|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 20, 2024 17:31:31 GMT -5
There wouldn't be an employment contract. It would be possible to bargain certain aspects related to being a college student-athlete without being an employee, via new, specialized law for that exact purpose. As was a prerequisite for the point being made. So if there's no contract, what are they bargaining? A handshake agreement? However it works with the new law.
Of course, not detailing it in no way proves it's impossible, as no doubt is your attempt here. Rejected
It doesn't even necessarily have to be that there's no contract. What matters is that varsity athletes are not employees and therefore have no rights to minimum wage, etc. benefits. Which is the correct decision in this very limited scenario.
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 20, 2024 17:33:53 GMT -5
Title IX requires participation to be aligned with the gender ratio of the student body for full time undergraduate enrollment, is my understanding. If you have 500 male varsity athletes on scholarship and 250 female varsity athletes on scholarship, you are very likely not in compliance (I think only military academies have that low of a female enrollment ratio).
Agreed. But athletic departments are not that way now and wouldn’t be if walk-ons became scholarship athletes. Especially if football and baseball rosters get trimmed down. If the limits work out that they're 500 to 500 with the usual SEC style minimal sports offerings (compared to Big Ten schools), then so be it. Agree they'd be in compliance.
I'm skeptical it will work out that way, but perhaps I shouldn't be.
|
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jul 20, 2024 18:26:41 GMT -5
Your understanding is incomplete. Proportionality is only one of the three prongs for compliance with Title IX. The other two are historic expansion of opportunities and full accommodation of athletic interest at the institution. Only one of the three needs to be satisfied. Doubtful any institution has defended themselves against a T9 case using either of those two prongs. Please do prove me wrong Why. You're just going to endlessly argue from a position of ignorance with people who actually know what they're talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 20, 2024 19:01:29 GMT -5
"I know a lot about existing law. Therefore, you can't propose hypothetical new law."
Not a thing I've proposed is illegal. And a very good chance the current courts would uphold it.
No, you just don't like it. It goes against how you want the world to work. Tough cookies
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 20, 2024 19:03:51 GMT -5
Your understanding is incomplete. Proportionality is only one of the three prongs for compliance with Title IX. The other two are historic expansion of opportunities and full accommodation of athletic interest at the institution. Only one of the three needs to be satisfied. Doubtful any institution has defended themselves against a T9 case using either of those two prongs. Please do prove me wrong I'm obviously not in room with the lawyers, but I imagine Oregon is doing this exact thing now. They are facing a Title IX complaint about the treatment of their beach volleyball program. I'm sure attorney Arthur Bryant has brought up that the University of Oregon is 55.8% female but female athletes make up only 49.4% of Ducks. They miss the proportionality standard by 73 female athletes. That being said, just about every FBS school misses the proportionality mark. Which is why it's important for them to keep their female athletes happy during this process and avoid a formal Title IX complaint. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 20, 2024 19:03:52 GMT -5
At the end of the day, the massive stick in the mud is minimum wage.
It is absurd and preposterous that students who voluntarily choose to participate in some extracurricular activity, besides their main focus of schoolwork, therefore deserve to have that activity treated as employment and paid minimum wage for it. Poppycock
Nope. It's not. No more than chess club or concert orchestra.
