USD's expectations

[filbert]

Re: USD's expectations

[quote author=JimmyJack link=1165897178/0#13 date=1166021450][quote author=22jack link=1165897178/0#11 date=1165974659]Does anybody know how they will handle the title IX issues?

They're adding 2 more women's scholarships than men's. Supposedly, that will get them close enough under the recently watered-down Title IX interpretations.[/quote]

I'm sure I could find it if I searched long enough, but could someone put a link to the new interpretations. Thanks.[/quote]

Here's the BOR's Title IX info sheet:
http://www.sdbor.edu/publications/do...7_Title_IX.pdf

[JimmyJack]

Re: USD's expectations

[quote author=JimmyJack link=1165897178/0#13 date=1166021450][quote author=22jack link=1165897178/0#11 date=1165974659]Does anybody know how they will handle the title IX issues?

They're adding 2 more women's scholarships than men's. Supposedly, that will get them close enough under the recently watered-down Title IX interpretations.[/quote]

I'm sure I could find it if I searched long enough, but could someone put a link to the new interpretations. Thanks.[/quote]

Here you go:

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list...anceFinal.html

Key section:

In its 1979 Policy Interpretation, the Department established a three-prong test for compliance with Title IX, which it later amplified and clarified in its 1996 Clarification. The test provides that an institution is in compliance if 1) the intercollegiate- level participation opportunities for male and female students at the institution are "substantially proportionate" to their respective full- time undergraduate enrollments, 2) the institution has a "history and continuing practice of program expansion" for the underrepresented sex, or 3) the institution is "fully and effectively" accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

First, with respect to the three-prong test, which has worked well, OCR encourages schools to take advantage of its flexibility, and to consider which of the three prongs best suits their individual situations.

In other words, don't worry so much about silly things like proportionality as long as you "have a history and continuing practice of program expansion" for women athletes.

Before that, the 1996 clarifications stated that only the "substantial proportionality" test would cut it for Title IX compliance. Now, it's like children's athletics where everybody gets a purple ribbon so long as they try. Ridiculous.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: USD's expectations

I thought you meant there was something recent. SD BOR requires all universities to meet all three tests, so nothing really new or did I miss something.

[Yote53]

Re: USD's expectations

Just thought I would add something to the Title IX discussion. The ratio of women/men on campus is 60/40 at USD. From some articles I read there are more and more women and less men entering college and the proportion of women/men on college campuses is going to be about 60/40 nationwide.

By the strictest Title IX standards this ratio is going to end up killing men's sports on campuses nationwide, expecioally the non-revenue generating men's sport such as wrestling and swimming and diving.

This, I believe, is the reason the more flexible interpretation is being used by many universities.

I believe Title IX has run its course and done what it was intended to do. Now it is becoming a negative influence on college athletics.

I don't think many of you would disagree that there are now plenty of opportunities for women to compete in college athletics. I could even argue with you that men's sports have become more restricted and men are the class of people who are now being discriminated against.

[JimmyJack]

Re: USD's expectations

I thought you meant there was something recent. SD BOR requires all universities to meet all three tests, so nothing really new or did I miss something.

Somebody might want to mention that to USD officials who told my source that they weren't going for proportional representation but were using the "recent" guidance on Title IX that I cited.

[Coyote_Fan]

Re: USD's expectations

I am all for equal participation of women and women's rights in general. Heck if the right candidate was available I would have no second thoughts about putting a woman in as president of the United States.

This is one thing that bothers me about Title IX. It's all hunky dory to give women their opportunities but I also think that revenues generated should be factored into the Title IX equation as well. It's no secret that womens athletics just don't draw as much attention or gate revenue than mens sports do. Is it fair to Universities to not be able to sponcer mens sports and possibly the revenue associated with it because the schools has it's hands tied with needing to put several of their scholarships towards women athletics.

To be completely fair to everyone involved including the fans that pay the ticket prices Title IX should not only have scholarship ratio's based upon gender enrollment numbers but also based upon the amount of dollars raised from gate receipts and other revenue tied in with a particular sport.

Keep in mind that other parts of the country tend to not support womens athletics as much as they are supported in the midwest. If a typical mens basketball game draws 8,000 a game but the typical womens game draws 2,000 a game than wouldn't it be fair to be able to use that revenue for scholarships based upon where the money is being generated from. In other words if you added all the revenue generated from mens sports and figured that in with the revenue generated from womens sports I believe that the scholarship requirements should factor that in. If 80% of money is being raised because of mens sports than 80% of the scholarships should be rewarded to mens programs. It only seems fair.

That is like telling a business how to run itself regardless of what sells and makes them money. If the law stepped in and told a restaraunt that they had to serve as many Ham dinners as they did ribeye steaks just to appease the pork producers I don't think that would be taken to well. Not only would the business not do as well but the customers wouldn't want to come there as often to eat either knowing that they would be sold on ordering ham dinners instead of what they wanted.

