Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
W&M Cuts 7 Sports
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Tribal Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,449
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 145
I Root For: William & Mary
Location:
Post: #721
W&M Cuts 7 Sports
Because all those inner-city kids, kids all over FL, LA, GA, TX, NY, PA, MI, MS, KY, TN, VA, WV, OH, OK, etc don't fill HS and college rosters because we all know a bunch of rich white kids from a complete households occupy everything. It's just the dumbest, liberal-slanted, BS thing I've read.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
10-18-2020 05:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WMInTheBurg Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,416
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 24
I Root For: William & Mary
Location:
Post: #722
RE: W&M Cuts 7 Sports
(10-18-2020 05:03 PM)Tribal Wrote:  Because all those inner-city kids, kids all over FL, LA, GA, TX, NY, PA, MI, MS, KY, TN, VA, WV, OH, OK, etc don't fill HS and college rosters because we all know a bunch of rich white kids from a complete households occupy everything. It's just the dumbest, liberal-slanted, BS thing I've read.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

You should reach out to the paper's author and tell her that. I would suggest being able to point out where in her paper she was wrong based on the dataset, or based on a different dataset.
10-18-2020 07:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tribal Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,449
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 145
I Root For: William & Mary
Location:
Post: #723
RE: W&M Cuts 7 Sports
(10-18-2020 07:02 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  
(10-18-2020 05:03 PM)Tribal Wrote:  Because all those inner-city kids, kids all over FL, LA, GA, TX, NY, PA, MI, MS, KY, TN, VA, WV, OH, OK, etc don't fill HS and college rosters because we all know a bunch of rich white kids from a complete households occupy everything. It's just the dumbest, liberal-slanted, BS thing I've read.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

You should reach out to the paper's author and tell her that. I would suggest being able to point out where in her paper she was wrong based on the dataset, or based on a different dataset.
I didn't have to see Trump's research to know not to inject Lysol to kill a virus. Or that COVID-19 actually wasn't a hoax.

I didn't have to see Huge's work to know she lied about turning every stone.

Commonsense prevails.

Nah, I don't reach out to politicians or media when they lie to push an agenda, either. I also don't feel guilty, at all, so I don't subscribe to every nutty agenda drafted to make me feel as such.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2020 07:14 PM by Tribal.)
10-18-2020 07:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WMInTheBurg Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,416
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 24
I Root For: William & Mary
Location:
Post: #724
RE: W&M Cuts 7 Sports
(10-18-2020 07:06 PM)Tribal Wrote:  
(10-18-2020 07:02 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  
(10-18-2020 05:03 PM)Tribal Wrote:  Because all those inner-city kids, kids all over FL, LA, GA, TX, NY, PA, MI, MS, KY, TN, VA, WV, OH, OK, etc don't fill HS and college rosters because we all know a bunch of rich white kids from a complete households occupy everything. It's just the dumbest, liberal-slanted, BS thing I've read.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

You should reach out to the paper's author and tell her that. I would suggest being able to point out where in her paper she was wrong based on the dataset, or based on a different dataset.
I didn't have to see Trump's research to know not to inject Lysol to kill a virus. Or that COVID-19 actually wasn't a hoax.

I didn't have to see Huge's work to know she lied about turning every stone.

Commonsense prevails.

Nah, I don't reach out to politicians or media when they lie to push an agenda, either. I also don't feel guilty, at all, so I don't subscribe to every nutty agenda drafted to make me feel as such.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Right, but in this case the work is there to be seen. It's not a statement from thin air, or one intended to cover up contradictory data. It's in a paper where she shows her work. I don't know if it's right or not, but I know that the statement she made is based on data. There's footnotes and tables and everything.

So far, you said "show examples or data". I linked a paper and you said "that's garbage". I said "the paper references data" and you said "everyone knows that's wrong", without showing evidence that it's wrong.
10-18-2020 07:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tribal Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,449
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 145
I Root For: William & Mary
Location:
Post: #725
W&M Cuts 7 Sports
I'll leave it at this. For hundreds of years, scientists have produced loads of data only to have follow on scientists overturn the research with new data. Scientists used to swear the earth is flat. Agenda pushers will find data to support their cause.

Let's look at climate change. Seasoned PhD researchers, from highly reputable universities & institutes, produced contradictory studies to support their agenda...acknowledging or debunking climate change. Am I lying? At some point, reasonable people, employing commonsense, in the face of research, see that the environment is screwed up and we're the cause.

Anyway, have a swell evening.



Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2020 08:04 PM by Tribal.)
10-18-2020 07:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TribeFan1983 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 191
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 4
I Root For: Wm & Mary
Location:
Post: #726
RE: W&M Cuts 7 Sports
(10-17-2020 05:16 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  
(10-17-2020 05:09 PM)TribeFan1983 Wrote:  
(10-17-2020 04:24 PM)Tribal Wrote:  Why can't my daughter play any sport she wants?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Of course, she can. Title IX has done wonderful things for women in elementary and secondary school. The question is, at the collegiate level, compared to male athletes, does she want to play sports? Or, are we goading more women into college sports in the name of precise, absolute gender equality?