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 20, 2024 19:05:32 GMT -5
Doubtful any institution has defended themselves against a T9 case using either of those two prongs. Please do prove me wrong I'm obviously not in room with the lawyers, but I imagine Oregon is doing this exact thing now. They are facing a Title IX complaint about the treatment of their beach volleyball program. I'm sure attorney Arthur Bryant has brought up that the University of Oregon is 55.8% female but female athletes make up only 49.4% of Ducks. They miss the proportionality standard by 73 female athletes. That being said, just about every FBS school misses the proportionality mark. Which is why it's important for them to keep their female athletes happy during this process and avoid a formal Title IX complaint. If they were happy ... they wouldn't be suing? Seems kinda self-obvious? |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 20, 2024 19:09:47 GMT -5
I'm obviously not in room with the lawyers, but I imagine Oregon is doing this exact thing now. They are facing a Title IX complaint about the treatment of their beach volleyball program. I'm sure attorney Arthur Bryant has brought up that the University of Oregon is 55.8% female but female athletes make up only 49.4% of Ducks. They miss the proportionality standard by 73 female athletes. That being said, just about every FBS school misses the proportionality mark. Which is why it's important for them to keep their female athletes happy during this process and avoid a formal Title IX complaint. If they were happy ... they wouldn't be suing? Seems kinda self-obvious? The reason Oregon Beach Volleyball players are suing has nothing to do with the school not providing enough opportunities for female athletes, but rather with the severe lack of resources provided to that program. But once there is an investigation, everything gets looked at. Instead of Oregon spending an extra $100k per year to treat their beach volleyball players better, they're going to end up spending millions to add additional sports. Which is my point. Female athletes at LSU treated great, so they have no reason to sue despite LSU not providing proportional opportunities. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 20, 2024 19:17:12 GMT -5
Historic expansion is basically the only prong that is actually used in litigation.
|
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 20, 2024 19:19:20 GMT -5
If they were happy ... they wouldn't be suing? Seems kinda self-obvious? The reason Oregon Beach Volleyball players are suing has nothing to do with the school not providing enough opportunities for female athletes, but rather with the severe lack of resources provided to that program. But once there is an investigation, everything gets looked at. Instead of Oregon spending an extra $100k per year to treat their beach volleyball players better, they're going to end up spending millions to add additional sports. Which is my point. Female athletes at LSU treated great, so they have no reason to sue despite LSU not providing proportional opportunities. That's not how that litigation is going to go. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 20, 2024 19:24:13 GMT -5
Historic expansion is basically the only prong that is actually used in litigation. If that's actually true (I won't take your word for it -- no reason to, you've established no authority), then it's probably because these cases rarely go to court and just get settled. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 20, 2024 19:26:57 GMT -5
The reason Oregon Beach Volleyball players are suing has nothing to do with the school not providing enough opportunities for female athletes, but rather with the severe lack of resources provided to that program. But that is Title IX. Well, not the actual language of that, but in how it is enforce by the OCR? Something like that, I think. Instead of Oregon spending an extra $100k per year to treat their beach volleyball players better, they're going to end up spending millions to add additional sports. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 20, 2024 19:27:21 GMT -5
Historic expansion is basically the only prong that is actually used in litigation. Correct--any institution that misses on proportionality (which is the vast majority of them) will argue that their past efforts (record of expansion) demonstrate good faith effort(s). This argument is usually sufficient in most cases to warrant a reprieve (usually an action plan and sometimes a timeline). The third prong is rarely used as it probably only applies to institutions with specific missions (an actual real example is a co-ed college for blind students, in Massachusetts I believe). |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 20, 2024 19:27:32 GMT -5
Historic expansion is basically the only prong that is actually used in litigation. If that's actually true (I won't take your word for it -- no reason to, you've established no authority), then it's probably because these cases rarely go to court and just get settled. You are a loathsome poster and continually stick to the most asinine positions with absolutely no basis for it. One prong can be mathematically proven to not be met (proportionality), and the other prong is basically disproven on its face if the case gets litigated (full & effective accommodation). What's left? It's not just because these things get settled. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 20, 2024 19:36:33 GMT -5
The reason Oregon Beach Volleyball players are suing has nothing to do with the school not providing enough opportunities for female athletes, but rather with the severe lack of resources provided to that program. But once there is an investigation, everything gets looked at. Instead of Oregon spending an extra $100k per year to treat their beach volleyball players better, they're going to end up spending millions to add additional sports. Which is my point. Female athletes at LSU treated great, so they have no reason to sue despite LSU not providing proportional opportunities. That's not how that litigation is going to go. Go on... To me, it looks like the lawyer representing the beach volleyball team (who is THE premier Title IX sports lawyer) recruited the club rowing team to join the lawsuit because the proportionality was so far off. I take it you don't believe Oregon will elevate that rowing team to varsity status. How do you think the litigation is going to go? |
|
