Would not be the first time - I think around 2007-2009 a club football team actually took the field - maybe two seasons until it folded. It got a lot of talk then as an attempt to revive the program..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Printable View
Would not be the first time - I think around 2007-2009 a club football team actually took the field - maybe two seasons until it folded. It got a lot of talk then as an attempt to revive the program..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dayton also went to the FCS playoffs one year and even hosted a game, but nobody showed up for that. They were down in Orlando instead watching Xavier dump-truck them in the Old Spice Invitational that year.Quote:
Originally Posted by xubrew
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
The infamous "third prong" of Title IX. If the underrepresented sex's interests and abilities are being met, then a school is not in violation. In other words, if they have the things they want, or are not being denied anything that the non-underrepresented (men's) teams are getting, then a school is in compliance.Quote:
Originally Posted by XU '11
No they wouldn't. There are other ways to be in compliance with Title IX. You don't have to have equal representation so long as you're "meeting all the needs" of the underrepresented sex.Quote:
Originally Posted by XU '11
And..."The athletic director will spend time worrying about football instead of the existing sports"??? This is just a silly thing to raise as a concern.
You can always just hope that you don’t get sued. Most schools are not in Title IX compliance but nobody cares enough to make a fuss. Until a disgruntled volleyball player with a lawyer dad quits the team and sues because we don’t have a beach volleyball team.Quote:
Originally Posted by xubrew
The Xavier club sports website currently lists equestrian, fencing, field hockey, gymnastics and softball but NOT football. There’s no way “fully accommodating the interests and abilities” would hold up.
I’m not sure if XU11 is a lawyer or not, but I’m guessing that the university has a few who specialize in sports compliance rules that they can call on. I’ll trust their judgement and advice over anyone else’s. Using his formula, I have to wonder how any college that has mens football gets away with having any other mens sports teams? Heck, a 100 man football roster would need 4-5 women’s sports fielding full rosters just to equal out what the football team has. Yet somehow they do manage to field a bunch of other men’s sports at the same time that they are fielding a football team. And I don’t see where they have 15-20 different women’s sports teams.
FYI….as things stand now after Xavier added women’s lacrosse this year, there are currently 181 men and 186 women that are members of ncaa athletic teams at Xavier University. (Not “club” sports). There are 8 men’s teams and 9 women’s teams.
The average male participant that receives athletic department aid receives $15,096
The average female participant receives 18,171
So I’m guessing (just guessing) that other things than just pure numbers of participants factors in.
Keep in mind that Title IX legislation never even uses the words, sports, athletics, teams, scholarships, etc. It was not written as “sports” legislation. It has been used by lawyers/courts in that fashion, but that was not its original intent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XU '11
If the first is a quote from the NCAA rules, then they do mention scholarships.Quote:
Originally Posted by XUGRAD80
If you played non-scholarship football, couldn't you offer non-scholarship opportunities in other sports to the women?
Title IX legislation is not a part of the NCAA rules. The NCAA rules do address the legislation, but the legislation…as written by Congress, not the NCAA….was meant to deal with sex discrimination in businesses that had federal contracts or received federal aid. The only reason that schools have to pay any attention to it is because almost everyone of them either receives some federal money or has contracts with federal agencies where it receives some money. The legislation basically says that if sex discrimination is found that the contracts can be voided and money can be withheld.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
I believe that the quote you mention is actually from a court case ruling and is guidance from the courts on how it may be applied to school sports teams.
Volleyball is a head count sport. Those who are on scholarship are on full scholarships. Their Title IX rights would not be violated by a non-scholarship sport. What’s funny about this example is that the main reason a lot of schools would add a sport like beach volleyball is so they can sort of bend the rules of Title IX. You can count all your volleyball players twice by saying they’re on both teams. So, such a lawsuit would likely not succeed. For me personally, I think a more plausible Title IX lawsuit (which I think we may actually see some day) will be along the lines of “Why do we have to go through the motions of competing in a second sport just so we can be counted twice? That’s not fair and equal!”Quote:
Originally Posted by XU '11
Look, you're listing club sports as if they somehow apply to Title IX within athletics. I really don't think you know what you're talking about, I don't think you understand anything about the intricacies of Title IX and how it would apply to adding non scholarship football, and that you're COMPLETELY wrong about how "most schools are not in Title IX compliance." Does this mean that most schools are lying on their annual EADA reports??
