Non-Key Tweets | Page 954 | The Boneyard

Non-Key Tweets

businesslawyer said:
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.
Expand ...

It is disparate treatment when the two teams are impacted differently by the same travel. Not that complicated.
 
a. Some aspects of athletic programs may not be equivalent for men and women because of unique aspects of particular sports or athletic activities. This type of distinction was called for by the "Javits' Amendment" 5 to Title IX which instructed HEW to make "reasonable (regulatory) provisions considering the nature of particular sports" in intercollegiate athletics.

Generally, these differences will be the result of factors that are inherent to the basic operation of specific sports. Such factors may include rules of play, nature/replacement of equipment, rates of injury resulting from participation, nature of facilities required for competition, and the maintenance/ upkeep requirements of those facilities. For the most part, differences involving such factors will occur in programs offering football, and consequently these differences will favor men. If sport-specific needs are met equivalently in both men's and women's programs, however, differences in particular program components will be found to be justifiable.

Modes of travel for men's and women's teams travelling to the same or similar locations should be the same. Accomodations should be similar...etc. etc.
 
We knew Oregon would be the leader...UConn boosters gave more than UCF and Cincinnati..

I do wonder about validity...Bama and Ohio State lower than I would have thought..


 
Last edited:
Everyone who feels bad for Washington State and Oregon State, I look at it like this.......

Those two schools benefited tremendously from the lack of major college sports in the Pacific Time Zone. They were in the PAC and PCC prior because there were no other plausible options for the conference to add teams. If those two schools were located in Ohio/Michigan/Indiana, they would have been charter members of the Mid-American Conference and likely still in the MAC today just like the Ohio Bobcats. The Cougars and Beavers are now going to the level they would have been at from day one had they not been located on the west coast.
 
Rufus said:
Everyone who feels bad for Washington State and Oregon State, I look at it like this.......

Those two schools benefited tremendously from the lack of major college sports in the Pacific Time Zone. They were in the PAC and PCC prior because there were no other plausible options for the conference to add teams. If those two schools were located in Ohio/Michigan/Indiana, they would have been charter members of the Mid-American Conference and likely still in the MAC today just like the Ohio Bobcats.
Expand ...
They are like most "power" schools - freeloaders hitching a free ride thanks to being grandfathered in and collecting those fat checks for basically doing nothing other than being a doormat. I do not feel bad for schools getting shown the door from the club.
 
Fairfield_1st said:
IF (Gigantic IF) what MHVER says is true (highly unlikely), doesn't that once again confirm that our resident internal parasite ESPN is in fact pulling the strings on expansion and again doing nothing for us?
Expand ...
I am not sure why anyone with a brain is still questioning whether these media companies are pulling the strings. Both ESPN and Fox have pretty much constructed these conferences based on what they would like.

Fox got UConn on the cheap with the Big East contract, which is one of the reasons why we didn't get into the B12.

UConn has to push the Big East to get into the streaming contract vs. putting all of their eggs with Fox. UConn might have to go to the streaming route on its own to prove its media worthiness.
 
LoyalFanCT said:
Still not a done deal with Cal, Stanford and SMU yet. Could they sneak UConn and Tulane in there?
Expand ...

SMU is essentially paying for Cal and Stanford to have half shares. The expansion of the ACC Network to Dallas and SF is pocketed by current ACC members. This is a band aid. Extra money for 7 years. Then all three schools will be full members and it will cost the other ACC schools money, just a few years before the GOR ends. The ACC likely implodes at the end of the seven years when the buyout of the GOR is more realistic.
 

Online statistics

Members online
261
Guests online
2,998
Total visitors
3,259
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,251
Messages
4,388,868
Members
10,196
Latest member
HockeyMikeD


.
..
Top Bottom