-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts, upgrade to remove ads and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your BigSkyFans.com experience today!
Title XI strikes again
- Thread starter PSUVikings2
- Start date
I just had this inspiration (truly warped for a rather warped day) on a relatively realistic (not sure whether to emphasize "relatively" or "realistic" quite yet) method of helping schools deal with Title IX.
http://rosecityrollers.com/index.php
These ladies have been packing the Expo Center, from what I've been told. This is big in major cities, for that matter.
If the NCAA finds a game format that takes up about 30 scholarships, and can use some existing indoor track facilities as well as inspire other buildings, and makes it watchable for paying customers... who knows?
Of course, take seriously at your own risk.
http://rosecityrollers.com/index.php
These ladies have been packing the Expo Center, from what I've been told. This is big in major cities, for that matter.
If the NCAA finds a game format that takes up about 30 scholarships, and can use some existing indoor track facilities as well as inspire other buildings, and makes it watchable for paying customers... who knows?
Of course, take seriously at your own risk.
Title IX has good intentions, but I think it's more harm than good.
5thAvenueVik
Active member
I believe there is an equitable solution for Title IX based on economic equity for men's and women's team sports.
The solution is that if a program pays for itself, then it should be exempted from the gender scale of scholarship balancing.
What is the main thrust of Title IX? Scholarship (economic) opportunity equally distributed between men and women.
What determines a program's economic viability? Its ability to sell tickets by providing "athletics entertainment value" to the university's global and local communities of stakeholders and patrons. I believe a university has the obligation to advertise and make each of its programs as appealing to potential ticket buyers as it reasonably can be expected to do---and there is a "heart factor" to marketing. "Athletics entertainment value" and the marketing of it have strong spiritual components, and they can be handled well or abysmally.
So, if a football program, for example, pays for itself---pays for its own scholarships through its own "book of business"---it is exempted, taken out of the balancing equation and does not have to be balanced with an equal number of scholarships on the other side of the gender aisle. Its excess revenues are then put into the athletics department general fund as an administrative return on program investment.
If a program is able to pay for some of its scholarships through its own revenue, then only the remaining number of scholarships would need to be balanced across the gender aisle. Or, perhaps an all-or-nothing approach could be instituted by which all of a program's scholarships must be balanced by an equal number UNTIL that program become exempted through full self-sufficiency. Such a policy would create favorable economic incentive encouraging to the athletics department to make the program completely viable. This would also vitalize the administration's marketing efforts of the program.
This way, university athletics departments are no longer bound to provide athletics programs (and the corresponding cost in scholarships) that the university's own stakeholders and patrons are just not interested in supporting. Whereby we can bring an end to the force-feeding of non-vital programs so as to curb undue depletion of the athletics administration's general fund.
Universities should have no obligation to provide scholarships for non-viable athletics programs, especially if the athletics department has proven to its own satisfaction that the program is non-viable and cannot be made viable. "If it ain't selling," why are we producing and underwriting it? Let's clean up the clutter that has been created by Title IX.
The solution is that if a program pays for itself, then it should be exempted from the gender scale of scholarship balancing.
What is the main thrust of Title IX? Scholarship (economic) opportunity equally distributed between men and women.
What determines a program's economic viability? Its ability to sell tickets by providing "athletics entertainment value" to the university's global and local communities of stakeholders and patrons. I believe a university has the obligation to advertise and make each of its programs as appealing to potential ticket buyers as it reasonably can be expected to do---and there is a "heart factor" to marketing. "Athletics entertainment value" and the marketing of it have strong spiritual components, and they can be handled well or abysmally.
So, if a football program, for example, pays for itself---pays for its own scholarships through its own "book of business"---it is exempted, taken out of the balancing equation and does not have to be balanced with an equal number of scholarships on the other side of the gender aisle. Its excess revenues are then put into the athletics department general fund as an administrative return on program investment.
If a program is able to pay for some of its scholarships through its own revenue, then only the remaining number of scholarships would need to be balanced across the gender aisle. Or, perhaps an all-or-nothing approach could be instituted by which all of a program's scholarships must be balanced by an equal number UNTIL that program become exempted through full self-sufficiency. Such a policy would create favorable economic incentive encouraging to the athletics department to make the program completely viable. This would also vitalize the administration's marketing efforts of the program.
This way, university athletics departments are no longer bound to provide athletics programs (and the corresponding cost in scholarships) that the university's own stakeholders and patrons are just not interested in supporting. Whereby we can bring an end to the force-feeding of non-vital programs so as to curb undue depletion of the athletics administration's general fund.
Universities should have no obligation to provide scholarships for non-viable athletics programs, especially if the athletics department has proven to its own satisfaction that the program is non-viable and cannot be made viable. "If it ain't selling," why are we producing and underwriting it? Let's clean up the clutter that has been created by Title IX.
