WBB - Use Scholarships or Lose Them

[Wbbfan1]

Colominsts for Knoxville Paper. John Adams: Women's basketball should use scholarships or lose them

John Adams is not the beat writer for the Lady Vols. Sometimes writes columns that are critical of the Lady Vols.

When he uses Title IX, then IMO his discussion makes sense. That is coaches should have 15 players on scholarship. However, if that happens, like in Football, players would lose scholarships after 1 or 2 years of play as coaches find better players. Now coaches don't offer scholarships to players if they believe they can get a better player(s) in the following years.

 

[eebmg]

There is nothing to be gained by giving a student a scholarship at a college if they do not deserve it on merit. It is bad for everyone, the team and the player. Basically, she would be ostracized. If a student has any reasonable basketball talent, there are plenty of programs at all levels (D1-D3) which would fit the player. Giving up scholarships on a piece meal basis to other sports is completely impractical and opens up any number of ethics issues.

 

[HardHatGuy#2]

IMO, this was written by someone who has either no experience coaching a Team sport, or who has never been involved in a Team sport/activity that has had members who just don't, or don't WANT to, fit in.

Be it level of talent, work ethic, attitude...whatever the reason, having someone on your team who doesn't fit in with the rest is often worse for the team than if the spot were empty. A Star player who is a cancer in the locker room isn't worth having there; cases in point: Latrell Sprewell, Stephon Marbury or Terrell Owens. All were excellent players and well within their career lifespans when teams just wouldn't sign them, anymore; they were not worth the trouble. Why put someone in your locker room or on your bench who isn't going to make the team better than their absence would make it? Do we need to fill an opening just because it is there? Is he saying that Title IX should force teams to lessen themselves, and in turn the reason that Title IX exists, just to fill a quota?

I think the key to this would be IF a coach was intentionally keeping a spot empty to save money. THAT would be a Title IX violation, and there should be repercussions.

An interesting Q in that line of thinking: If a Women's team gets put on probation and loses scholarships, is that a fundamental violation of Title IX? No, it isn't....but what if the University self-imposes penalties that cost that Women's team scholarships; wouldn't that be a violation?

 

[DefenseBB]

Let me be blunt, this guy is an idiot who did NO RESEARCH for the piece he wrote. The reason WCBB has 15 scholarships to begin with is to balance out D1 footballs 85 scholarships. Title IV has created schools to over supply participants to meet the equitable balance that is required between Men and Women's sports. It is why Cheerleading, beach volleyball and dance teams are all being considered for D1 status and why Men's no revenue sports like swimming, golf and water polo are disappearing. Look at any football schools sports programs and you will notice significantly more Women's sports than Men's all due to Title IV. You can't simply move scholarships around. Never mind his suggestion of giving more scholarships to an already overfunded sport like football. I did a full written analysis on the Title IV conundrum and the death knell it is for many men's programs due to football. As an example here's the D1 sport scholarships link NCAA Division I - Wikipedia

 

[CocoHusky]

Having read the article I did find anything that would suggest "no research" per @DefenseBB or lack of understanding of Title IX or lack of understanding of coaching or team dynamics per @HardHatGuy#2.
Of the 14 SEC teams just 1 (Auburn) is operating at the scholarship limit of 15 for WCBB.
Team Roster Size

1. South Carolina 12
   
2. Mississippi State 13
   
3. Missouri 13
   
4. Kentucky 12
   
5. Tennessee 11
   
6. Texas A & M 12
   
7. LSU 13
   
8. Auburn 15
   
9. Georgia 12
   
10. Ole Miss 13
    
11. Alabama 13
    
12. Florida 12
    
13. Vandy 12
    
14. Arkansas 14

He correctly states: "intent of Title IX, which was implemented to provide women with the same opportunities as men. Those opportunities included athletic scholarships"
His main point is that by not operating at the scholarship limit: "most women’s basketball programs don’t take advantage of it" ( the opportunity to level the playing field for women).
The debate about "the right" number of athletic scholarships happens occasional, but I don't believe the authors intent was to debate that number. He is simply saying, having set the number at 15 ( by Title IX) it is a missed opportunity by WCBB to NOT utilize all 15 available scholarships. I agree with the author. I have a strong bias since both my daughters college tuitions were paid by athletic scholarships and every unutilized scholarship is a lost benefit to some parent out there.

 

[stwainfan]

I am not a fan of John Adams.

 

[CocoHusky]

I am not a fan of John Adams.

because?
How do you feel about Sam Adams-the beer?
What is your stance on this particular Adam's issue-full use of WBB scholarships?
Be careful John Adams was president, someone might think we are talking politics and banish us.

 

[DefenseBB]

Having read the article I did find anything that would suggest "no research" per @DefenseBB or lack of understanding of Title IX or lack of understanding of coaching or team dynamics per @HardHatGuy#2.

