- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 21,046
- Reaction Score
- 47,638
Aha!!!And look, they both got big raises after UConn came to town. Boats being lifted.
Aha!!!And look, they both got big raises after UConn came to town. Boats being lifted.
Having just seen this for the first time, I didn't get that same feeling. You can respect Hurley and the school and still not want them in the conference. I didn't see a smile, smirk, giggle or anything else that would make me think he wasn't being completely honest. We have done some damage with the local recruiting, so him voting against us would make perfect sense.
Coaches dont get a vote but there was an article that didn't sound like he was kidding at all.
Like i said, could be. I never saw that clip. I remember reading an article where both he and Cooley were asking why throw them a lifeline when their drowning. Coaches should never have a say since most will drop you in a NY minute for better pay anyway.Yeah he absolutely delivers it in a deadpan manner, but given the fact that he was talking about have nobody respected his vote or whatever it's clear that he was joking, at least to me.
But that's just saying you could have a Title IX problem if you violate Title IX. Of course you could. But you're assuming that the schools treat male and female athletes differently just because there is more long distance travel. There are entire departments that make sure they don't treat them differently, and the money that the P-4 is making is more than sufficient to allow for more charters for everyone.It comes down to proportionality. If 100 male athletes fly charter and 100 fly commercial, but only 15 female athletes fly charter and 185 fly commercial, you could have a problem.
Uconn umass … and im sure two other east coast schools would love to be in a conference for football only with these schools… flying across country for football is different then with other sports..who should be in a PAC football conference along with UConn?
Yeah, I don't think Willard ever said that, Cooley might've because he's an asshat.Like i said, could be. I never saw that clip. I remember reading an article where both he and Cooley were asking why throw them a lifeline when their drowning. Coaches should never have a say since most will drop you in a NY minute for better pay anyway.
Title IX is not straight forward. What you don't want to do is have a Title IX audit (ask Trinity about that) as that brings in interpretations that you might not expect.But that's just saying you could have a Title IX problem if you violate Title IX. Of course you could. But you're assuming that the schools treat male and female athletes differently just because there is more long distance travel. There are entire departments that make sure they don't treat them differently, and the money that the P-4 is making is more than sufficient to allow for more charters for everyone.
Title IX is not straight forward. What you don't want to do is have a Title IX audit (ask Trinity about that)
Syracuse mens soccer won 2022
historically there's been 3 ways to go after schools on title ix, and this is based on whatever stuff i heard on some NBC thing back in the late 90s back when I was in HS. One is on participation numbers, another is on expenditures, the other on some kind of implied interest of students. The last one being a bizarre non-starter because of chicken and egg... and frankly this was like 25 years ago when I was in HS.But that's just saying you could have a Title IX problem if you violate Title IX. Of course you could. But you're assuming that the schools treat male and female athletes differently just because there is more long distance travel. There are entire departments that make sure they don't treat them differently, and the money that the P-4 is making is more than sufficient to allow for more charters for everyone.
If male athletes are being forced to do it, I don't see how there is a credible argument (if you don't care about credulity there is always an argument) that it's discriminatory to make women do it.
historically there's been 3 ways to go after schools on title ix, and this is based on whatever stuff i heard on some NBC thing back in the late 90s back when I was in HS. One is on participation numbers, another is on expenditures, the other on some kind of implied interest of students. The last one being a bizarre non-starter because of chicken and egg... and frankly this was like 25 years ago when I was in HS.
I think when most of the fur was flying on these lawsuits it was usually the first in combo with the second limited to scholarships. Nobody really wanted to knife football too hard by saying equal monies had to be spent but they do walk that line on other elements. I think the real reason is they generally don't want the issue going to a jury box because people look dismally on student athletes whining unless they're getting abused outright. You'd have to have things so out of whack beyond what is even normal. For instance maybe lunchables versus a 5-star menu.
----
I will say that title IX does have a small saving grace for a lot of schools as opportunities (read scholarships) can be restricted relatng to the split of male/female on campus. So if you are a tech school you aren't obligated to give womens schollies on a 1:1 basis. Presumably a teachers college with a high female count would be in the same boat but different.
As i read this back and forth I just assumed the people making the decisions in these moves that provide hundreds of millions of dollars, would kind of account for not having the whole thing fall apart because of a Title IX violation. Stranger things have happened though, like Florida State signing a 20 year GOR only to start crying 7 years into it.The response to my earlier post still seems to be to assume facts not in evidence that would cause a Title IX violation, and then conclude there mjust be a Title IX violation. Nothing in conference realignment in and of itself requires a school to violate Title IX. There are women’s sports that are used to balance football that can only travel on weekends. Like crew and lacrosse.
Conference realignment does not prevent a school from violating Title IX, but it does not require a school to violate Title IX either.
As i read this back and forth I just assumed the people making the decisions in these moves that provide hundreds of millions of dollars, would kind of account for not having the whole thing fall apart because of a Title IX violation. Stranger things have happened though, like Florida State signing a 20 year GOR only to start crying 7 years into it.
The response to my earlier post still seems to be to assume facts not in evidence that would cause a Title IX violation, and then conclude there mjust be a Title IX violation. Nothing in conference realignment in and of itself requires a school to violate Title IX. There are women’s sports that are used to balance football that can only travel on weekends. Like crew and lacrosse.
Conference realignment does not prevent a school from violating Title IX, but it does not require a school to violate Title IX either.
Well...some Olympic travel is non conference and thus voluntary...
Heck...even UConn Women's basketball...is going to Raleigh, Minnesota, the Cayman Islands, Austin Texas, Toronto, South Carolina....oh...the horror..the travel. cancel non conference travel if it is budensome.
Field Hockey...cancel the trips to Virginia, North Carolina, Syracuse and Philadelphia.
Softball...cancel the multi day trips to Atlanta, Gainesville, North Carolina, Virginia
Womens Track and Field....Orlando, Raleigh, Miami, Virginia, Jacksonville, and Austin...stop the burden of travel.
Going to a court claiming travel burden while voluntarily traipsing around the country ?
This thread is becoming a mansplaining parody.
Ohh...so you refute logic by pedantic man-woman simplifications...sooo...what about all of the voluntary non conference travel of women's teams ? Got a thought ?
I don't understand why you are having trouble discerning between crappy treatment and disparate treatment. It is crappy that a men's football team or a women's crew squad has to go from New Brunswick to L.A. to compete over a weekend. Schools should not allow it. And whether they are willing to take political hit for it is another issue (although I doubt there are material adverse political consequences but neither of us knows that today). But unless there are more facts, and schools should be able to avoid creating them, the treatment is not disparate.It is a Title IX problem. You may not care that it is a Title IX problem, and the schools may pay off the female athletes somehow with traveling professors or something, but you are wrong and I am right on this. Any time the argument is that the defendant will pay more to make the plaintiff's lives more unpleasant, the defendant has a losing case. I honestly don't even know why a college would defend a case like this given the terrible press that it would generate.