Non-Key Tweets

[UConnJim]

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) as that brings in interpretations that you might not expect.

I think that many schools currently mildly violate Title IX, but they haven't been sued yet. My guess is the new travel requirements due to conference realignment might create the lawsuits.

 

[CL82]

Title IX is not straight forward. What you don't want to do is have a Title IX audit (ask Trinity about that)

"He's right. You definitely do not want a Title IX audit!"

 

[billybud]

Syracuse mens soccer won 2022

Wiki needs updaring...

List of Atlantic Coast Conference national championships - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Patman]

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.

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.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

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.

Read any of about 200+ sites, many of them law firms, discussing Title IX. Forcing female athletes to miss 50% or more of their classes during season while football, which plays once a week on weekends misses less than half that is a clear title IX violation. Any attempt to cut other overhead expenses for female athletes would be a clear cut violation. High schools have lost Title IX cases over the quality of the uniforms and the fields. The burden of proof in a Title IX case is on the school, which is a big part of the reason so many law firms are shopping for Title IX cases.

Add to that fact that women are 60% of college students in a shrinking market of students, and the bad press of defending a case alone may make it worth it to find a cheap and simple solution that would actually save the schools money.

Or the schools could follow your old male mansplaining logic about how it is fair for young ladies because they are on planes (or something) and the ladies just need to suck it up for the greater good of football, and see where that gets them.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

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.

Plaintiffs generally win Title IX cases, and the odds have been getting better for the plaintiffs over time.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I can’t edit my post, but going to court as a plaintiff with a demand that would actually save the defendant money, which breaking Olympic sports off of football would do, would really put the defendant on their heels. They would have to argue why they had no choice but to spend more money to make the plaintiffs situation worse, and all the burden of proof for justifying that stupidity would be on the defendant.

Does the old male lawyer in this thread still like the defendant’s position?

 

[businesslawyer]

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 must 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.

 

[billybud]

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 ?

 

[noeynox]

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.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

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.

This logic is terrible by even your standards. There are over 100+ open Title IX cases against colleges right now, so colleges violate it all the time. Secondly, the event that created this violation occurred a month ago, and Title IX was unlikely to even be a tertiary consideration in the decision to realign.

 

[UConnJim]

This is a good article on Title IX with data. They specifically address that there are disparities on spending for travel, even with a UConn basketball reference. Although, there appears to be Title IX violations, it seems someone has to sue in order for a review to happen.

‘They’ve had 50 years to figure it out’: Title IX disparities in major college sports haven’t gone away

 

[nelsonmuntz]

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.

Facts not in evidence? Unless you don't have access to a map, the fact is in evidence that New Brunswick, NJ and Los Angeles, CA are 2426 miles apart. And unless someone has invented teleportation, it takes a long time to get from one to the other.

But please, explain maps and travel to female athletes. Let me know how it goes.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

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.

 

[Pat125]

I’m not an expert on Title IX, but been to a few lectures on it. While there are clear issues with conferences becoming more super regional and national, such as travel, I don’t believe Title IX is one of them.

If things tilt more in the favor of football regarding travel, than women’s sports that compete mostly on weekends. Or differences between men’s and women’s basketball and other sports, then there would be a Title IX concern.

 

[billybud]

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 ?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

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 ?

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.

 

[businesslawyer]

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.

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.

And yes, Title IX is complicated and schools, even if they've done nothing wrong, don't want to defend a case. But that's classic Muntz goalpost moving. That's an issue with or without football driven realignment.

 

[billybud]

Oh ...what I do not believe is that NelsonMuntz is the end all-be all of law and Title IX.

Just because others may not have your devout belief, you tend to denigrate them..."old lawyer"..responding to Business Lawyer. And declare them wrong and you to be right.

I certainly have no experience in Title IX or tort cases.

 

[Dizzy21]

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.

So your argument is to cut women's travel budgets by having them play less nationally relevant teams? That seems like you are actually trying to violate Title IX in a big way.

 

[billybud]

I do know how administrative hearings before a judge work...

My process (simplified here) in sevaral thousand decisions as an Administrative Law Judge was ...schedule and notify parties of a hearing...arrange for the enrollment of evidence....take sworn testimony and question parties to obtain facts, and issue decisions based on found facts and points of law.

The law is always the basis for the determinanation....the more specific the law, rule, regulation...the more the clarity of the decision is enhanced... in terms of points of law vs found facts.

 

[billybud]

Title IX states: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

This is fairly broad language and will be developed by precedence over time.

As an example...

Federal court decision favors limited application of Title IX

Federal appeals court ruling sets narrow standard for what institutions are expected to do when students commit sexual misconduct.

www.insidehighered.com

 

[billybud]

While the language in Title IX does not mention equity in athletics or sports, the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now the U.S. Department of Education) in 1975 published a set of regulations extending Title IX’s protection to athletics, requiring recipients to provide equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes. While these regulations and policy interpretations do not have the force of law, they are intended to provide the courts and others a more robust explanation of the law.

Court case example

Supreme Court won't hear case that could have changed Title IX's impact on college sports

The case stems from Michigan State's decision in October 2020 to eliminate its men’s and women’s swimming and diving teams at end of 2020-21 season.

www.usatoday.com

 

[businesslawyer]

Oh ...what I do not believe is that NelsonMuntz is the end all-be all of law and Title IX.

Just because others may not have your devout belief, you tend to denigrate them..."old lawyer"..responding to Business Lawyer. And declare them wrong and you to be right.

I certainly have no experience in Title IX or tort cases.

Yes, I was very very hurt by that reference. Probably won't sleep tonight. LOL.

 

[CTMike]

This thread is becoming a mansplaining parody.

Not for the reasons you think!