EDIT: Just to be clear, when talking about sports that are created for pretty much the sole purpose of creating double counters some day being a potential Title IX lawsuit, I don't mean at Xavier. I just meant some place in general.
I have read a lot about Title IX over the years as it is very confusing and people misunderstand it all the time. Most of us have no idea what we are talking about when we argue about it, me at the top of the list. It is a very intricate confusing topic for us average college sports fans.
I will say, I have also read that many many schools (not sure if most or not) are not truly Title IX compliant but it requires a suit from CURRENT athletes at the school to make anyone look at it. There was recently a case highlighted on espn.com about I think the SD State (or some school in Cali) that cut one of the women's programs and they women on that team had to get women from the softball team (a sport that was still active) to bring the suit.
I know club sports don't matter to Title IX.Quote:
Originally Posted by xubrew
But if Xavier's legal argument is that they are fulfilling the Title IX requirements not by proportional participation numbers, but by "Fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex", the abundance of women's club sports that Xavier chooses not to offer as a varsity sport would be a tough sell.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
No. Just that most female athletes don't have any incentive to sue their school.Quote:
Originally Posted by xubrew
That's a student activities issue, not an intercollegiate athletics issue. The question in that case would be are there equal opportunities and resources within student activities? This is a COMPLETE non-issue! You're just imagining things.Quote:
Originally Posted by XU '11
But, to your point, if there was a clear inequality in intercollegiate athletics, and Xavier's response to that was to point to club sports, then yes that would be a very serious problem with that explanation.
If you're asking questions so you yourself can better understand it, that's one thing. But if you're actually trying to definitively say that these are actual issues, you are 1000% percent wrong.
So when these reports are submitted to the federal government, you don't think they'd bother to alert the school to the fact that they are not within compliance??Quote:
Originally Posted by XU '11
The following is the actual title IX legislation as written and signed into law by President Nixon in 1972…..
“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.”
It was meant to update the 1964 a Civil Rights Act that dealt with many forms of discrimination in business, but did not mention anything about discrimination in education.
The key word in it for the discussion here is….activity. That’s how and why it came to be such a point of contention when dealing with college sports. If colleges did not receive any Federal financial assistance, they wouldn’t have to worry about it. ( In fact, Hillsdale College in Michigan makes it a point to not accept any federal financial assistance and therefore has no title IX stipulations that it has to uphold. ) But since virtually every college in the land does receives some form of federal assistance, this legislation has been used to deal with discrimination based on sex in ALL facets of college life….academic and athletic.
I really don't know how it works outside of athletics. Does student activities have to submit a report every year? Does Housing? Does Enrollment Services? I don't know. I really don't. If they do, then I have no idea what those reports look like.Quote:
Originally Posted by XUGRAD80
I just know that athletics does have to submit the EADA reports every year. And it absolutely does not include things like club sports, or student activities, or housing, or academic programs, or anything like that. I don't know Xavier's specific situation, but I can say with relative confidence that generally speaking, adding non-scholarship football would not throw Title IX out of whack. It's NON SCHOLARSHIP, so the part about athletic aid wouldn't even be impacted at all.
I don’t know if there are any reports like you mention done. I kind of doubt that there are. But I know that there have been lawsuits brought against schools for sex discrimination as described in the legislation that have had nothing to do with anything happening in an athletic department.Quote:
Originally Posted by xubrew
I do know that numbers of participants is not the be all and end all for determining discrimination and that it is up to the one being the suit to prove discrimination, it’s not up to the one being sued to prove that there isn’t any. Someone can claim discrimination all they want. Proving it is something else. Showing that there is no discrimination within the housing, employment, etc. is not something that the legislation says must happen. However, there many be additional rules and regulations imposed by agencies that make reporting such things a requirement. I just don’t know, and I’m not afraid to admit that.
