(10-19-2020 01:17 PM)Old tribe Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 01:15 PM)Old tribe Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 12:59 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 11:54 AM)Old tribe Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 10:32 AM)Zorch Wrote:  Why wouldn't this test use the same one as the participation test? That is, since 58% of the undergraduate student body is female (and thus 58% of athletic opportunities need to be filled by women) then why wouldn't the scholarship dollars be apportioned that same way? In fact, if a school's participation metric was not compliant and they had way more participants of one sex, then making the scholarship metric adhere to that same (non-compliant) disparity would just perpetuate the harm. If women were to need 58% of the scholarship dollars then W&M falls far short. (It would also explain why the AD inflates the value of scholarships (at the out-of-state rate) because women get a higher number of scholarships).

Where did you get the numbers for current scholarship dollars? Can you provide the link? Thanks.

Because the scholarship money test is only looking at whether athletic scholarship dollars are allocated "fairly" to the people participating in varsity athletics.

The participation test doesn't have to be met by having an equivalent percentage of females athletes as the percentage of females in the student body. That's only one of 3 ways of meeting the participation test. You can have a a smaller percentage of female athletes than the percentage of female students and still be in compliance with Title IX. Many, many schools have a smaller percentage of female athletes than the percentage of female students.

You can find all Title IX related numbers at the US Department of Education's EADA website.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Thanks. Yes, you put "fairly" in quotes. If your school has 70% male athletes (but should have only, say, 49% based on participation percentage) then it is unfair to also give them 70% of the scholarship money (even though doing so allows the school to satisfy the scholarship test).

I put fairly in quotes because the Title IX analysis/law doesn't use that word. I just used it as shorthand for what the analysis is looking at with the scholarship money part of the test. I'm not saying you're wrong on your fairness point, based on a subjective opinion someone can hold, but you're not necessarily correct under a Title IX analysis. Title IX doesn't automatically say it's unfair, or to be more precise a violation of the law, if you have 70% male athletes but only a 49% male student population. The analysis isn't that simple. You can automatically show compliance with the equal opportunities part of Title IX if you are within 2% of male/female population and male/female participation of athletics. But there are two other ways to show compliance with the equal opportunities part of Title IX. Go check out the EADA data for a bunch of P5 and FBS schools and you'll see how many aren't within 2%.

Since it's possible to be in compliance with Title IX if your participation numbers don't mirror your student population numbers, it's not unfair under Title IX if males are getting more scholarship money in such a scenario. It would actually be necessary to be in compliance with the law.

And, just to be clear, I think Title IX is a great law and I have a daughter who plays tons of sports. I'm just pointing out that the analysis isn't a black and white as people often think. It can be very complicated and subjective.

Thanks! I understand all your points. Thanks for taking the time to lay it out so clearly. Also, that website was very interesting. Seems like Tribe Athletics made a profit ($142K) in 2018-2019 (revenue higher than expenses). Also, I was very surprised to see that women's basketball made 46% of the revenue that men's basketball did. That must include equal dollars (equal number of games) from Tribe TV (this was the year before Flo).