Title IX

Discussion in 'On The Field' started by Chinstrap, Jun 27, 2022.

  1. Chinstrap

    Chinstrap 1,000+ Posts

    I am not sure that I have ever understood all there is to know about this but perhaps some of you much smarter than me can opine. I fully understand the need for equality and quite frankly I enjoy watching women compete in many of the sports, sometimes more than the equivalent sport for men. However, as so often happens good intentions are poorly thought out and implemented, and I wonder if that is not the case in spades for this legislation.

    Football in most athletic departments contributes most of the team earned revenue for the athletic budget and there is no revenue generator in women athletics that comes close. In basketball most men’s programs will create enough revenue to offset a much higher percentage of expense than women’s’ basketball. Women’s volleyball at a school like Texas may cover their expenses but what other sport can so the same? I'm sure that a cost vs. revenue analysis would never be allowed for consideration and I am ok with that.

    As I understand it there are two missions with Title IX, one as to the financial contributions and one as to the level of participation. So how do you compensate for football in the latter of these objectives? I can only assume that one way to do it is to get rid of some men’s sports. No men’s soccer, wrestling, etc. Did that not happen with the implementation of Title IX, and can that accelerate? Would it not be better to exclude football and then do a level set? I know the objectives are not currently being met in total, but can the continued attempt to meet them create unfairness? I have known a lot of good high school soccer players whose career was short lived due to limited college programs and scholarships for their sport.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. SabreHorn

    SabreHorn 10,000+ Posts

    Be careful. Donna Lopiano is on record more than once as saying level it by reducing football scholarships to a total of 15-20. "After all, only eleven can play at one time".
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • poop poop x 1
  3. n64ra

    n64ra 1,000+ Posts

    You're right one way to do Title 9 is to get rid of some men’s sports. That's why Texas doesn't have men's soccer or Iowa State have baseball. Sounds like your proposal is spend the same amount of money on all women's sports as men's sports with football's costs excluded. That would certainly help the big schools have more men's programs, but then they'd spend a lot less on total women's sports since football is so costly. What happens to the schools that don't have football? They get no benefit from your change.
     
  4. SabreHorn

    SabreHorn 10,000+ Posts

    While playing the numbers game, keep in mind that UNC takes in more money from men's basketball than any other school. That total is less than $20 million a year. Big schools can bring in $12-14 million per home football game, but I think the total "all-in" number for football is around $150+ million. Equality will never be achieved because it's big business and the consumer is driving the train. I think our programs do an outstanding job of trying to keep a balance of opportunity and quality of product.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 10,000+ Posts

    Lopiano, while right about a lot of things, was full of crap on that one.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    To Sabre 's point look at where Texas got points for Director's Cup. How many NC's and second place finishes were the Longhorn women?
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. Chinstrap

    Chinstrap 1,000+ Posts

    Holtz had a bit of an off color comment about her back when these conversations were taking place.
     
  8. Chinstrap

    Chinstrap 1,000+ Posts

    Not sure I understand. No football and it is easy to get to equality. They are not burdened with trying to get around the football numbers.
     
  9. X Misn Tx

    X Misn Tx 2,500+ Posts

    Depending on the school, you might get rid of some men's sports. But many schools added women's sports. Probably a mix.

    Football is the biggest reason there is discrepancy. Comparing high school sports, you could have 45-50 players (ballpark median) and only 15 volleyball players. So the girls got to be cheerleaders and drill team dancers instead. The rest were similar sizes...basketball, track, baseball/softball, soccer. In college football has 85 scholarships, so it would take several additional women's sports to give women the same number of schollies.

    I would get behind a men's soccer program at UT, but understand. Follow and support (gear) the women's soccer team. I'm hoping NIL really helps the women's soccer team. This is where big Texas money could make a big difference on a program. Bring in the big guns every year.
     
