|
Post by haterade on Apr 13, 2024 11:28:04 GMT -5
So if four teams get invited to play in a week 0 tournament they don’t have to seek waivers. That’s convenient
|
|
|
Post by BigDigEnergy on Apr 13, 2024 12:02:28 GMT -5
thinking about how the mens programs get 4.5 total Men's programs have issues simply existing. Blame the 85 scholarships football receives that has to be made up for in women's sports to comply with Title IX. Something has to give, and it isn't going to be football. Like seriously do they really need 85 scholarships? I don't follow it very closely but do most schools really use up all of that? And in cases where they don't use all of them, I assume that it still counts against them.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 13, 2024 12:55:10 GMT -5
Men's programs have issues simply existing. Blame the 85 scholarships football receives that has to be made up for in women's sports to comply with Title IX. Something has to give, and it isn't going to be football. Like seriously do they really need 85 scholarships? I don't follow it very closely but do most schools really use up all of that? And in cases where they don't use all of them, I assume that it still counts against them. If football got treated like any other sport, it would have no more than about 40 scholarships as the limit.
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Apr 13, 2024 13:10:52 GMT -5
In the meantime all they get to do is make 'em lift weights and run wind sprints, etc?
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Apr 13, 2024 14:45:17 GMT -5
Personally I think football would be better off with 95 scholarships. I also don’t see any reason to include football in Title IX considerations since at many schools it funds the other sports and there’s no equivalent sport in terms of participation for women.
But I don’t expect that to be a sympathetic argument on volleytalk.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 13, 2024 15:06:31 GMT -5
Like seriously do they really need 85 scholarships? I don't follow it very closely but do most schools really use up all of that? And in cases where they don't use all of them, I assume that it still counts against them. If football got treated like any other sport, it would have no more than about 40 scholarships as the limit. Yes and no. The average FBS roster size is 128.2. So only about 66% of FBS football players are on scholarship assuming 85 scholarships per team. For comparison, the average D1 volleyball roster size is 17.3 so 12 scholarships per team gets you to 69%. The stupid outlier is women's basketball. Where the average roster size (14.5) is actually BELOW the scholarship limit (15).
|
|
|
Post by VolleyballMag on Apr 13, 2024 16:40:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Apr 13, 2024 20:38:27 GMT -5
Personally I think football would be better off with 95 scholarships. I also don’t see any reason to include football in Title IX considerations since at many schools it funds the other sports and there’s no equivalent sport in terms of participation for women. But I don’t expect that to be a sympathetic argument on volleytalk. I mean, they are male students (at least as I type this) and they are getting an athletic opportunity, so they count. This is not an athletics rule, or an NCAA rule that the colleges can easily change, it's a federal law. If/when they become employees, we'll see what that does. And FWIW, D3 Mount Union's EADA report shows 228 athletes in the football program, so when scholarships are not an issue, some coaches would like MUCH larger rosters.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Apr 13, 2024 20:52:57 GMT -5
Personally I think football would be better off with 95 scholarships. I also don’t see any reason to include football in Title IX considerations since at many schools it funds the other sports and there’s no equivalent sport in terms of participation for women. But I don’t expect that to be a sympathetic argument on volleytalk. I mean, they are male students (at least as I type this) and they are getting an athletic opportunity, so they count. This is not an athletics rule, or an NCAA rule that the colleges can easily change, it's a federal law. If/when they become employees, we'll see what that does. And FWIW, D3 Mount Union's EADA report shows 228 athletes in the football program, so when scholarships are not an issue, some coaches would like MUCH larger rosters. Wow, really? You mean Title IX is federal legislation passed in the 70s by both houses of Congress and then signed by the president as the law of the land? Who knew?” Did you know there was a movement in Congress (led by Senator John Tower) to exempt football at the time it was passed into law but the movement failed? One can have an opinion that the amendment should have passed regardless about whether it did or not. My opinion carried no weight back then, and it hasn’t exactly gained any more influence in the subsequent 50 years, but it remains the same it was back then.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 13, 2024 22:30:14 GMT -5