I don't see how running a restaraunt business or any business for that matter is any different than running collegiate sports programs. Why should the law have the right to step in and tell a college how to run their athletic department as long as they are making a concerted effort to support women's athletics. Why should a college be forced to add women's soccer if it was much more profitable to the school to add mens hockey instead. That is what I really have a program with, with this whole Title IX things. Equal representation based upon gender is nice but running a program and making money is just good business sense. :-?

[jackrabit1]

Re: USD's expectations

One argument... Public instititions use federal dollars, private businesses don't. And if these schools want Uncle Sam's money, they have to play by his (or her?) rules.

[JimmyJack]

Re: USD's expectations

I am all for equal participation of women and women's rights in general. Heck if the right candidate was available I would have no second thoughts about putting a woman in as president of the United States.

This is one thing that bothers me about Title IX. It's all hunky dory to give women their opportunities but I also think that revenues generated should be factored into the Title IX equation as well. It's no secret that womens athletics just don't draw as much attention or gate revenue than mens sports do. Is it fair to Universities to not be able to sponcer mens sports and possibly the revenue associated with it because the schools has it's hands tied with needing to put several of their scholarships towards women athletics.

To be completely fair to everyone involved including the fans that pay the ticket prices Title IX should not only have scholarship ratio's based upon gender enrollment numbers but also based upon the amount of dollars raised from gate receipts and other revenue tied in with a particular sport.

Keep in mind that other parts of the country tend to not support womens athletics as much as they are supported in the midwest. If a typical mens basketball game draws 8,000 a game but the typical womens game draws 2,000 a game than wouldn't it be fair to be able to use that revenue for scholarships based upon where the money is being generated from. In other words if you added all the revenue generated from mens sports and figured that in with the revenue generated from womens sports I believe that the scholarship requirements should factor that in. If 80% of money is being raised because of mens sports than 80% of the scholarships should be rewarded to mens programs. It only seems fair.

That is like telling a business how to run itself regardless of what sells and makes them money. If the law stepped in and told a restaraunt that they had to serve as many Ham dinners as they did ribeye steaks just to appease the pork producers I don't think that would be taken to well. Not only would the business not do as well but the customers wouldn't want to come there as often to eat either knowing that they would be sold on ordering ham dinners instead of what they wanted.

I don't see how running a restaraunt business or any business for that matter is any different than running collegiate sports programs. Why should the law have the right to step in and tell a college how to run their athletic department as long as they are making a concerted effort to support women's athletics. Why should a college be forced to add women's soccer if it was much more profitable to the school to add mens hockey instead. That is what I really have a program with, with this whole Title IX things. Equal representation based upon gender is nice but running a program and making money is just good business sense. :-?

These are public universities, not businesses. If you start applying that profit nonsense to public higher education, you're not going to like where it goes. Does the History Department make money? No? Then abolish it. How about Chemistry? Those labs are expensive. Get rid of them. Do English grads give enough money back to the university? No? Get rid of that department. Marching band? Really expensive. Eliminate it. If you measure the value of an educational experience on a profit basis, I'm not sure what would be left, if anything.

Oh, and there's the little detail of tuition. Operate a public university like a business and tuition would need to be about 20x higher and salaries for faculty and staff about 50 percent lower. Then you might have a shot at a profit. I am speaking here as a higher education administrator who knows what this "service for the greater good" actually costs.

Title IX is about equal opportunity for women in college athletics. I can't imagine how anyone could argue against that, particularly using profit models. To say you're all for equal opportunity, but only if it's profitable is really ridiculous, particularly in a public education context. Or maybe you'd advocate removing the athletic department from that educational context. Then you've got the Sioux Falls Stampede, not the SDSU Jackrabbits or the USD Coyotes.

[Yote53]

Re: USD's expectations

I can't follow you down that road Coyote Fan.  You can't measure scholarship numbers based on profitability, that flies in the opposite direction of equal access.  What I am saying is that looking at the future demographic makeup of college campuses,  men's non-revenue, mostly olympic style sports, are in serious jeapordy of disappearing altogether and men shouldn't be disriminated against just to balance things out.  

Truth is that football is such a large roster sport that it seriously skews the scholarship numbers.  The simplest resolution to this problem is to keep Title IX but take football out of the equation.  Schools should be required to carry an equal number of sports for men and women, meaning if there are 7 men's sports there should be 7 women's sports, just take football out of the equation when it comes to schollie numbers.  

Of course, that is too simple of a solution for politicians and lawmakers.

We've gotten off topic here.  Resume the discussion about USD's expectations.

We have high expectations.

State fans expect us to wallow in misery and become an absolute embarassment.

I expect that somewhere in the middle is where we will land.  We'll have our share of successes and failures, just as you all have had.