  10. Horns11

    Horns11 5,000+ Posts

    I was on a committee when women's rowing was added. It was something like 11 men and 2 women. The bottom line was "we need to be able to get enough women to sign up so that football can keep its 111-man roster."

    I've coached MS and HS football. I'm not a complete idiot (regardless of what my wife says). When I asked "why not just cap the walkons at 10-15?" one of the dudes picked up his 1996 brick cell phone and said he was calling Mackovic to let him know that I'd be by later to tell him which 20 kids to fire. Still hasn't happened, but the posturing from these guys over Title IX always went back to money. The fact that he even used the word "fire" still irks me. A business fires people.
     
  11. SabreHorn

    SabreHorn 10,000+ Posts

    11,

    Mackovic would have called in Tyson King and asked which 20 defensive players were flunking out of school this semester.

    NIL, if not cancelled, will evolve into scholarships for "walkons" kind of like the Nebraska "community scholarships" were for Osborne.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2022
  12. BLucky

    BLucky 100+ Posts

    Allowing football in to support other sports, both mens and womens, means everyone gets treated equally on each team...same travel arrangements, same meal plans, etc. I thought that was part of what Title IX was trying to get to. Texas is a great place because their varsity athletic program sustains itself and gives money back to the academic programs (at least they have in the past). That comes from football revenue. Most schools use some of the money that would otherwise go to educational programs. Texas doesn't have to do that. Years ago, I believe I read that ohio state is the only other program that could do this. It may have changed recently but it can't be by many schools.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. n64ra

    n64ra 1,000+ Posts

    For schools that have football: Excluding football means the total men's dollar amount spent by the university is less than today. That means total women's dollar amount will also be less. Some women's sports are then cut since there's less money to spend on them.

    For schools that don't have football: Nothing changes. Therefore, your proposal doesn't benefit them.
     
  14. Chop

    Chop 10,000+ Posts

    Re: some of Lopiano's thoughts--

    Tate: Major cheats among big NCAA issues

    "Not only do coaches know they need to cheat in the recruiting wars, but they also know that the NCAA enforcement system is unlikely to catch them," she said. "Further, the fraud involved in admission of academically underprepared athletes via waiver of institutions' normal admissions standards is not limited to UNC. Everyone is doing it ... friendly professors, registering athletes in the least-demanding courses and majors, and more tutors writing more papers."

    Lopiano cites scandals at UNC, SMU, Southern Mississippi, Notre Dame and Missouri as the tip of the iceberg, pointing out: "As the graduation rates of the predominantly minority athletes receiving special admissions receives increased scrutiny, the NCAA's 'Graduation Success Rate' will be exposed as a fraudulent metric ... just a smokescreen to prevent the public from using the Federal Graduation Rate to compare athlete versus non-athlete."
     
  15. Chop

    Chop 10,000+ Posts

    Division 1/the Top Division: limited only to the big-time major powers; get rid of the charade; don't even make them go to class; just pay them. To satisfy Title IX - pay the softball, volleyball, and W. basketball teams.

    Every other college (80-90%): true student-athletes. Same admission standards as other students (yes, Rice will really suck). Same academic expectations. Playoffs and games can't interfere with finals, labs, tests, etc.
     
  16. SabreHorn

    SabreHorn 10,000+ Posts

    Chop,

    Great points. I'll look forward to going to The Cotton Bowl in October to see our Physics students battle OU in a presentation of papers on something I can't even pronounce. I'm sure the interest level will be so high that tickets will be north of $1,000 each for the sellout. I better start saving for those tix now.

    Halftime will feature a visiting professor discussing the Calligraphy style used in the Guttenberg Bible.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  17. X Misn Tx

    X Misn Tx 2,500+ Posts

    This was what I said right when it came out. Why not ask millionaire kids to be walk ons so we can offer more guys?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. Chop

    Chop 10,000+ Posts

    You don’t think UT and OU would be in the Top Division—the one where they just pay the players and they don’t even go to class???
     
  19. n64ra

    n64ra 1,000+ Posts

    And there's no limit to the number of years one can play!

