an arms race). Then, schools can offer as many scholarships as they wish. If you offer under 200 scholarships, you must maintain a 50-50 split, but if you offer more scholarships, you can have a sliding percentage… say 60/40, so long as you keep at least 100 women’s scholarships. This way, schools have the option of adding men’s scholarships BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF WOMEN’S PROGRAMS.
Admit you can have more men’s scholarships without being discriminatory. But if Iowa St wants to add wrestling back, it can do so long as its still offering plenty of chances for women. If you are under 200, then you have to maintain strict proportionate compliance.
No one would seriously argue that the engineering school was being discriminatory if it gave more scholarships to men than women. Demanding strict 50-50 spending is ridiculous, and probably unconstitutional, given enforcement of admission quotas.
Why not, to take this idea further – abolish caps altogether (though kept the 85 football cap to prevent an arms race). Then, schools can offer as many scholarships as they wish. If you offer under 200 scholarships, you must maintain a 50-50 split, but if you offer more scholarships, you can have a sliding percentage… say 60/40, so long as you keep at least 100 women’s scholarships. This way, schools have the option of adding men’s scholarships BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF WOMEN’S PROGRAMS.
Admit you can have more men’s scholarships without being discriminatory. But if Iowa St wants to add wrestling back, it can do so long as its still offering plenty of chances for women. If you are under 200, then you have to maintain strict proportionate compliance.
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:29 pm to JJ27
quote:
I read. 225 for both men and women.
what if your student body is 60% female?
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:33 pm to Baloo
quote:
Why not, to take this idea further – abolish caps altogether (though kept the 85 football cap to prevent an arms race). Then, schools can offer as many scholarships as they wish. If you offer under 200 scholarships, you must maintain a 50-50 split, but if you offer more scholarships, you can have a sliding percentage… say 60/40, so long as you keep at least 100 women’s scholarships. This way, schools have the option of adding men’s scholarships BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF WOMEN’S PROGRAMS.
Admit you can have more men’s scholarships without being discriminatory. But if Iowa St wants to add wrestling back, it can do so long as its still offering plenty of chances for women. If you are under 200, then you have to maintain strict proportionate compliance.
I think that's a provocative idea - but an idea that would probably be resisted by most advocates of women's sports.
For the most part my perception is only men's basketball and men's football generate real revenue (LSU baseball is fantastic and very well supported by the standards of the sport but... doesn't bring in all that much for being the best or near the best). Because the other sports don't bring in much revenue I think very few schools would really increase the number of sports scholarships for their male athletes (at least not in the near future where most budgets are under severe stress)
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:34 pm to Baloo
Another idea is that schools could partially exempt football by turning a profit. If a school turns a profit at football, it agrees to pay federal taxes on the income and in exchange, each football scholarship will only count as a certain percentage towards Title IX compliance. The larger the profit, the bigger the exemption (so long as it is capped – the key is here is you don’t want schools claiming a profit for Title IX but not for tax purposes. You want an exemption? Pay Uncle Sam).
Say… schools posting a profit of $1-5 million can claim a football scholarship at a .8 to 1 rate. Schools over $5 million can claim them at .6 to 1 rate. It would have to be scaled over the last five years or so, to plan ahead. So we average the last five years and see what threshold you are in.
That way when schools argue football is paying the bills, they have to prove it. Once again, you could use this exemption to ADD men’s scholarships but not cut women’s. So if you had 225 athletes on scholarship, but you were counting football players at 60%, you would still have 113 women on scholarship. But, 60% of 85 is 51, giving the school 34 additional scholarships to distribute to men or women, so long as you don’t drop below 113 women’s scholarships (or whatever the ratio is before the discount).
Thoughts?
Say… schools posting a profit of $1-5 million can claim a football scholarship at a .8 to 1 rate. Schools over $5 million can claim them at .6 to 1 rate. It would have to be scaled over the last five years or so, to plan ahead. So we average the last five years and see what threshold you are in.
That way when schools argue football is paying the bills, they have to prove it. Once again, you could use this exemption to ADD men’s scholarships but not cut women’s. So if you had 225 athletes on scholarship, but you were counting football players at 60%, you would still have 113 women on scholarship. But, 60% of 85 is 51, giving the school 34 additional scholarships to distribute to men or women, so long as you don’t drop below 113 women’s scholarships (or whatever the ratio is before the discount).
Thoughts?
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:35 pm to Baloo
quote:
Another idea is that schools could partially exempt football by turning a profit. If a school turns a profit at football, it agrees to pay federal taxes on the income and in exchange, each football scholarship will only count as a certain percentage towards Title IX compliance. The larger the profit, the bigger the exemption (so long as it is capped – the key is here is you don’t want schools claiming a profit for Title IX but not for tax purposes. You want an exemption? Pay Uncle Sam).
I've heard this. Honestly, not a bad idea.
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:37 pm to BayouBengals03
Really? I just thought of this off the top of my head. I stole my idea!
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:37 pm to Baloo
quote:
Another idea is that schools could partially exempt football by turning a profit. If a school turns a profit at football, it agrees to pay federal taxes on the income and in exchange, each football scholarship will only count as a certain percentage towards Title IX compliance. The larger the profit, the bigger the exemption (so long as it is capped – the key is here is you don’t want schools claiming a profit for Title IX but not for tax purposes. You want an exemption? Pay Uncle Sam).
I did my graduate thesis on Title IX and that was one of the things that was examined. One possible problem with that is if football was for profit, would they need to pay workman's comp for football players? Would football players now be taxed on their benefits?
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:39 pm to Baloo
If you dig deep into Title IX, it's been broken down about a thousand different ways. I don't think anything is a completely original idea at this point. 
It's a topic of interest on a lot of different levels, and for good reason.
It's a topic of interest on a lot of different levels, and for good reason.
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:45 pm to Baloo
quote:
Thoughts?
Hello $200 LSU vs North Texas face value tickets.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News