Realignment Carousel Spins Up again (USC and UCLA to Big 10)

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

I don't understand? The quantity of scholarships hasn't changed. Or are you saying the value of each individual scholarship has changed?

Mens Basketball and Football used to be looked at separately, but that changed.

To help break it down.

[Dan]

Men, women, what are these outdated concepts you speak of?

[shock]

Men, women, what are these outdated concepts you speak of?

L-O-L-A Lolaaaaaaaaaaaa.

[1972Shocker]

Men, women, what are these outdated concepts you speak of?

How are trans-athletes counted. Perhaps an easy solution is to have all your guys identify as women, change their names but elect to participate on the men's teams. You have the first female NFL and NBA players in no time.

[MoValley John]

But the scholarships are no longer equal. And that is against the law.

Not so sure I understand. There are generally more womens sports and scholarships available to compensate for the 85 football scholarships, and the values of one full scholarship vs two partials are the same. Its all fair and close to equal.

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

Not so sure I understand. There are generally more womens sports and scholarships available to compensate for the 85 football scholarships, and the values of one full scholarship vs two partials are the same. Its all fair and close to equal.

The NCAA requires Title IX compliance for its programs. The argument is if you remove Football from the equation, the number of required scholarships will drop on the womens side as there are 85 less on the mens side.

If the FB players were paid to play football (expected major reason for spinning off FB from NCAA) and that money came from an outside source and not the university, and the player used that money to pay his tuition, they would no longer be scholarships for Title IX purposes.

[MoValley John]

The NCAA requires Title IX compliance for its programs. The argument is if you remove Football from the equation, the number of required scholarships will drop on the womens side as there are 85 less on the mens side.

If the FB players were paid to play football (expected major reason for spinning off FB from NCAA) and that money came from an outside source and not the university, and the player used that money to pay his tuition, they would no longer be scholarships for Title IX purposes.

Which still wouldn't change the equation. It actually might help. That said, I don't think football scholarships go away. The institutions regardless of the NCAA, still need to be Title IX compliant and the academic side is not going to allow athletics to sidestep Title IX.

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

Which still wouldn't change the equation. It actually might help. That said, I don't think football scholarships go away. The institutions regardless of the NCAA, still need to be Title IX compliant and the academic side is not going to allow athletics to sidestep Title IX.

The institutions, yes. But if you and I were college students, and while attending WSU got jobs outside the university, and we’re paid by this place, it would have nothing to do with the University or NCAA. That’s is the end goal.

They just don’t know how to legally do it. It would require a lot of paperwork and legal maneuvering, but it is believed it can be done and save the schools millions of dollars a year.

[SubGod22]

I'd have to look it up and don't want to right now, but I believe Title IX compliance also has to do with the ratio of scholarships given to the overall student body. If the student body is 50/50, scholarships have to be essentially equal. I believe there's a small percentage (5%?) of leeway. So if you take away 85 scholarships and it heavily skews in favor of the women and exceeds the ratio compared to the student body, then you'd either have to eliminate some women's programs or add men's. It's also why the women's equivalent of a sport offers more scholarships than the men's counterpart. Mostly to make up for football on some level.

I could be wrong on that, but I swear I've heard or read that explanation in the past. This isn't something I've spent much time on since doing a college paper on the ability of WSU to bring back football.

[MoValley John]

I'd have to look it up and don't want to right now, but I believe Title IX compliance also has to do with the ratio of scholarships given to the overall student body. If the student body is 50/50, scholarships have to be essentially equal. I believe there's a small percentage (5%?) of leeway. So if you take away 85 scholarships and it heavily skews in favor of the women and exceeds the ratio compared to the student body, then you'd either have to eliminate some women's programs or add men's. It's also why the women's equivalent of a sport offers more scholarships than the men's counterpart. Mostly to make up for football on some level.

I could be wrong on that, but I swear I've heard or read that explanation in the past. This isn't something I've spent much time on since doing a college paper on the ability of WSU to bring back football.

