SEC Ponders Potential Big Five Move

[WuDrWu]

Or it could be your EMOTIONAL reasoning getting in the way of RATIONAL thought. Endeavor to use your own thought rather than the regular Group Think process you usually follow.

Perhaps, and while I can be accused of a lot, I think the last thing I can be accused of is regular Group Think.

You are much better in reporting a misleading basketball schedule and your supposed "inside knowledge" that really equates to rumors, inneuendo and half truths. Stick to what you're good at which is being a sheep pretending to be a wolf.

There seem to be an unusually large number of people riled by my singular post that lingered for all of about 3 hours one off season morning on Shockernet. Intended in good fun but obviously not received that way (again over about a 3 hour period from 6 to 9 am). Still, many people really upset. 100% my responsibility and I'll wear it 100%. I won't give you a KCShox promise to stay away for a year but I will promise you this; there will be no public discussion of unreported items or speculation of unreported items as they relate to Shocker Athletics from me going forward. Hopefully that will appease those annoyed by my misgivings.

[Ricardo del Rio]

You are much better in reporting a misleading basketball schedule and your supposed "inside knowledge" that really equates to rumors, inneuendo and half truths. Stick to what you're good at which is being a sheep pretending to be a wolf.

Back off, Veritas. You have stepped way over the line.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

There seem to be an unusually large number of people riled by my singular post that lingered for all of about 3 hours one off season morning on Shockernet. Intended in good fun but obviously not received that way (again over about a 3 hour period from 6 to 9 am). Still, many people really upset. 100% my responsibility and I'll wear it 100%. I won't give you a KCShox promise to stay away for a year but I will promise you this; there will be no public discussion of unreported items or speculation of unreported items as they relate to Shocker Athletics from me going forward. Hopefully that will appease those annoyed by my misgivings.

Even as one who gave you crap for your post, I have to admit that the sum total of crap you received for that joke probably exceeded the crap level you deserved on that one.

[moshock]

Keep posting Doc

[Ricardo del Rio]

By who? I know lots of people who want to send their kids there, that have no affiliation with the school. I know that's anecdotal but there are lots of plain folk that admire Texas. But I don't think you were referring to we the proletariat. I think you are referring to some bourgeoisie class of characters. Who? Academics? Employers?

See first sentence of my post. Look for the word, "sports."

I did not have Engel or Marx classes in mind, just plain old sports.

[Kung Wu]

See first sentence of my post. Look for the word, "sports."

I did not have Engel or Marx classes in mind, just plain old sports.

LOL. Ok, I was wondering if you were referring to academics.

By the way, learned something new with your "camel's nose under the tent" expression. Pretty cool.

[Kung Wu]

No, it about providing equal opportunity and end discriminating practices of colleges

You goofball.

The only real controversial piece of the Title IX equation is the money aspect requiring schools to balance scholarships. Simply making more women's teams accessible is easy in and of itself. It's the scholarship balancing act that causes class warfare amongst the schools anmakes Title IX a massive charity and redistribution program.

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having "colleges"? At some point it may be time for Colleges to relook at really what their mission statement is. Is it to provide an education? Is it using sports to provide more opportunity to get an education? Or is it to be a poorly run sports franchise business?

Yes.

It is not farfetched to consider the athletic experience at a college to be an education for a professional career in the sport. Only the athlete would be receiving training more in alignment with a trade school than a research institution. And he would be getting a "minor" in his sport in many aspects. Call it a non-degree program that is highly selective.

[SB Shock]

You goofball.

come on your better than this...

The only real controversial piece of the Title IX equation is the money aspect requiring schools to balance scholarships. Simply making more women's teams accessible is easy in and of itself. It's the scholarship balancing act that causes class warfare amongst the schools

It encompasses much more than that:

You have Participation, Program Treatment and Athletic Financial Assistance

In Participation you have to show you are meeting 1 of the 3 for compliance.

1. You have demonstrate you that opportunities for participation are proportionate to your respective enrollment.
2. Or the Institution also has have a track record of expanding participation rates for the underrepresented sex.
3. Or finally the institution has to effectively accommodate the interest and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

Under TREATMENT IN PROGRAMS AREAS you have show you don't treat different genders any differently in the following areas:

1. Housing and Dining
2. Training facilities
3. Coaching and salaries
4. Scheduling
5. Facilities
6. Equipment
7. Public Relations
8. Training facilities
9. Academic tutoring
10. travel and allowances

And finally in ATHLETIC FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE (scholarships) you don't have to be equal, but program must provide equivalent benefits and have to be proportionate.

anmakes Title IX a massive charity and redistribution program.

No, it is used to end blatant discrimination and to provide equal opportunity regardless of your gender. Are you saying girls don't deserve that opportunity?

