Expanding Football Roster Has Title IX, Logistical Issues

BIG ERN said:
Football just requires a lot more scholarships so we try and fit in random women's sports to equal that amount while cutting those same sports for men. The way it sits there is no easy solution unfortunately.
Click to expand...


But that's the easy solution. Just cut men's sports to compensate for Football's massive scholarship load, and balance it out with scholarships for women.

Why is that a bad thing? Men have no special right to have sports teams.

 
BIG ERN said:
I have stated several times that a scholarship doesn't have to mean a full-ride. I think we could start there, even though many would cry foul on that notion. You want to be on the bowling team at Nebraska? Ok great we can pay for 1/4 or 1/2 of your schooling...idk how people see that as a bad idea. The reality is that football is king (by a massive margin). We can talk about fairness, but that is straying from the reality of the situation. Football just requires a lot more scholarships so we try and fit in random women's sports to equal that amount while cutting those same sports for men. The way it sits there is no easy solution unfortunately. 
Click to expand...
Then the men can play football if they want a scholarship, as that is where the most scholarships are available for them. 

 
knapplc said:
But that's the easy solution. Just cut men's sports to compensate for Football's massive scholarship load, and balance it out with scholarships for women.

Why is that a bad thing? Men have no special right to have sports teams.
Click to expand...
We are punishing men because football makes a lot of money and requires more scholarships? I'm not saying we should have men's bowling and not womens btw...I think you are missing what I am saying. 

The funniest thing about this whole argument is stating that revenue doesn't matter. WTF do you think universities are all here for? To make money. And if you really don't think that you're naive. 

 
BIG ERN said:
We are punishing men because football makes a lot of money and requires more scholarships? I'm not saying we should have men's bowling and not womens btw...I think you are missing what I am saying. 

The funniest thing about this whole argument is stating that revenue doesn't matter. WTF do you think universities are all here for? To make money. And if you really don't think that you're naive. 
Click to expand...


Calling it a "punishment" presupposes men have a right to play sports that women don't have.

That is wrong.

All these sports programs that were cut were started back when women could barely get into college, they were supposed to be barefoot & pregnant in the kitchen, and we've moved beyond that era.

Had women been treated as equal citizens from the start, this conversation isn't even happening. 

 
BIG ERN said:
The funniest thing about this whole argument is stating that revenue doesn't matter. WTF do you think universities are all here for? To make money. And if you really don't think that you're naive. 
Click to expand...
I think the majority of rational people in this conversation (here and nationally) acknowledge the fundamental importance of the revenue associated with football. That's why virtually every major athletic department with a division one football program prioritizes the football program above all else. It's the primary reason we're having this conversation.

@knapplc is pretty spot on in his assessment that we are where we are quite simply because of inequity. I don't want to go down a tangent here, but I will mention affirmative action because it is essentially trying to accomplish a similar goal - balance. Is it technically unfair that we give benefits to a sub-set of people at the cost of others? In a vacuum, sure. But, the reason it exists is because people couldn't be trusted when left to their own devices.

For the record, I'm not saying you or anyone here doesn't know all of that. It's just odd to see this conversation framed as 'punishment' towards football players. By and large, they're still coming out as the big dogs in this discussion. Hell, that's exactly what these articles are pointing out - seems like there's some modicum of inequity even with the attempts to meet Title IX requirements.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
Had women been treated as equal citizens from the start, this conversation isn't even happening. 
Click to expand...




Bingo. There shouldn’t have been no women’s sports in the first place. It isn’t unfair to give as many opportunities to women in college athletics. 

 
Enhance said:
I think the majority of rational people in this conversation (here and nationally) acknowledge the fundamental importance of the revenue associated with football. That's why virtually every major athletic department with a division one football program prioritizes the football program above all else. It's the primary reason we're having this conversation.

@knapplc is pretty spot on in his assessment that we are where we are quite simply because of inequity. I don't want to go down a tangent here, but I will mention affirmative action because it is essentially trying to accomplish a similar goal - balance. Is it technically unfair that we give benefits to a sub-set of people at the cost of others? In a vacuum, sure. But, the reason it exists is because people couldn't be trusted when left to their own devices.