I mean, they are male students (at least as I type this) and they are getting an athletic opportunity, so they count. This is not an athletics rule, or an NCAA rule that the colleges can easily change, it's a federal law. If/when they become employees, we'll see what that does. And FWIW, D3 Mount Union's EADA report shows 228 athletes in the football program, so when scholarships are not an issue, some coaches would like MUCH larger rosters. Wow, really? You mean Title IX is federal legislation passed in the 70s by both houses of Congress and then signed by the president as the law of the land? Who knew?” Did you know there was a movement in Congress (led by Senator John Tower) to exempt football at the time it was passed into law but the movement failed? One can have an opinion that the amendment should have passed regardless about whether it did or not. My opinion carried no weight back then, and it hasn’t exactly gained any more influence in the subsequent 50 years, but it remains the same it was back then. Title IX is actually really brief and doesn't actually say what most people think it says (which is important because we are all textualists now) -- Title IX as the "law" is mostly via federal agency regulations and interpretatiions upheld and interpreted by deferential courts. Chevron is dying in T-minus two months (and, concomitantly, agency power is approaching a historical minimum, legally speaking and most people are thinking about the more important repercussions, but a re-look at Title IX regulations will likely see a number of legal challenges. The realities/changing status of student-athletes in revenue sports may be salient as to how these turn out.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 14, 2024 1:39:24 GMT -5
Title IX is of course about way more than just sports, but the idea is that universities should not just cater to men. At least, not if they receive public funding.
Putting football players up on some platform as a special exemption very much is against the spirit of Title IX, as well as currently being against the interpreted law.
|
|
|
Post by kimdc on Apr 14, 2024 5:33:50 GMT -5
If you're in an educational institution receiving taxayer money, abide by fairness rules. Don't want to? Gtfo of educational institutions. Not difficult
As for football paying for anything, that's never been the case except for at a handful of very rich programs. Most DI football programs lost money in the 80s. Most do now. Excessive salaries and ridiculously large staffs, expensive and expansive facilities, stupid levels of luxurious handouts, travel beyond what women’s teams usually get.
If football was "paying for everything" regular students wouldn't have parts of their fees and tuition funneled to athletic departments at most DI schools. The school I cover wouldn't have "loaned" and given the AD over $100 million above and beyond those student fees in recent years, adding to a financial crisis causing academic faculty and staff to lose their jobs while football is still hiring "analysts" and "general managers" (but volleyball is not allowed to hire its 3rd on-court AC).
I am so tired of the narrative that football is paying for it all while regular students are helping foot the bill for the excesses of college sports, including (especially) football. Add to that jocks "attending" 3-4 schools in 5 or fewer years, and the farce sports (especially football) make of higher education needs to end. Don't pay them. Get them out of schools. Pro leagues and clubs should run elite sport development. Colleges should run education.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Apr 14, 2024 7:28:03 GMT -5
If you're in an educational institution receiving taxayer money, abide by fairness rules. Don't want to? Gtfo of educational institutions. Not difficult As for football paying for anything, that's never been the case except for at a handful of very rich programs. Most DI football programs lost money in the 80s. Most do now. Excessive salaries and ridiculously large staffs, expensive and expansive facilities, stupid levels of luxurious handouts, travel beyond what women’s teams usually get. If football was "paying for everything" regular students wouldn't have parts of their fees and tuition funneled to athletic departments at most DI schools. The school I cover wouldn't have "loaned" and given the AD over $100 million above and beyond those student fees in recent years, adding to a financial crisis causing academic faculty and staff to lose their jobs while football is still hiring "analysts" and "general managers" (but volleyball is not allowed to hire its 3rd on-court AC). I am so tired of the narrative that football is paying for it all while regular students are helping foot the bill for the excesses of college sports, including (especially) football. Add to that jocks "attending" 3-4 schools in 5 or fewer years, and the farce sports (especially football) make of higher education needs to end. Don't pay them. Get them out of schools. Pro leagues and clubs should run elite sport development. Colleges should run education. If an athletic program is in a healthy financial situation at a power 4 school, it’s invariably because revenue derived from football is subsidizing the athletic department. If an athletic department is not in a healthy financial situation - and there are many - considerations beyond healthy finances are driving the decision