He correctly states: "intent of Title IX, which was implemented to provide women with the same opportunities as men. Those opportunities included athletic scholarships"
His main point is that by not operating at the scholarship limit: "most women’s basketball programs don’t take advantage of it" ( the opportunity to level the playing field for women).
The debate about "the right" number of athletic scholarships happens occasional, but I don't believe the authors intent was to debate that number. He is simply saying, having set the number at 15 ( by Title IX) it is a missed opportunity by WCBB to NOT utilize all 15 available scholarships. I agree with the author. I have a strong bias since both my daughters college tuitions were paid by athletic scholarships and every unutilized scholarship is a lost benefit to some parent out there.

Coco-thanks for the numbers as they show actual usage vs. intent (or lack there of). I reread the article in case I misunderstood anything. I didn't. I stand by my statement "HE IS AN IDIOT" who didn't understand the rules of Title IV and the scholarships associated. He openly advocated "why not move the scholarships to the football team" and comments about an uproar that would occur (doesn't opine that football is the reason Women's sports have excesses in similar sports due to football in the first place). He also suggests moving it to softball, who also have their own scholarship limits (as denoted by my link). 1sr it would be a violation of the aforementioned rule (hence a Title IV coordinator at many schools) and 2nd each sport must act as it's own "little town" in respect to budgets-Stamford cannot give money to Hartford that was already budgeted for Stamford. That is simple research that any logical and diligent reporter should have done. Sorry we disagree.

 

[stwainfan]

because?
How do you feel about Sam Adams-the beer?
What is your stance on this particular Adam's issue-full use of WBB scholarships?
Be careful John Adams was president, someone might think we are talking politics and banish us.

I prefer Dan Fleer. I think he writes a better article. Adams writes to many articles I don't agree with. Not just basketball but football also. I don't drink. I do think part of the problem. Of players not getting to play. Is they are just not able to adjust to college game. Or maybe the picked the wrong school. There are a lot of transfers.

 

[bags27]

Frankly, I think there is an unstated sinister point to this article.

Title IX requires pretty much equity in numbers by sex. If women's teams aren't using all their scholarships, that puts pressure on universities either to cut outright some men's teams or to create new (and expensive) women's teams to attract more total numbers of women, the budget for which might still result in cutting some men's teams.

If women's basketball teams believe that quality is best achieved with fewer players, then who is someone else to say that they should take the bullet and further weaken WCBB so that men's sports can be preserved?

If fewer women play basketball, there is more funds available for less popular sports, where participants get more playing time and possibly develop life-long skills, such as equestrianism, fencing, squash, crew, golf, skiing, etc.

 

[CocoHusky]

Coco-thanks for the numbers as they show actual usage vs. intent (or lack there of). I reread the article in case I misunderstood anything. I didn't. I stand by my statement "HE IS AN IDIOT" who didn't understand the rules of Title IV and the scholarships associated. He openly advocated "why not move the scholarships to the football team" and comments about an uproar that would occur (doesn't opine that football is the reason Women's sports have excesses in similar sports due to football in the first place). He also suggests moving it to softball, who also have their own scholarship limits (as denoted by my link). 1sr it would be a violation of the aforementioned rule (hence a Title IV coordinator at many schools) and 2nd each sport must act as it's own "little town" in respect to budgets-Stamford cannot give money to Hartford that was already budgeted for Stamford. That is simple research that any logical and diligent reporter should have done. Sorry we disagree.

The examples you provide are NOT Title IX rules & there are no Title IV coordinator at schools. Title IX is enforced by U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights.
Title IX simply requires scholarship be "equitable available"- same number available for men as women OVERALL. The NCAA decided than in order to comply with IX WCBB scholarship limit would be set at 15 and Rowing was set at 20, softball at 12. The NCAA can change the scholarship mix among women's teams tomorrow if it wanted to as long as the same number of scholarships are available to men as available to women.
It was a mistake for this author to mention Title IX because so few understand it.

 

[bags27]

The examples you provide are NOT Title IX rules & there are no Title IV coordinator at schools. Title IX is enforced by U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights.
Title IX simply requires scholarship be "equitable available"- same number available for men as women OVERALL. The NCAA decided than in order to comply with IX WCBB scholarship limit would be set at 15 and Rowing was set at 20, softball at 12. The NCAA can change the scholarship mix among women's teams tomorrow if it wanted to as long as the same number of scholarships are available to men as available to women.
It was a mistake for this author to mention Title IX because so few understand it.

Thanks, Coco! I hadn't understood that correctly.

 

[CocoHusky]

If women's teams aren't using all their scholarships, that puts pressure on universities either to cut outright some men's teams or to create new (and expensive) women's teams to attract more total numbers of women, the budget for which might still result in cutting some men's teams.