For the record, I'm not saying you or anyone here doesn't know all of that. It's just odd to see this conversation framed as 'punishment' towards football players. By and large, they're still coming out as the big dogs in this discussion. Hell, that's exactly what these articles are pointing out - seems like there's some modicum of inequity even with the attempts to meet Title IX requirements.
Click to expand...




To the last paragraph, schools aren’t even required to make it 50/50. The requirements aren’t all that rigid. 

 
BIG ERN said:
We are punishing men because football makes a lot of money and requires more scholarships? I'm not saying we should have men's bowling and not womens btw...I think you are missing what I am saying. 

The funniest thing about this whole argument is stating that revenue doesn't matter. WTF do you think universities are all here for? To make money. And if you really don't think that you're naive. 
Click to expand...




Men aren’t being punished. If none of the other sports make $, there should be equal opportunity for men and women to play the non $ making sports. Making things equal isn’t a punishment; it’s a removal of an advantage. 

No one is saying revenue isn’t important, but this shouldn’t be viewed from a purely capitalist standpoint. If it was we would have 3 sports at UNL; football, men’s basketball, and volleyball.

Except volleyball would never have been started.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
To the last paragraph, schools aren’t even required to make it 50/50. The requirements aren’t all that rigid. 
Click to expand...
You're correct. IMO the specific bylaw being drawn into question here has to do with equal treatment of provisions. I wouldn't want to go down a rabbit hole with it all, but, all I'm saying is I think it's reasonable someone could look at these OWH articles and the exact Title IX regulations and see some red flags. Again, I wouldn't necessarily say that means Nebraska would be found in violation of Title IX, but there are some oddities.

And to be fair to the OWH, it's not an editorial piece. They're laying out what they know and largely leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions.

 
BIG ERN said:
I disagree with this...Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation.

Again, I am for women's sports and Title IX has done great things, but I like how no one cares when a men's atheltic is cut and then added for the women just so schools can distribute for football. 
Click to expand...


Of course I care about that.  But, why should I care more or less about that than not having a women's sport?

Why should I care more about a men's wrestling program being cut than a school keeping wrestling but doesn't have a women's volleyball team?

 
Enhance said:
You're correct. IMO the specific bylaw being drawn into question here has to do with equal treatment of provisions. I wouldn't want to go down a rabbit hole with it all, but, all I'm saying is I think it's reasonable someone could look at these OWH articles and the exact Title IX regulations and see some red flags. Again, I wouldn't necessarily say that means Nebraska would be found in violation of Title IX, but there are some oddities.

And to be fair to the OWH, it's not an editorial piece. They're laying out what they know and largely leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions.
Click to expand...




They could. And I don’t know the details either but if what they’re talking about is against the rules it seems to me there are some silly things in the rules. 

All of the things mentioned seem to apply to male walk ons too, including to the football walk ons. Shouldn’t it be relevant whether it’s a scholarship athlete? If we add 10 female walk ons to get 10 male walk ons, that seems fair to me. If we were adding 10 female walk ons so we could add 10 male scholarships, that would be unfair. 

 
Nebraska 2017 athletics

Women's Basketball  -$2,605,580

Women's Track and Field  -$2,124,697

Softball -$1,632,414

Women's Gymnastics -$1,179,317

Women's Swimming -$1,054,130

Women's Tennis -$648,187

Women's Golf -$508,777

---

Volleyball $451,065

There are also men's sports who lose money annually as well 

Football $30,938,808

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BIG ERN said:
Nebraska 2017 athletics

Women's Basketball  -$2,605,580

Women's Track and Field  -$2,124,697

Softball -$1,632,414

Women's Gymnastics -$1,179,317

Women's Swimming -$1,054,130

Women's Tennis -$648,187

Women's Golf -$508,777

---

Volleyball $451,065

There are also men's sports who lose money annually as well 

Football $30,938,808
Click to expand...
How does this pertain to the conversation?

 
Back
Top