[89rabbit]

Re: USD's expectations

It is easy to understand why Title IX leaves such a bad taste in USD fan's mouths, given your history of law suits and such. However, you do have a model of success to follow and it is just up the road in Brookings. This shouldn't be too hard for USD, you seem to be getting good a following us around. We have not cut men's sport to achieve Title IX compliance. We have added opportunities for women.

I remember many of the USD faithful laughing at SDSU when we add equestrian, kind of like the way they laughed when we moved to D-I. Who is laughing now?

It is simple Title IX is the law of the land, deal with it. If you can’t afford to do it then stay D-II. The good news for the Men's teams you currently have is you are at the D-I minimum of 6 sports offered for Men. Your administration can not cut any more. You will have to add women's scholarships and you may have to add another sport or two for women. You will have to add opportunity and that will cost more money. That is part of your challenge.

So best of luck to you and start raising funds no one is going to change Title IX just because USD finds it difficult to live within it boundaries.

Go State! 

[EQguy]

Re: USD's expectations

State fans expect us to wallow in misery and become an absolute embarassment.

I expect that somewhere in the middle is where we will land. We'll have our share of successes and failures, just as you all have had.

I know there are many here who do wish a little pain on USD. Heck I'm even one of them. But I don't expect that you'll become an embarrasement. My only beef right now is the thought that "we're going D-I and we are going to be in the Mid-Con and Great West just like SDSU"

We have paved the way for you which should make it easier. But those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We came in saying we were going to be in the Big Sky and look where that got us. We learned early that you apply when they ask, not tell them you're coming in. The landscape is in flux right now and there is no telling what may happen, but big things might be necessary for USD to get into the Mid-Con. I would expect that unless some people leave, many of the schools in the east are going to be reluctant to add 2 more schools in the plains, which would change the footprint of the conference significantly.

[West_River_Jack]

Re: USD's expectations

Mick Garry cannot be lumped in with the USD people who just don't get it when it comes to how big the mountain can be when making the transition fro DII to DI.  Read his blog from December 12th and it becomes clear that he has a good enough grasp of SDSU's troubles to understand what lies ahead for USD.  It is a pretty good explanation of the future.

http://blogs.argusleadermedia.com/sports/category/usd/

By the way, from the blog post above the one I mentioned it appears that Mr Garry isn't a farm kid.  His 5th favorite farm implement is a baler, not a bailer.

[NightHawk78]

Re: USD's expectations

http://www.sdbor.edu/publications/do...6Division1.pdf

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs...EWS03/61214021

As expected, the BoR approved USD's request to move up to Division I. A couple regental quotes here:

"Compared to what SDSU went through, this was a cakewalk," regent Randy Morris said today.

Regent Terry Baloun said "the road is much clearer; it's a paved road, versus where we had to pave a road last time."

Translation: USD can thank SDSU for the free pass.

As for USD's expectations: Do what SDSU has done.

[Yote53]

Re: USD's expectations

You misinterpret. My post regarding Title IX was about what was going on nationally in college athletics. The "not include football" idea was not something I came up with, but is something I heard Bobby Bowden talking about. I was not discussing USD athletics at all. OK, so USD cut baseball. Well, I believe it was Stanford that cut their national championship winning men's swimming program, you wanna throw some barbs their way? How about a few shots at FSU, they must be having problems funding women's sports based on the statements Bowden made. How about the countless schools that have dropped wrestling and other sports from D1 all the way down the line. I guess any D1 school that drops a men's sport should not be in D1 because they obviously can't afford it.

Anything, anything, posted by a USD person here will eventually elicit a jab or two from at least a few of you rabbit faithful.

Everyone views the world throught their own set of glasses. You are hearing something that hasn't ben said. USD has said nothing other than they will seek membership into the MidCon and Great West. Why would the Great West not take us and UND? They need numbers in that conference and the SU's have one step out the door already with the Gateway calling. The Great West needs us as much as we need them. The MidCon, that's entirely different. We'll apply, they'll say yes or no. Nobody considers it a given or our right to be there, just the most logical first preference for a conference home for us. If it doesn't happen we'll have to look elsewhere or go indy until there is an opening somewhere due to conference shakeups.

[JimmyJack]

Re: USD's expectations

Mick Garry cannot be lumped in with the USD people who just don't get it when it comes to how big the mountain can be when making the transition fro DII to DI. Read his blog from December 12th and it becomes clear that he has a good enough grasp of SDSU's troubles to understand what lies ahead for USD. It is a pretty good explanation of the future.

http://blogs.argusleadermedia.com/sports/category/usd/

By the way, from the blog post above the one I mentioned it appears that Mr Garry isn't a farm kid. His 5th favorite farm implement is a baler, not a bailer.

He grew up in Austin, Minn., with guys like the Gear Daddies (I wanna Drive the Zambonie) for friends.