- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 90,520
- Reaction Score
- 344,002
So say UConn is in one conference for football and hoops and one for everything else. The first conference will have far more male athletes, the so the second conference will have far more female ones. So what does UConn do if the first conference allows massive payments to be made to student athletes and the latter doesn't, or limits expenditures on student lounges or class of travel? Does UConn disarm against its competitors in the first conference, and not spend what they are allowed to, because if they do they can't spend as much per student in the conference that is disproportionately serving female athletes?How so? Title IX just requires that the institution treat male and female athletes equally. It’s a question of the application of University resources. The vagaries of membership in different conferences are irrelevant so long is the University allocate resources equally.
If the power football schools break of then that coalition will also take Mens basketball because of the money the successor to the NCAA tournament will generate.
What UConn would do would be to make sure that expenditures are equivalent on both set of athletes. Title IX doesn’t make universities the guarantor of identical outcomes in the real world. It merely requires that the university expand its resources in an equitable manner.So say UConn is in one conference for football and hoops and one for everything else. The first conference will have far more male athletes, the so the second conference will have far more female ones. So what does UConn do if the first conference allows massive payments to be made to student athletes and the latter doesn't, or limits expenditures on student lounges or class of travel? Does UConn disarm against its competitors in the first conference, and not spend what they are allowed to, because if they do they can't spend as much per student in the conference that is disproportionately serving female athletes?
What UConn would do would be to make sure that expenditures are equivalent on both set of athletes. Title IX doesn’t make universities the guarantor of identical outcomes in the real world. It merely requires that the university expand its resources in an equitable manner.
I understand. You are assuming that conferences won't regulate expenditures and the UMass, in a non-revenue sports conference with UConn, will allow unlimited expenditures for field hockey. I am not assuming that.
I give up. That is not our difference. Our difference is I'm assuming that if we join a conference of nearby schools for field hockey, they are not going to compete against us while we throw per athlete expenditures on field hockey players that we do to football players for Title IX purposes. You don't think that will be an issue, great. We'll have to see if the world goes down that road.Well, I do feel pretty confident that UMass isn’t gonna regulate the benefits we give our athletes. Like, 100% confident.
You might wanna take a look at Title IX again. It doesn’t say what you think it does.
Yeah, again, I just think you don’t understand the statute in that’s why you’re locked into ‘every field hockey player has to get exactly the same benefit as every football player’. That isn’t how it works.I give up. That is not our difference. Our difference is I'm assuming that if we join a conference of nearby schools for field hockey, they are not going to compete against us while we throw per athlete expenditures on field hockey players that we do to football players for Title IX purposes. You don't think that will be an issue, great. We'll have to see if the world goes down that road.
They're dumb and greedy enough to try their own tournament of a few great basketball programs and a bunch of mediocre/crappy ones but it won't work.It’s going to be wild when this happens and hoop programs with multiple national championships are told they have no value and get left out, and some of these terrible schools in the P2 actually do.
It’s not a matter of IF, it’s more like when. When Barry Alvarez became AD at Wisconsin he basically verbalized what would go down. The major schools in the BIG and SEC made more investments than everyone else. So they should get all the money and everyone else can get lost.
This is what they have been working towards all of these years. It’s just going to end up being more and more exclusive.
They're dumb and greedy enough to try their own tournament of a few great basketball programs and a bunch of mediocre/crappy ones but it won't work.
If you excepted the two basketball programs of Nova and UConn, you'd have to go back 32 years to UNLV to have a Champion that is not a current P5.
The whole bottom of the seedings...#9-16 have zero chance of winning the tournament.
It's all a pregame show before the top half of the tourney gets down to it. Oh, we love the occasional upsets and cheer for the Cinderellas, but they won't win.
Since 1985:
...89% of the Champions have been Seeds #1-3
...0% of the Champions have been #9-16
One seed #8 has won it all.
In fact only 2 champions (3 titles) with the since 1985 have not played FBS/1A football and one of those started playing the next season. People do like the early round upsets, no doubt, but not once the teams get deep. There is a reason that those Major-midmajor Elite 8/Final Four games are the early game and the Power teams play in prime time.If you excepted the two basketball programs of Nova and UConn, you'd have to go back 32 years to UNLV to have a Champion that is not a current P5.
The whole bottom of the seedings...#9-16 have zero chance of winning the tournament.
It's all a pregame show before the top half of the tourney gets down to it. Oh, we love the occasional upsets and cheer for the Cinderellas, but they won't win.
Since 1985:
...89% of the Champions have been Seeds #1-3
...0% of the Champions have been #9-16
One seed #8 has won it all.
We won the NC in the 1998-99 basketball season and began our 2-year transition period to I-A football 2 years later in the 2000-01 football season and didn’t become a full fledged member of I-A until 4 years later in the 2002-03 season.In fact only 2 champions (3 titles) with the since 1985 have not played FBS/1A football and one of those started playing the next season. People do like the early round upsets, no doubt, but not once the teams get deep. There is a reason that those Major-midmajor Elite 8/Final Four games are the early game and the Power teams play in prime time.
All of these organizations except for maybe USA Baseball are total garbage and would not be able to handle itThe USSF should run college soccer.
USA Hockey should run college hockey.
USA Baseball should run college baseball.