    "He's on his 13th year in the league as a starter. No, not the NFL. He plays at the University of Texas full time."
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  20. Chop

    Chop 10,000+ Posts

    It will apply to baseball as well. Take for example, Austin Todd...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. Chop

    Chop 10,000+ Posts

    If the new SCOTUS justice can't even define a "woman", logically speaking, how can there still be womens' sports? How can Title IX even work anymore?

    The Womens' Basketball Team's new Power Forward below:
    (I think she goes by "Denise")
    She's gonna be All-American and then dominate the WNBA (at any age).
    [​IMG]
     
  22. Billy Dale

    Billy Dale The History of Longhorn Sports through 2014

    It is a travesty that Title IX for equality sake required many men's sports to be excluded as scholarship sanctioned collegiate sports, Pertaining to funding , over the years,overall, women are now carrying more of their own financial weight requiring less of a strain on Longhorn men's football budget.

    President Lorene Rogers helped the Longhorn women find alternative internal and external sources of funds to support the women's program. Internal included Auxiliary ventures such as royalties from the sale of Longhorn merchandise, and voluntary student athletic fee. External funds came from independent sources which included private donors, The Fast Break Club, scholarship endowments, and gate receipts. Lopiano was proud that UT President Rogers when she said the tower should be lit for Longhorn's success in women's athletics.

    By 1983 those alternative sources of funds included $500,000 from optional student athletic taxes, $250,000 from gate receipts, program advertisers, $250,000 from the option seating football program, and $850,000 from the interest in the auxiliary enterprise's account.

    In 1966 the Intercollegiate budget was $700. in 1975 the budget was $128,000, with 28 scholarships available. In 1983 the budget was $1,000,000 with receipts of $1,850,000 dollars. In 1987 the Women's Athletic budget had grown to 2.8 million and by 1992 the Women's Athletic budget was 4.2 million.

    1987-1994 - a walkathon was a primary fund-raising event for the women’s department. In 7 years this event raised $480,000.
    If you want to know more about Title IX TLSN has written volumes .

    DONNA LOPIANO - WOMEN'S ATHLETIC DIRECTOR (squarespace.com)

    TITLE IX (squarespace.com)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2022
  23. TEXAS1983

    TEXAS1983 100+ Posts

    I think it will eventually settle out that the top 48-60 football/men's basketball universities will define their own set of rules and governance, and be able to offer the full range of scholarship sports.

    The remainder will fall into something closer to Division 2 or even the Ivy League model.

    The net result will likely be fewer opportunities for students, male and female, in the broader range of sports.
     
  24. SabreHorn

    SabreHorn 10,000+ Posts

    Is a myth. Find a football player at Harvard, Yale, or Dartmouth that pays tuition. They don't exist unless the coach is trying to get rid of them.
     
  25. TEXAS1983

    TEXAS1983 100+ Posts

    I don't doubt that for a minute. The Ivy can be very creative with financial aid, so to speak. Maybe a poor example. :smile1:

    How far does that extend beyond football? Scull rowers are probably self financed, but not every sport attracts the Percy Arbuthnot IV type. Swimming, tennis, gymnastics, volleyball, etc. are likely to drop from a lot of non- SEC and B1G universities, especially if they are trying to compete with the big guys by forming transcontinental agglomerations of smaller tv market schools.
     
  26. X Misn Tx

    X Misn Tx 2,500+ Posts

    I think NIL is a broken thing.

    What ifit frees up university athletic departments to start more sports? What if UT lowered total football scholarships and started a new men's sport? Then that becomes a great sport and NIL enables that sport to lower its scholarship numbers and they start another sport?

    I'd like to see men's soccer and wrestling.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. Mike the Texan

    Mike the Texan 250+ Posts

    Title IX is in for a rude awakening about how "unequal" equality is when it comes to paying players or letting genetic males participate in women's sports.

    - Mike
     

Share This Page