Reinstate men's tennis, men's indoor track, and men's gymnastics
- Thread starter makemyday
- Start date
I agree that UM should reinstate the men's tennis, indoor track, and gymnastics. These were solid programs. They complemented the women's programs and vice versa in that the athletes support each other and help in attracting other outstanding athletes. Indoor track supported outdoor track and cross country and help these programs be successful. The elimination of these programs indicates that the Athletic Director has failed in management and fund raising.
ClassOf98Gopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2020
- Messages
- 1,139
- Reaction score
- 690
- Points
- 113
Reinstating Indoor Track ASAP seems a very logical first step assuming financial outlooks are improved.
Ski U Mah Gopher
Member of the Tribe
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 7,984
- Reaction score
- 1,285
- Points
- 113
I’m convinced this was more of a Title IX move disguised as a fiscal move. Cutting 3 men’s sports got us closer to being at the right percentage of men vs women athletes.
ClassOf98Gopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2020
- Messages
- 1,139
- Reaction score
- 690
- Points
- 113
I am sure this is true.
With indoor track reinstatement, doesn’t the university already have the athletes from the cross country and outdoor track sports? So the U’s Title IX balance wouldn’t be disturbed if it were reinstated?
That is a serious question because I am not an expert at this at all.
BleedGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 62,268
- Reaction score
- 18,941
- Points
- 113
Mens tennis gives out 4.5 scholarships a year, it’s an absolute drop in the Title 9 bucket.
Reinstate them all.
Go Gophers!!
Reinstate them all.
Go Gophers!!
Gophers_4life
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 15,846
- Reaction score
- 3,986
- Points
- 113
Title IX does not depend solely on scholarships. It depends on roster size and total dollars spent on a program, and then making sure that women have fair equity in that sense.
So that said, there is a difference between men's indoor track vs tennis and gymnastics.
With indoor track, it's all the same athletes already on the cross-country and (outdoor) track teams, it's all the same coaches, it's all the same equipment, and the facility (the fieldhouse) is already built and being used by women's indoor track. So, there is no Title IX hit, and the costs literally would just seem to be the costs of sending male athletes on away trips for indoor track meets. Which I would think are fairly minimal.
With tennis, you have separate coaches and a unique roster of participants, regardless of any other associated costs. True that they use the same facilities as women's team, and costs are probably fairly minimal. But the Title IX hit is there.
Gymnastics is similar to tennis, except that men's gymnastics is performed on an entirely different set of apparatus. So that does has some cost, though again probably somewhat minimal relatively, but you do also have the Title IX hit.
The elephant in the room, of course, is football, with a roster size over 100. Soccer, volleyball, and rowing help to offset that, but cutting men's gymnastics and men's tennis helps too.
So that said, there is a difference between men's indoor track vs tennis and gymnastics.
With indoor track, it's all the same athletes already on the cross-country and (outdoor) track teams, it's all the same coaches, it's all the same equipment, and the facility (the fieldhouse) is already built and being used by women's indoor track. So, there is no Title IX hit, and the costs literally would just seem to be the costs of sending male athletes on away trips for indoor track meets. Which I would think are fairly minimal.
With tennis, you have separate coaches and a unique roster of participants, regardless of any other associated costs. True that they use the same facilities as women's team, and costs are probably fairly minimal. But the Title IX hit is there.
Gymnastics is similar to tennis, except that men's gymnastics is performed on an entirely different set of apparatus. So that does has some cost, though again probably somewhat minimal relatively, but you do also have the Title IX hit.
The elephant in the room, of course, is football, with a roster size over 100. Soccer, volleyball, and rowing help to offset that, but cutting men's gymnastics and men's tennis helps too.
Gophers_4life
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 15,846
- Reaction score
- 3,986
- Points
- 113
OK, I did Google "indoor track title ix" and I think there would be some disagreement about what I said with regards to indoor track "not counting" against title ix (assuming you have cross-country and outdoor track).
For example, from here: http://volanteonline.com/2021/02/challenges-of-title-ix-compliance-at-usd/
“(Title IX) is not by body, it’s by opportunity,” Custis said. “So if a female participates in cross country, indoor track and outdoor track, they count the same as three male football players.”
But if you go to the US Dept of Ed's "Equity in Athletics" website, for which every school is required to fill out updated participation, coaching, expenses, etc. info for every FY, you can see it has a track of both duplicated and unduplicated participation. https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/
There is no hard and set thing of "OK, your school has met Title IX, therefore you're good to play this year." All it ultimately does is provide an avenue for remediation, if someone thinks you're not complying with the law and wants to file a lawsuit.
Sure, obviously you should try to be in compliance. So, perhaps at the end of the day I am more wrong than right in suggesting cross-country and outdoor track athletes who would participate on a varsity indoor track team, would not "count" against Title IX.
For example, from here: http://volanteonline.com/2021/02/challenges-of-title-ix-compliance-at-usd/
“(Title IX) is not by body, it’s by opportunity,” Custis said. “So if a female participates in cross country, indoor track and outdoor track, they count the same as three male football players.”
But if you go to the US Dept of Ed's "Equity in Athletics" website, for which every school is required to fill out updated participation, coaching, expenses, etc. info for every FY, you can see it has a track of both duplicated and unduplicated participation. https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/
There is no hard and set thing of "OK, your school has met Title IX, therefore you're good to play this year." All it ultimately does is provide an avenue for remediation, if someone thinks you're not complying with the law and wants to file a lawsuit.
Sure, obviously you should try to be in compliance. So, perhaps at the end of the day I am more wrong than right in suggesting cross-country and outdoor track athletes who would participate on a varsity indoor track team, would not "count" against Title IX.
Gophers_4life
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 15,846
- Reaction score
- 3,986
- Points
- 113
That said, isn't it possible for men's (outdoor) track athletes and coaches to train as if there still were an indoor varsity team and just send those athletes to meets to compete as "unattached"? Sure, we probably can't host men's indoor meets or win team titles in the Big Ten or NCAA for indoor track. Not sure about individual titles in the Big Ten and NCAA, probably a no there as well if you don't actually have a team.
But it's not like men's track has been cut altogether.
But it's not like men's track has been cut altogether.
ClassOf98Gopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2020
- Messages
- 1,139
- Reaction score
- 690
- Points
- 113
This is probably true.
I guess I am taking the budget control argument from the U of M more honestly so I guess I just assumed the men’s indoor track team’s reinstatement would be the least costly (in dollars) way to add back a sport while also providing the value of connective support to other Gopher sports - meaning men’s and women’s outdoor track, mens and womens cross country, and and women’s indoor track.
Gophers_4life
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 15,846
- Reaction score
- 3,986
- Points
- 113
Sure, makes sense to me.
At the end of the day, after going through this thinking out loud exercise, the cuts feel much more for Title IX purposes than actually saving money. Covid revenue drops, and the "inability" to forecast how fast revenues would come back, was used as the pretext to cut them for financial reasons.
I have no idea why they are afraid to say it was for Title IX reasons. Maybe that would come out in court if there was a lawsuit filed against the university for these teams, no idea if that will ever happen.
At the end of the day, after going through this thinking out loud exercise, the cuts feel much more for Title IX purposes than actually saving money. Covid revenue drops, and the "inability" to forecast how fast revenues would come back, was used as the pretext to cut them for financial reasons.
I have no idea why they are afraid to say it was for Title IX reasons. Maybe that would come out in court if there was a lawsuit filed against the university for these teams, no idea if that will ever happen.