Yes.

It is not farfetched to consider the athletic experience at a college to be an education for a professional career in the sport. Only the athlete would be receiving training more in alignment with a trade school than a research institution. And he would be getting a "minor" in his sport in many aspects. Call it a non-degree program that is highly selective.

I think if a college did this, then all state and federal support and financial aid should be pulled from the institution. Let them go private.

[The Mad Hatter]

I'm not going to weigh in on much of this discussion, but on the possibility of having student-athletes have a "sports major," I think there are ways that it could be designed that wouldn't necessarily conflict with institutional mission.

• Schools already offer work-study options for many degree areas. The idea that playing for the school team was a work-study opportunity, complete with pay, is not in violation of what we do elsewhere.
• Many student athletes already get degrees in fields like kinesiology or sports administration. Surely coursework in these fields could continue to be part of a sports oriented major.
• One of the major problems that pro sports has encountered has been young athletes who are not equipped to handle the sudden financial windfall that comes their way. Coursework in finance and investment are natural career preparation for athletes.

We don't seem to mind if someone who wants to make a career out of engineering takes primarily coursework specific to the skills they will use as an engineer or gets college credit for hands on work in the field. I don't see how a sports major approach is any more a violation of institutional mission that the mere existence of college sports in their current form is (although there certainly is a case for institutional mission issues at that more fundamental level, but which would require a much broader overhaul of higher education in the U.S.).

[Veritas]

Back off, Veritas. You have stepped way over the line.

Yea, you're right. That probably was a bit too much of a sharped tongue retort.
The Dr is a big enough man that I'm sure it didn't hurt... but it sure as hell felt good. :-)

[Kung Wu]

come on your better than this...



It encompasses much more than that:

You have Participation, Program Treatment and Athletic Financial Assistance

In Participation you have to show you are meeting 1 of the 3 for compliance.

1. You have demonstrate you that opportunities for participation are proportionate to your respective enrollment.
2. Or the Institution also has have a track record. If expanding participation rates for the underrepresented sex.
3. Or finally the institution has to effectively accommodate the interest and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

Under TREATMENT IN PROGRAMS AREAS you have show you don't treat different genders any differently in the following areas:

1. Housing and Dining
2. Training facilities
3. Coaching and salaries
4. Scheduling
5. Facilities
6. Equipment
7. Public Relations
8. Training facilities
9. Academic tutoring
10. travel and allowances

And finally in ATHLETIC FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE (scholarships) you don't have to be equal, but program must provide equivalent benefits and have to be proportionate.




No, it is used to end blatant discrimination and to provide equal opportunity regardless of your gender. Are you saying girls don't deserve that opportunity?



I think if a college did this, then all state and federal support and financial aid should be pulled from the institution. Let them go private.

You keep missing the point. You keep arguing something that is not being argued against.

Very few are arguing against blah, blah, blah, ... make more sports available including uniforms and ... blah, blah, blah. I will address this tomorrow when I have more time. But the _only_ real pushback on Title IX is scholarship requirements and little else.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

The Dr is a big enough man that I'm sure it didn't hurt...

And now you are making fat jokes? Come on man! :watermelon:

[SB Shock]

I'm not going to weigh in on much of this discussion, but on the possibility of having student-athletes have a "sports major," I think there are ways that it could be designed that wouldn't necessarily conflict with institutional mission.

• Schools already offer work-study options for many degree areas. The idea that playing for the school team was a work-study opportunity, complete with pay, is not in violation of what we do elsewhere.
• Many student athletes already get degrees in fields like kinesiology or sports administration. Surely coursework in these fields could continue to be part of a sports oriented major.
• One of the major problems that pro sports has encountered has been young athletes who are not equipped to handle the sudden financial windfall that comes their way. Coursework in finance and investment are natural career preparation for athletes.

We don't seem to mind if someone who wants to make a career out of engineering takes primarily coursework specific to the skills they will use as an engineer or gets college credit for hands on work in the field. I don't see how a sports major approach is any more a violation of institutional mission that the mere existence of college sports in their current form is (although there certainly is a case for institutional mission issues at that more fundamental level, but which would require a much broader overhaul of higher education in the U.S.).

There are sports management degrees already available (BS, MS and Doctorate)

[The Mad Hatter]

There are sports management degrees already available (BS, MS and Doctorate)

This is sort of my point, The existence of such degrees means that it isn't much of a stretch to go from majoring in managing sports to playing them. There would be a lot of overlap in coursework and opportunity to orient playing one's sport as work-study instead of extra-curricular.

[ShockerFever]

And now you are making fat jokes? Come on man! :watermelon:

You seem fruity.