MN Daily: U showing a lack of dedication to Title IX...problems have gone unresolved

Donate To GopherHole


No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance...
Click to expand...

Which means that when deciding how to fund teams you should judge them based upon their profitability and value to the University. If you're going to fund a certain Women's sport above its worth, while funding a Men's program below its worth, you are in violation of Title IX. Only an idiot would read the clear language of title IX and think that they should respond by creating quotas to equalize the numbers for men and women. Essentially those in charge of deciding funding should be given data that lists everything except the gender. How do we fund Team A vs Team B.
 

AO54 said:
Which means that when deciding how to fund teams you should judge them based upon their profitability and value to the University. If you're going to fund a certain Women's sport above it's worth, while funding a Men's program below it's worth, you are in violation of Title IX. Only an idiot would read the clear language of title IX and think that they should respond by creating quotas to equalize the numbers for men and women. Essentially those in charge of deciding funding should be given data that lists everything except the gender. How do we fund Team A vs Team B.
Click to expand...

This.
 

When will some people accept the fact that all the funding comes from the profitability of men's BB, FB and Hockey? What's good for the money makers is good for everyone.
 


WHAT. A. LOAD. OF. CRAP.

1)The track and field/CC argument is dumb, those are indeed three seasons, three sports, and no track coach is forced to field cross country runners on their team, they do, but it's common sense. As a former track athlete, this argument hold no water.

2)Revenue v non revenue is the main reason men's budgets are greater, along with common sense aspects outlined in the article. It's not discrimination it's the reality of big time college sports, one that can be argued is not right, but it's reality.

3)Looks like we know of at least one big time donor who was supposed to be placated by Maturi's golden parachute.
What? one year of Teague cleaning the crap up from Maturi's disaster AD, making changes that should have been made years ago, and some clueless author sounds the alarm bell on behalf of Chris Voelz, and everyone who's feathers were ruffled by Maturi's feathersoft ousting.

4)The administrative assistant quoted in the article, Chris Howell should be fired.
And yes I realize how stupid and obviously affirming that would be to what's quoted, and would lead to lawsuits. anyone who's been in that AD for 25 years and is hostile to the new reality of college athletics is a remnant from really dark days in gopher athletics history.
 

station19 said:
When will some people accept the fact that all the funding comes from the profitability of men's BB, FB and Hockey? What's good for the money makers is good for everyone.
Click to expand...

+1. Spending should be based first and foremost on what makes money. For the most part, I would disagree with anyone who thinks that taking money from programs that produce revenue and giving it to programs that don't produce revenue is a good idea (re: beneficial for the department). The gender of participants of revenue-producing programs is irrelevant.

The article sort of mentions this, but I think you also have to consider factors like how much equipment costs, where donors want their money spent, etc.

Lastly, I'd like to see a couple things:

1. Our spending habits in comparison to other top athletic programs

And 2. I'd love to hear some opinions from women on this as well
 

My 2 cents...compliance with Title IX is met when spending on men's and women's money losing sports is equal. IF a sport makes money, you can't add in that sports expenditure against a group of non-money making sports.

I would have a problem if we spent 4 times as much on men's golf than women's golf. But not that we spend 800 times more on football than women's golf.

Also, the reality of NCAA rules on scholarships and participation levels has to come into play here. Unless there are other circumstances involved (like we have 40 men's teams and 3 women's teams) the expense on scholarships has to be measured against NCAA Rules.

Funny thing is...the idea that people are scared to speak up is total bull*&^!#*&^!#*&^!#*&^!#. This is a fedaral law and any student athlete who feels wronged by the University's practices could bring suit (and there would be a thousand lawyers lined up to take the case). But how many Title IX cases are being brought against the U, or any major university for the matter? If this was really the federal crime they make it out to be...then file a suit and go to court. Thing is...they know they would lose.
 

Costs are and will not be the same...

as long as salaries are not the same. Salaries will not be the same as long revenues are higher for men sports. This doesn't mean that women sports are not being properly funded. It just means that the economics are different. Like it or not, this is the reality that college sports has to operate under. Women sports need to understand this and appreciate that men sports help fund their sports.
 



The people who have an issue with this are mostly feminists. The whole equality thing has gone too far in some areas. Why should we spend equal amounts for women and mens basketball when men's ball gets televised more. Not to mention more ticket sales and jersey sales.

Equality is essential but not in every single area. Men and women are different. Men are stronger, faster and more exciting to watch. Sorry feminists, you need to accept that fact and move on with your life.
 