Not quite. Title IX requires the availability of scholarships on equitable terms. Actual utilization of the scholarship is not a requirement so this would work the other way. If you want to add a bunch of new Women's scholarships you would actually have to increase # of men' s scholarships as well assuming you are already at equal.

 

[DefenseBB]

The examples you provide are NOT Title IX rules & there are no Title IV coordinator at schools. Title IX is enforced by U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights.
Title IX simply requires scholarship be "equitable available"- same number available for men as women OVERALL. The NCAA decided than in order to comply with IX WCBB scholarship limit would be set at 15 and Rowing was set at 20, softball at 12. The NCAA can change the scholarship mix among women's teams tomorrow if it wanted to as long as the same number of scholarships are available to men as available to women.
It was a mistake for this author to mention Title IX because so few understand it.

I agree. However what the author also did not point out was just because the NCAA limit is 15, a school does not have to allocate 15. I know my alma mater does not award 15. They award 12. So he made a bad assumption on what these schools do or do not do. Again, if he called the Tenn coordinator maybe he would know their limit and how they comply overall to the Title IV mandate. My premise still stands he was lazy is his assessment and going for a quick (if not cheap) sound bite, which is becoming all too common. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. We can agree to disagree on this.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

The discussion would be much for interesting in other sports. For many years (and it may still be) Rutgers did not fund scholarships at the maximum in many of the other sports. Remember, these are the sports where you can "split" scholarships between players but there is a maximum number of scholarships. One of the campaigns at Rutgers when I was still in NJ was to try to raise the funds to fully fund these sports.

WBB where every scholly is a full ride is a different animal. It is simple - why should a coach have more players than they want. Although RU has a large team (mostly, because there are transfers and injuries), some years ago the coaching staff made the point that there is a point at which you go from "enough" to "difficult to manage" quantities of players. The quip (by a female assistant coach) was something along the line of imagining "15 players all wanting to do their hair" or something along those lines.

 

[Wbbfan1]

Perhaps the NCAA would allow if a scholarship is not used in WBB, then that scholarship could be awarded to a female athlete in another sport. Either as a Full Scholarship or partial scholarship awarded to multiple athletes. I'm sure at some schools Scholarships are not awarded due to funding issues. Not all Athletic Departs are operating in the Black.

 

[BigBird]

Frankly, I think there is an unstated sinister point to this article.

Title IX requires pretty much equity in numbers by sex. If women's teams aren't using all their scholarships, that puts pressure on universities either to cut outright some men's teams or to create new (and expensive) women's teams to attract more total numbers of women, the budget for which might still result in cutting some men's teams.

If women's basketball teams believe that quality is best achieved with fewer players, then who is someone else to say that they should take the bullet and further weaken WCBB so that men's sports can be preserved?

If fewer women play basketball, there is more funds available for less popular sports, where participants get more playing time and possibly develop life-long skills, such as equestrianism, fencing, squash, crew, golf, skiing, etc.

At one school in the Southwest, a softball coach put 28 women on a softball team in order to "use the scholarships." The obvious purpose, however, was to offset the high numbers of scholarships offered in the school's revenue sports, notably football. These extra softball players never travelled to away games, and almost never got into the box score. They were, in almost all respects a form of window dressing. Not exactly the intent of Title IX.

 

[DaddyChoc]

IMO, this was written by someone who has either no experience coaching a Team sport, or who has never been involved in a Team sport/activity that has had members who just don't, or don't WANT to, fit in.

Be it level of talent, work ethic, attitude...whatever the reason, having someone on your team who doesn't fit in with the rest is often worse for the team than if the spot were empty. A Star player who is a cancer in the locker room isn't worth having there; cases in point: Latrell Sprewell, Stephon Marbury or Terrell Owens. All were excellent players and well within their career lifespans when teams just wouldn't sign them, anymore; they were not worth the trouble. Why put someone in your locker room or on your bench who isn't going to make the team better than their absence would make it? Do we need to fill an opening just because it is there? Is he saying that Title IX should force teams to lessen themselves, and in turn the reason that Title IX exists, just to fill a quota?

You just named millionaires

 

[CocoHusky]

I agree. However what the author also did not point out was just because the NCAA limit is 15, a school does not have to allocate 15. I know my alma mater does not award 15. They award 12. So he made a bad assumption on what these schools do or do not do.

He did not make an assumption & I don't know how more explicit he could have been. He stated : "There’s nothing more confounding about the sport than the unused scholarships. And that applies to women’s basketball in general, not just the SEC." TN is an SEC school, he did not have to call TN to see that they have only awarded 11 scholarship because all players (scholarship & non-scholarship) players have to be listed on the team's roster-TN=11 rostered players. The table in my first post was put together to verify that most, (13 of 14) SEC schools are operating below the scholarship limit for WBB.