Correct. Title IX is correlated to the school' gender breakdown. I'm not sure how non-binary works, though. That said, the schools in the B1G and SEC are bloated with cash, have more than they can spend and aren't looking for ways around Title IX or scholarship money. These schools are looking for ways to spend the buckets of money they have. When their respective contracts are reworked, the small B1G and SEC schools should have ~ $150 mil. The big boys just broke the $200 mil. barrier. KU for example, just had their largest ever budget of $100 mil. That number shrinks no matter how the Pac or Big 12 try to navigate. Adding schools may add revenue, but also carves the pie into more pieces. None of the B1G or SEC schools have this problem or are even considering this. Schools that need to try and workaround scholarship money have already lost.

[Kung Wu]

Which still wouldn't change the equation. It actually might help. That said, I don't think football scholarships go away. The institutions regardless of the NCAA, still need to be Title IX compliant and the academic side is not going to allow athletics to sidestep Title IX.

This is how I see it. Nothing changes, except the league. Institutionally, Title IX ratios would all still be in the exact same balance as they were before football joined a different league.

[Kung Wu]

I'd have to look it up and don't want to right now, but I believe Title IX compliance also has to do with the ratio of scholarships given to the overall student body. If the student body is 50/50, scholarships have to be essentially equal. I believe there's a small percentage (5%?) of leeway.

My (now fading) memory tells me there is a (very gray area) three prong test, and it really boils down to how good your attorneys are at arguing each of the three prong tests. There was a ratio of schollies available (maybe financial aid overall?) test, ratio of competition slots available test, and something else I can't remember test. It was more about how good your attorneys are at making the argument and I don't think there were any hard and fast rules like "5%" of this, and "7%" of that -- though the attorneys surely use other schools' metrics like that to make their justifications.

[rrshock]

My (now fading) memory tells me there is a (very gray area) three prong test, and it really boils down to how good your attorneys are at arguing each of the three prong tests. There was a ratio of schollies available (maybe financial aid overall?) test, ratio of competition slots available test, and something else I can't remember test. It was more about how good your attorneys are at making the argument and I don't think there were any hard and fast rules like "5%" of this, and "7%" of that -- though the attorneys surely use other schools' metrics like that to make their justifications.

IiRC, there is one of the 3 that is much easier to achieve than the rest.

[Shockm]

The NCAA requires Title IX compliance for its programs. The argument is if you remove Football from the equation, the number of required scholarships will drop on the womens side as there are 85 less on the mens side.

If the FB players were paid to play football (expected major reason for spinning off FB from NCAA) and that money came from an outside source and not the university, and the player used that money to pay his tuition, they would no longer be scholarships for Title IX purposes.

Boyd Converse was ahead of his time. This was the year, that the 30,000 seat, Cessna Stadium was being built.

Not only were the Shockers placed on probation for several years because town businesses employed football players in town businesses (maybe they worked and maybe not), look at his defensive coaching staff.

Larry Lacewell, defensive coach, Jim Johnson, defensive line

Boyd Converse Head Football Coach Boyd Converse named new head football coach Boyd Converse, 1966 National .junior College Coach ol the Year, was selected to head the WSU football coaching stafl' early in the spring semester. Converse came to Wichita from Kilgore junior Col- lege, Kilgore, Texas. Appointed head coach at Kilgore in 1964, Con- verse inherited a team that had won only three games in the previous two seasons. Last year's team at thevjunior college lost only one contest and went on to win thetjunior Rose Bowl. In his seven years as a head coach, he has experi- enced only one losing season, his first year at Paris Cllexasj Junior College. He was head football coach as well as athletic director at Paris until 1962 when he was hired as an assistant at Baylor University, Waco, Texas. While at Baylor, Converse acquired 54 hours above his masters degree toward his doctorate in educational administration. New Coaching Staff - Eddie Kriwiel, offensive coach, Larry Lacewell, defensive coach, Dale Boutwell, defensive backheld, Ron Toman, quarterbacks and receivers Jim Johnson, defensive line: Don Shoemake, offensive line.

”
Show previous and next page text (OCR)

[Shocker_Power]

The NCAA requires Title IX compliance for its programs. The argument is if you remove Football from the equation, the number of required scholarships will drop on the womens side as there are 85 less on the mens side.

If the FB players were paid to play football (expected major reason for spinning off FB from NCAA) and that money came from an outside source and not the university, and the player used that money to pay his tuition, they would no longer be scholarships for Title IX purposes.

IMO, in the near term Olympic/non-revenue sports are going to be hurt dramatically. In the long term, Title IX is in trouble too. With the direction of the SCOTUS Title IX could be declared null and void sooner!