So while discussing this offline last night, it was pointed out to me that La Salle cut football back in 2007. The person who pointed this out did so rather emphatically and really enjoyed himself as he did so. I can't say I blame him. When you think a team has existed for fifteen years that actually hasn't existed at all, you deserve to get your balls busted.Quote:
Originally Posted by xubrew
Well....I guess I missed that memo.
I think the 50 year non-losing streak will be too much pressure to put on the kids who would come to Xavier to play football.
Do we REALLY need to resurrect the football program in order to get more males to X? If the current student population is 57% female (or that don't identify as male for the libs), that should be enough of a determining factor for most 18yo males.
No. But there's a lot of things we don't need. Not needing something in and of itself isn't a reason to not do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamont Sanford
The way the mere mention of football at Xavier makes some people roll their eyes all the way into the backs of their heads is one of those Xavier things that I just don't quite understand. I get that for a lot of people football just isn't their thing. Hell, for a lot of people at Xavier basketball isn't their thing either. I had several friends that I'm still really close to that never went to a single game and couldn't have cared less if the program even existed. But...
'FOOTBALL!!?? OH MY GOD!! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE THINKING??!!!" As if all the things they like about the world will suddenly cease to exist.
At most, those who don't care about it, which I realize is probably most people, will barely even notice that it's there. Those who are excited about it, which isn't many but is a few, will like it.
But at Xavier, there has always been a third category. Those that choose to hate it, and actually actively decide to be bothered by it, and use their imaginations to come up with some rather creative reasons as to how football will somehow ruin everything. After every game that Xavier loses, I can almost guarantee there will be a small clan of people who go out of their way to discuss all the ways this is bad for all of humanity, and question why it was ever implemented, and how everything would be right with the world again if Xavier would just cut it. I just don't quite understand that. It seems kind of silly to me...but it's definitely a noticeable part of the Xavier orbit.
I think almost everyone here likes football. I think almost everyone here has never seen or thought or cared about a Pioneer League football game. And that will generally continue if Xavier gets a Pioneer League football team. It just seems pointless to start a program that is designed to suck as a way to make money by generating tuition dollars from the players' parents.
If they do, they do. Being able to call Xavier undefeated since '73 is more valuable to me personally (and believe me, that's of almost no value to me) than bringing high school football for slightly older kids to Victory Parkway.
I just find it funny that if Xavier were to allot a million dollars to redo all the bathrooms, no one would notice or care. Spending a million dollars on football, all of which would be made back and/or supplemented, sends people into a tizzy.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoMuskies
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoMuskies
what are you even talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by xubrew
I cant help but separate the ideas of startup costs and operating costs.
If a school has a current football program with a staff, equipment, facilities, and all that stuff, then they may be able to operate that program on a relatively thin budget.
But we are starting from SCRATCH. We dont have anything at all. The startups costs will be a few million easy.
Also, when I look at the reported "numbers" from some of these programs, it's pretty clear that there are inconsistent methods to report revenues and expenses.
I notices that 2 of the school JUST HAPPENED to have revenue that EXACTLY MATCHED their expenses? really?
I just think this is a dumb idea.
You know what would be a better idea? Add a Navy and Air Force ROTC program. Many, if not most of those students are on scholarship that is paid by the military. We can all say that adding football would add 100 males paying full tuition, but in reality, we know that many of those guys would get partial academic scholarships so, we cant just multiple 100 *42K. But when the military is paying the bills, we can charge full tuition....
No, Xavier doesn’t need to start football. But that still doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t.Quote:
Originally Posted by MHettel
This is actually quite common. It means that the athletic dept. is having the costs supplemented by the institution. If a school gives money to the athletic dept, it’s reported as revenue. If the numbers are identical, it almost assuredly means that the school gave them the exact amount of money they needed to cover the expenses. The reason the school would do this is because they’re making enough money off of the tuition to make it worth it to them. This is basically a straight up D3 model. It costs the athletic dept nothing, and while it costs the school money, what they’re making off tuition exceeds the overall cost.Quote:
I notices that 2 of the school JUST HAPPENED to have revenue that EXACTLY MATCHED their expenses? really?
I’m all for it, would have 100 percent gone to games as a student. I went to soccer and baseball games, and I could care less about either of those sports in real life. Football on the other hand would be a blast. I liked when we had club, as a ton of my friends played. Great idea! Let’s GOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Xavier '11 questions the application of Title IX to the addition of non-scholarship football at Xavier. As an interested Xavier football fan, I have over the years examined Title IX and its implications for returning football Xavier particularly at the non-scholarship level. I am an attorney albeit inactive after retiring from 35 years as a prosecutor. Even to me, the interpretation of Title IX's application is not entirely clear as '11 points out; however, whether women's club sports count as opportunities for Title IX's purposes is debatable. Litigation might have to resolve such question but, as has been pointed, there hasn't been much litigation history particularly in this regard.
As has also been noted, Title IX seems more concerned with opportunities than actual numbers of participants. The University of New Orleans is now considering football after a couple sets of years playing at the club level. (Xavier's club team defeated the UNO club team at Roger Bacon stadium a decade or so ago.) In 1999, a UNO alum examined Title IX as non-scholarship football. I attach the following not as an exhaustive legal analysis of the issue but only as some serious thought to the question. For the record, I recall having read an Ohio State law professor's examination of the topic but, as of yet, I have been unable to locate it.
/https://www.angelfire.com/la/uno/proposal.html#:~:text=A%20Proposal%20For,Football% 20Main%20Page
In significant part, summarized:
Proposal For Non-Scholarship Division I-AA Football at the University of New Orleans
1.
It is well within the capability of the University of New Orleans to bring to UNO students, alumni and the Louisiana sports scene, on-campus Saturday night college football played outdoors on real grass between teams made up of real student athletes in a stadium in which alcoholic beverages can be sold. College football the way it was meant to be played, the way it used to be played, the way it still is played on many campuses around the country.
The University of New Orleans can and should establish a Division I-AA non-scholarship football program on the campus of the University of New Orleans...
4.
What about Title IX?
Title IX will not be an obstacle to UNO football, financially or otherwise. In fact it may even be helpful.
In order to address the Title IX issue, an understanding of Title IX and UNO's responsibilities under same, once football is established is required. Please see Cohen v Brown University 991 F 2d 888, 893-898 (1st Cir. 1993) in which the First Circuit Court of Appeals discusses the history, scope, statutory and regulatory framework of Title IX (pg. 25).
The first point to be made is that equal opportunity to participate lies at the core of Title IX's purpose. Equality of expenditure and equality in numbers is not required (Cohen pg. 896 note 9, pg. 897). Title IX does not mandate strict numerical equality between the gender balance of a college’s athletic program and the gender balance of its student body (Cohen pg. 894). What it does mandate is that a university effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes (Cohen pg. 896-897).
The key point to understand is that there is a three - prong test under which UNO must meet at least one of the three prongs in order to adhere to Title IX requirements. That test is as follows:
(1)Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or
(2)Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among the intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and abilities of the members of that sex; or
(3)Where the members of one sex, are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion such as that cited above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program (pg. 897 Cohen).
It is unlikely that the athletic programs of many co-educational universities reflect the gender balance of their student bodies. Moreover, given economic constraints, it is difficult for universities to expand athletic opportunities today. As a result, more often than not, schools meet the above test by satisfying the interests and abilities of the underrepresented gender, i.e. by meeting the third prong of the test. Furthermore, even when male athletic opportunities outnumber female athletic opportunities, and a university has not met the first prong (substantial statistical proportionality) or the second prong (continuing program expansion), the mere fact that there are some female students interested in a sport does not ipso facto require the school to provide a varsity team in order to comply with the third prong. Rather, the institution can satisfy the third prong by insuring participatory opportunities at the intercollegiate level when, and to the extent that, there is sufficient interest and ability among the members of the excluded sex to sustain a viable team and a reasonable expectation of intercollegiate competition for that team (Cohen pg.. 898).
It should also be pointed out that the burden of proof is not on the university to prove that it has met at least one of the three prongs of this test. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that a university has not met at least one of the three prongs of the accommodation test. (Cohen pg. 903-904, see also Roberts v. Colorado State Board of Agriculture 998 F 2d 824 (10th Cir. 1993), pg.831). Moreover, this burden is heavier on plaintiffs who want to establish a new team than it would be on plaintiffs who are on an existing team which has been eliminated (Cohen pg. 904, Roberts pg.832).
6
The bottom line is that the purpose of Title IX is to ensure equal opportunity to participate. It does not require equality of expenditure or equality in numbers. It requires only that a university effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of the members of both sexes.
"...[I]f a school has a student body in which one sex is demonstrably less interested in athletics, Title IX does not require that the school create teams for, or rain money upon otherwise disinterested students; rather, the third benchmark is satisfied if the underrepresented sex's discernable interests are fully and effectively accommodated." (pg. 898 Cohen).
Norma V. Cantu, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Department of Education recently wrote in the July 30, 1999 issue of the Wall Street Journal:
"...[M]ore than two thirds of the schools reviewed by the OCR complied with Title IX by showing that they had a history and continuing practice of expanding opportunities for the underrepresented sex, or by insuring that the interests and abilities of women are fully met. In other words, if women's underrepresentation is due to lack of interest, not discrimination, a school does not have to create additional opportunities for women. A college or university can comply with Title IX even if men receive significantly more athletic opportunities than women."...
During its inaugural season, club football lost all three games. FWIW: The club team followed up in 2007 by winning the club league title. Entertaining games. I submit the following from the first win where Xavier beat Miami in Oxford on the arms and legs of QB Chris Greenwood, a TD pass to WR Craig Holliman and the defensive prowess of Dan Piening. All three were MBA students at the time, Greenwood played three years on the club team; and Piening who played at Moeller and Dartmouth was 29 years old.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljrPOVE75sc
Yes, undefeated since '73.Quote:
Originally Posted by nickgyp
Xavier made the Elite Eight in basketball that year. Had it been varsity football instead of club I think they would have won it all!!Quote:
Originally Posted by nickgyp
I dont need to walk down the street naked.....and i most CERTAINLY shouldnt.Quote:
Originally Posted by xubrew
I dont see your point
So what you mean is that it is not an accurate accounting of the actual revenues and expenses. Like I said it wasntQuote:
Originally Posted by xubrew
I've made that same point many times over the years when discussing revenue and spending, and have made it several times in this thread. If you don't know how the reporting works, it can be very misleading.Quote:
Originally Posted by MHettel
Non scholarship football will not generate any actual external ATHLETIC revenue. What it will do is generate external revenue for the institution via the tuition dollars it brings in. That's why the school will give the money to the athletic department to cover all the expenses. In making this point (AGAIN) that's what I mean when I say that it doesn't actually cost the athletic department anything. They are given what ever it costs to pay for it. They are given money the would otherwise not be given if they didn't have football to pay for football. It costs the athletic department nothing and it makes money for the institution. That's the most accurate way it can be be stated.
I think you do, but are just choosing not to for whatever reason. I actually do think you’re smart enough to know the difference between a preference and a need. There is a damn good reason to NOT want to see me walk down the street naked. EVERYONE would prefer not to see that. There is a clear DOWNSIDE. While there isn't an absolute need for football as X has gone along just fine without it, there is perhaps a preference for it now. And, there’s really not an actual downside to it. If anything, there's an upside in that it will bring in revenue and bring in students who otherwise never would have come.Quote:
Originally Posted by MHettel
Hmmmm....
What if they decide to start a marching band?? That would cost money too!! But then again, athletics wouldn't be paying for it, and the tuition dollars it brought in would also probably outweigh the costs.