Xavier FCS Football???

[coasterville95]

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

[X-band '01]

Most D1 schools that have recently added football have done so because they felt the need to strengthen their foothold within D1. I believe there are only seven conferences that don't play football at any level (America East, A10, Big East, Big West, Horizon, MVC, Summit League, WCC). If you're not in one of those conferences, and you don't have football, you're going to feel like you're at a huge political disadvantage when it comes to your place within the conference. And even with that, several schools within the MVC, Summit League, and A10 field football teams. So, the schools who are adding football aren't really in the same boat that Xavier's in.

D1 non-scholarship football is a very limited scope. Most of those schools have actually had football for a very long time. There's the Ivy League, which isn't really applicable to Xavier either, and there's the PFL. Believe it or not, I think most of those schools have had football for over 100 years. So...it's not that they just added it. I think the better question to ask is why are they choosing to play non-scholarship football in the PFL?? The PFL is actually relatively new, and not all the teams have been in it for that long.

The answer is it helps with male enrollment, and it therefore makes money for the institution.

Here is something else that is undeniably true. You're not going to lose more than a million dollars on football if you're only spending a million dollars on it in the first place. I think nearly every small private school, who charges private school tuition, would happily spend a million dollars a year on ANYTHING that they felt would virtually guarantee them 100 tuition paying students a year. If it were a rec center, they'd do it. If it were an eSports club, they'd do it. If it were a foodcourt, they'd do it.

Football will guarantee them 100 students that would not otherwise be there. Are there other ways to attract students?? Sure. But football is definitely on the list.

And aside from all that, it doesn't COST the athletic department ANYTHING. That's why Butler, and Dayton, and Davidson (who's been to the playoffs) never even consider leaving the PFL. That's why when San Diego looked like they were going to implement scholarships and go to the Big Sky, they decided not to. The WCC is a better basketball conference, and the overall cost to football for the athletic dept. was zero.

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.

[xubrew]

Do the Title IX requirements come into play if it's non-scholarship football?

Yes. There are three aspects to Title IX compliance:

An institution must meet all of the following requirements in order to be in compliance with Title IX:

(1) For participation requirements, institutions officials must meet one of the following three tests. An institution may:
• Provide participation opportunities for women and men that are substantially proportionate to their respective rates of enrollment of full-time undergraduate students;
• Demonstrate a history and continuing practice of program expansion for the underrepresented sex;
• Fully and effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex; and,

(2) Female and male student-athletes must receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and,

(3) Equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the eleven provisions as mentioned above.

https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2014/1/2...tions.aspx#how

So it is true that non-scholarship football doesn't affect the scholarship piece. But if you lose the proportional opportunities aspect, it's really hard to demonstrate the other two participation options while adding a men's sport.

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.

[xubrew]

This just isn't true. Sure, it doesn't cost as much as scholarship football but it isn't free. Even if we say the university will take the increased tuition payments and pay for the $1.5mil football budget...

The athletic director will spend time worrying about football instead of the existing sports. We will need additional athletic trainers and athletic training space. We will need more support staff in every area -- compliance, academic support, sports information, strength and conditioning -- and bigger spaces to accommodate the 100 additional student athletes.

And the biggest issue: if we add 100 male student athletes, we'd need to add about 130 female student athletes to stay in Title IX compliance (since the university is currently about 57% female). So we'd go from supporting about 330 student athletes to a whopping 550. This is a terrible idea.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

[XUGRAD80]

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.

[paulxu]

(2) Female and male student-athletes must receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and,

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.

If the first is a quote from the NCAA rules, then they do mention scholarships.

If you played non-scholarship football, couldn't you offer non-scholarship opportunities in other sports to the women?

[XUGRAD80]

If the first is a quote from the NCAA rules, then they do mention scholarships.

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.

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.

[xubrew]

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.

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.

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!”

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.

[D-West & PO-Z]

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.