 

[ctdad]

At one school in the Southwest, a softball coach put 28 women on a softball team in order to "use the scholarships." The obvious purpose, however, was to offset the high numbers of scholarships offered in the school's revenue sports, notably football. These extra softball players never travelled to away games, and almost never got into the box score. They were, in almost all respects a form of window dressing. Not exactly the intent of Title IX.

There may have been 28 women receiving scholarship money, but softball can only give the equivalent of 12 scholarships. Those 12 can be divided up anyway the coach wishes. Full rides, half rides, quarter rides, book money only, the total can only add up to 12.

Interestingly enough, men's baseball is capped at 11.7 per team.

Football and men's and women's basketball have to give full rides (walk-ons obviously not ncluded). Men's and women's hockey are pretty close to that. All the other sports have limits far below that of a full roster.

College Athletic Scholarship Limits - Scholarship Stats.com

 

[CocoHusky]

IMO, this was written by someone who has either no experience coaching a Team sport, or who has never been involved in a Team sport/activity that has had members who just don't, or don't WANT to, fit in. Be it level of talent, work ethic, attitude...whatever the reason, having someone on your team who doesn't fit in with the rest is often worse for the team than if the spot were empty. A Star player who is a cancer in the locker room isn't worth having there; cases in point: Latrell Sprewell, Stephon Marbury or Terrell Owens. All were excellent players and well within their career lifespans when teams just wouldn't sign them, anymore; they were not worth the trouble. Why put someone in your locker room or on your bench who isn't going to make the team better than their absence would make it? Do we need to fill an opening just because it is there? Is he saying that Title IX should force teams to lessen themselves, and in turn the reason that Title IX exists, just to fill a quota?

I think the key to this would be IF a coach was intentionally keeping a spot empty to save money. THAT would be a Title IX violation, and there should be repercussions.

An interesting Q in that line of thinking: If a Women's team gets put on probation and loses scholarships, is that a fundamental violation of Title IX? No, it isn't....but what if the University self-imposes penalties that cost that Women's team scholarships; wouldn't that be a violation?

Your concept of adding a player for the sake of adding a player is not what I believe the author had in mind, he specifically concludes by saying the coaches should not complain about losing games because of "lack of depth" when these same coaches have unused scholarship. Adding a player that does not contribute to the team makes no sense for anyone concerned. When UCONN added two walk on players following a Championship season the stated purpose was to have enough players to run meaningful drills in practice, so a walkon contribution was never going to show up on the floor during a game -but they contributed enough to earn scholarships in the next year.
Scholarship go unfulfilled all the time "to save money"- marginal money when compared to tuition but still money. None of this has anything to do with Title IX as the very few Title IX from the department of education are much more concerned, and rightfully so, with more weighty matters like sexual assault.
List of 195 Higher Ed Institutions Under Title IX Sexual Violence...

 

[CocoHusky]

There may have been 28 women receiving scholarship money, but softball can only give the equivalent of 12 scholarships. Those 12 can be divided up anyway the coach wishes. Full rides, half rides, quarter rides, book money only, the total can only add up to 12.

Interestingly enough, men's baseball is capped at 11.7 per team.

Football and men's and women's basketball have to give full rides (walk-ons obviously not ncluded). Men's and women's hockey are pretty close to that. All the other sports have limits far below that of a full roster.

College Athletic Scholarship Limits - Scholarship Stats.com

Exactly. Except for if your talking about softball at an NJCAA school where the limit is 24 and nobody cares enough to be actually watching.

 

[DefenseBB]

Exactly. Except for if your talking about softball at an NJCAA school where the limit is 24 and nobody cares enough to be actually watching.

Ok here's an idea, let's have a podcast listing and debating the merits of how Title IX is applied for all D1 schools for the forums benefit with the winner getting bragging rights and title of Hizzoner, while the loser must apply for the Baylor Univ Title IX coordinator! Deal?

 

[Bestiarius]

Since we're speculating on the writer's intent, I'll offer a couple more scenarios.

1. He was praising Holly's recruiting strategy by not taking any recruits last year and thereby enabling her to take in a big haul of commits this year.

2. Or, he was criticizing Holly's ability to recruit last year thereby resulting is a poor showing on the court this year.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

OK so I read the article. His point is obvious - he thinks it is unfair that there are unfilled scholarships that could go to someone "who would be happy to sit on the bench to have their expenses paid". He is claiming it is a disservice to female athletes in general - hence the suggestion of giving them to another sport (not happening, obviously).

At the same time, he is disingenuous, since the issue of "depth" isn't related to the number of players - it is related to the quality of them.