Title IX wasn't created as a great equalizer, Title IX purpose was to give women the opportunity to play sports, not put women's sports on par with men. Heck there are women's sports that are as funded or have more funding than non revenue sports. At most schools Football and men's basketball are the money makers, here you can throw men's hockey in as well. The gophers do just fine in their Title IX responsibilities and IMO women athletes are treated much better here than most division one institutions.
 

Women's sports can take place because men's sports make money and allocate that to them.
 

What is the old saying: "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying?" Well to paraphrase, "If you ain't trying to manipulate title IX, you ain't trying."
 



The scholarship $$$ can be explained this way: More out of state men on scholarship than women. The allotted counts are even. It even states that in the article.
 


The Real Compliance Issue for Title IX

joshvanklomp said:
It's not about the money the programs gets, it goes by number of scholarships.
Click to expand...

And that is what determines whether you are in compliance or not. Because of the large number of football scholarships (85) that are given out, it is always a challenge to have the same number of scholarships for women as there are for men.
 

Football, basketball and hockey are the goose that laid the golden egg. Taking money from the revenue sports would hinder the revenue sports, and result in less money for the non-revenue sports. The U is in compliance, Title IX doesn't require equal amounts of money to be spent on all sports.
 


RodentRampage said:
Football, basketball and hockey are the goose that laid the golden egg. Taking money from the revenue sports would hinder the revenue sports, and result in less money for the non-revenue sports. The U is in compliance, Title IX doesn't require equal amounts of money to be spent on all sports.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And I'd note that this sham of an article doesn't really touch on revenue generation at all. If the women's hoops team starts making money on the order of magnitude with the men's team, I'd start considering more equity in spending. As it stands now, to suggest that there needs to be more equality in spending is INSANE. You keep your athletic department fat and happy with big, successful football and basketball programs. I'm not a 'trickle down economics' guy in general, but it applies here.

Here's the other question that didn't get touched on - are any of the women's coaches clamoring for more funding, better equipment? Do they have any real justification to ask for an improved facility? It's clear from the article the the U is not cutting corners with the women's programs in that regard.

Also, the author says our spending patterns are on par with other Big Ten schools. This is a clear case of much ado about nothing.
 

My favorite line of the article: "In the first half of the current fiscal year, athletics spent $21.89 million on men’s sports but less than $9.96 million on women’s"

So, $9.95 million? Agenda much?

And of course there's the article's sub-heading which reads "Men’s teams get almost three times the money as women’s, raising equity concerns." $21.89 million is NOT close to three times $9.95 million. It's about $8 million away from three times as much and is far closer to two times as much.
 


Can we talk about how the woman quoted in the article has the maiden name HOGSHEAD and she chose to keep it after marriage?
 



Mrs. Hogshead is from Iowa City originally, can't even make that stuff up! I didn't realize she was an Olympic gold medalists in Los Angeles, but do swimming medal from 1984 really count considering the East German (wo)men didn't show up?
 


I'm actually in the beginning stages of writing a relatively brief research paper on Title IX.

I briefly skimmed the article and found this: "The University reported 524 female and 469 male student-athletes in fiscal year 2012, according to the most recent Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act forms." We should be safe from any big trouble, because we only have to comply with one of Title IX's three prongs:

1. Provide opportunities that are "substantially proportionate" to the undergraduate student enrollment.
2. Create more opportunities for the underrepresented sex (short term).
3. Accommodate interest and ability of underrepresented sex.
 

I'm (likely) wrong. Women only represent 52.8% (524/993) of athletes at the U, but represent 56% of the student body. However the 56% is for the entire student body, not just the undergrads.
 

RoyalGopher said:
I'm actually in the beginning stages of writing a relatively brief research paper on Title IX.

I briefly skimmed the article and found this: "The University reported 524 female and 469 male student-athletes in fiscal year 2012, according to the most recent Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act forms." We should be safe from any big trouble, because we only have to comply with one of Title IX's three prongs:

1. Provide opportunities that are "substantially proportionate" to the undergraduate student enrollment.
2. Create more opportunities for the underrepresented sex (short term).
3. Accommodate interest and ability of underrepresented sex.
Click to expand...
And thats what MNDaily doesn't get. Its not about money, its about numbers.
 

The U Womens Rowing Team has a million dollar boathouse, while our basketball players are practicing free throws at Lifetime. Nuff said.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom