|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: UC Davis Drops
Zebulin Miller added to this discussion on April 20, 2010
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: UC Davis Drops
Rex Holman added to this discussion on April 20, 2010
|
Federal law & budget deficits
When those forces work against you, then it does not look good.
Anyone can get on here and talk about fight, but it is about an agenda that does not include male non revenue sport and money.
Sometimes AD's are sympathetic and have a vision that includes us and sometimes they don't.
Right now, we are an easy scapegoat and the people that wield power don't care.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: UC Davis Drops
Gary Sommers added to this discussion on April 20, 2010
|
Let's not lose sight that wrestling was one of FOUR sports dropped. This is not a mandate against wrestling. Clearly there are other forces.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: UC Davis Drops
Rex Holman added to this discussion on April 20, 2010
|
budget deficits and being in accordance with Title IX, please enlighten me to the other driving forces.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: UC Davis Drops
Kevin Petrella added to this discussion on April 20, 2010
|
Whenever they drop a sports program, it's always blamed on Title IX.
Here are the requirements for "equal opportunity" and the inforcement of it:
(1) Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes
(2) The provision of equipment and supplies;
(3) Scheduling of games and practice time;
(4) Travel and per diem allowance;
(5) Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring on mathematics only;
(6) Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
(7) Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;
(8) Provision of medical and training facilities and services;
(9) Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;
(10) Publicity. Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the Assistant Secretary [of Education for Civil Rights] may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.
All of these are pretty simple, except for #1. No where does this say that there must be the same amount of male sports as female sports. It says does it EFFECTIVELY accommodate the interest of both sexes. I see ineffective as creating teams and going and just getting anyone to fill rosters.
Let's say you have 9 male sports and 8 female sports. Let's also say you don't have volleyball. If there are females there wanting varsity volleyball then you have 2 solutions... add Varsity Volleyball or cut a men's sport.
If the school has 9 men's sports and 8 women's sports and there is no apparent need for another women's sport, they don't have to add it.
The hard part would be how to measure this... Could you do survey's? I don't know.
From rambling to my point, this would be hard and take time so it is much easier to cut the sport and come in compliance with equal sports among men and women then prove there is no need for another women's sport and raise the money for the budget.
I see this as another example of we can blame what happens on Title IX so it makes it look like it's "not our fault" (AD's and Colleges) when its a financial issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: UC Davis Drops
Zebulin Miller added to this discussion on April 21, 2010
|
This decision has nothing to do with title IX, or very little. I was on campus last year with coach L. Zalesky and it is strictly a money thing. The entire state of California is in a budget crisis. If California were it's own country it would be the sixth largest economy in the world. It is a different situation than the rest of the 49 states. Look out for all the wrestling in California at the College level to be in trouble. This is just a money thing as it is for many other places. The reason that our sport keeps adding at DII is that is attracts more students and revenue to the smaller institutions. We may be safe at the DII Level but we are in trouble in DI no matter what reasons you site.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: UC Davis Drops
Rex Holman added to this discussion on April 21, 2010
|
Kevin and Zeb-
Thank you for the replies.
As with most things business, it comes down to money.
Bakersfield had a stipulation that money raised had to be enough to support other programs, not just wrestling. So, wrestling had to go above and beyond its' means to survive.
I see this as an effort to be in compliance with proportional numbers mandated by Title IX. Any other takes?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: UC Davis Drops
Kevin Petrella added to this discussion on April 21, 2010
|
Rex,
I agree with you completely on the Bakersfield issue. Title IX is being misapplied, misinterpreted and these athletic directors are also either ignorant or lazy. There are other ways around being in compliance to Title IX. Cutting programs just seems to be the easiest for them.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: UC Davis Drops
Roe Fox added to this discussion on April 21, 2010
|
Kevin:
I agree with you. I will also add two other reasons school administrators may not "fight the good fight." One is the incredible legal cost. Most universities choose to go with rather large national law firms in similar disputes at costs of $300-500 dollars an hour. You are likely to run a tab in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more. It isn't likely to stop at a trial court level. Appeals on top of appeals.
Second, an administration that fights this fight will likely be portrayed as being sexist to those who want Title IX enforced as it has been when their goal may be to simply right the ship. Could be a tough PR problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