making. I cannot speak to what those xo sideratikns are at every school. I especially don’t know the reasons for Arizona. But I do know the reasons why many schools consider athletics a loss leader, whether they should or not. Even at these schools football is often by far the leading driver of revenue, even when it’s the leading driver in expenses by far as well. I agree with you completely on the cognitive dissonance regarding the business of athletics housed within an educational institution. The biggest issue is that college athletes will have more visibility and more can support playing for colleges than any minor league professional status. Look at major league baseball’s longstanding minor league system versus the crowds that throng many college baseball stadiums - even if the alert at the Triple AAA level is higher - or the NBA G league. The brand surrounding these college teams gives a substantial marketing value not provided by professional leagues. Mostly my problem with not making an exception for football in terms of Titke IX is the distortion it creates. If football was made an exception for compliance, it would be very easy to make determinations. It is not that much more expensive to field a men’s team in any other sport than a women’s sport, including basketball. We are 50 years from Title IX being passed and still the enforcement is as hoc pretty much entirely enforced through the court system. There is a lack of political will to enforce the law that I think would disappear almost entirely without football being part of the equation. I also believe football being included in calculations has meant the dismantling of many other men’s sports to help seek some form of compliance. At one time from post WWII to 1984 we had a represssive NCAA that ruled all of college athletics. That’s when they lost their first major Supreme Court ruling saying universities could negotiate their own TV contracts either individually or as collectives. The justices laughed at the idea this would mean the end of college athletics as we know it, but truth be told, it did. Everything became a trickle that turned into an avalanche. If the NCAA had been able to maintain their illegal monopoly status on negotiating TV contracts they could have ensured a more equitable distribution and limited the exposure of the bigger schools - just as they had been doing prior to losing the case. Allowing NIL payments inevitably led to pay for play - because of course it would. The NCAA no longer has the ability to enforce rules on transferring. Ostensibly those rules are to help athletes graduate, since transferring can have a negative effect on academic progress, but the truth is it’s hard to argue that shouldn’t be an individual’s right to determine for themselves. What it absolutely dies, though, is help create an even less level competitive environment, which at one time was one of the NCAA’s core missions. The bottom line is that there has been little effective regulation of college athletics ever since the court systems decided that the NCAA didn’t have the right to represent universities or set rules for them even though it was a “voluntary” association, because they were breaking the law with their monopoly status. Which, let’s face it. They absolutely were. The truth is to have an egalitarian system requires some level of repression. Otherwise the ones with the most resources and/or most talent rise to dominate and if allowed collaborate with others at a similar advantage. That’s the history of human nature. Until the system collapses in one way or another and we do it again. The college athletics system we have currently is not sustainable. Operating costs are wildly escalating and there’s no governor. There’s no mechanism to come to a widespread solution. The Big 10 and SEC are in the midst of coming up with their own solutions and carving everyone else out of it. Then there’s Congress which may or may not pass wide ranging legislation governing college athletics in our lifetime. Other than that it’s heading over a collective cliff.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 14, 2024 7:30:21 GMT -5
Title IX is of course about way more than just sports, but the idea is that universities should not just cater to men. At least, not if they receive public funding. Putting football players up on some platform as a special exemption very much is against the spirit of Title IX, as well as currently being against the interpreted law. The disconnect for me is that high school sports participation is like 60% boys. And university enrollment nationwide is like 60% female. So the proportionality standard (where if 60% of the student population is female, then 60% of athletes need to be female) doesn’t actually match up with interests of young people. Not to mention we should be looking for ways to encourage boys to go to college right now. All of the funding pieces are great for equality. Were just turning away WAY more men that want to play sports than women.
|
|
|
Post by sevb on Apr 14, 2024 11:26:10 GMT -5
5 days is a start… The preseason acclimation period for vb has always been horrible… it serves no benefit to the SA for the time between arrival on campus and the start of competition to be so short…
|
|