Yes, all those poor women who don't want to play sports but are being forced into it.

Tribal, most likely if she can't it's because the sport isn't offered, because sports offerings for girls are still lagging.

A fellow W&M grad's daughter graduated from a major public university. She is tall and athletic. One day she was walking down the quad when the rowing coach approached her and asked if she wanted to be on the women's crew. When the girl was noncommittal, the coach sweetened the proposal with scholarship money. The girl joined crew. I don't know if that's the way Title IX is supposed to work.
10-19-2020 07:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tribe2011 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 360
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 13
I Root For: W&M
Location:
Post: #727
RE: W&M Cuts 7 Sports
Well, it seems like Tribal has disproven the existence -- or even the possibility of existence -- of any empirical fact or data point, ever. This is great news for us: now no one can prove that we have never made the NCAA tournament!
10-19-2020 09:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Old tribe Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 192
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation: 14
I Root For: William & Mary
Location:
Post: #728
RE: W&M Cuts 7 Sports
(10-18-2020 12:28 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  
(10-18-2020 07:07 AM)Tribe3455 Wrote:  I have a daughter who is an athlete. It will be so much easier for her to get a scholarship than it was for my son. Almost all sports where both men and women play the women have more scholarships. Basketball, soccer, lacrosse, golf, softball (over baseball). If there is a problem with opportunities for women in sports (there is, no doubt) it is NOT because of collegiate sports. It is a societal issue not one created by the NCAA.

It's also a football issue. Title IX requires a proportional number of scholarships for men's and women's sports. If football is taking 50+, there are that many fewer for other men's sports. I'm not arguing for a football exemption though. It's a complicated issue. Reducing football scholarships will disproportionately affect minority and low-income students who might not otherwise go to college. But making a football exemption will allow schools to continue to elevate it above all other sports, and there aren't many schools where that's justified. It's an issue where there should be active study and monitoring to make sure that whatever rules are decided are also reviewed regularly so that they're true to their intent.

This is close, but not quite correct. As we've discussed on the board many times, Title IX is a three part test (and all 3 must be met to be in compliance, despite some articles others have posted).

One of those three tests is whether athletic scholarship dollars are being awarded in a manner that is proportional to the number of male and female athletes at a school. A 1% variance is allowed. So, for example, if at school X 49% of its athletes are male and 51% of its athletes are female, then men must receive at least 48% of the total athletic scholarships dollars awarded by the school. This test doesn't have anything to say about total number of scholarships, it's only focused on scholarship dollars as compared with the make-up of the school's athletes. If a school is able to get away with a situation where they had 70% male athletes and 30% female athletes (a big if, because they would likely have a problem with another prong of Title IX we've already discussed), they would be able to provide a much larger number of athletic scholarships to males than females (71% of dollars to males and 29% to females).

In W&M's case, last year we had 282 male athletes and 228 female athletes (unduplicated count). So 55% of the athletes were male and 45% were female. That means women had to be receiving at least 44% of the total athletic scholarship dollars awarded by W&M. W&M easily met the allowable 1% variance rate, with women receiving 47% of athletic scholarship dollars ($4,226,615). In fact, the male athletes are the ones who would have a beef in W&M's situation.

Football is definitely a problem in meeting this test for a lot of schools, even more so at the FBS level than in the FCS (85 scholarships vs 63). There are many FBS schools that are way out of compliance on the athletic scholarship dollars test.
10-19-2020 09:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tribal Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,449
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 145
I Root For: William & Mary
Location:
Post: #729
RE: W&M Cuts 7 Sports
(10-19-2020 09:30 AM)Tribe2011 Wrote:  Well, it seems like Tribal has disproven the existence -- or even the possibility of existence -- of any empirical fact or data point, ever. This is great news for us: now no one can prove that we have never made the NCAA tournament!
Awww, you'll be okay. Don't question anything, believe everything that supports your beliefs, and find excuses when evidence doesn't agree. It's adorable.



Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
10-19-2020 09:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Old tribe Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 192
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation: 14
I Root For: William & Mary
Location:
Post: #730
RE: W&M Cuts 7 Sports
(10-19-2020 09:38 AM)Old tribe Wrote:  
(10-18-2020 12:28 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  
(10-18-2020 07:07 AM)Tribe3455 Wrote:  I have a daughter who is an athlete. It will be so much easier for her to get a scholarship than it was for my son. Almost all sports where both men and women play the women have more scholarships. Basketball, soccer, lacrosse, golf, softball (over baseball). If there is a problem with opportunities for women in sports (there is, no doubt) it is NOT because of collegiate sports. It is a societal issue not one created by the NCAA.

It's also a football issue. Title IX requires a proportional number of scholarships for men's and women's sports. If football is taking 50+, there are that many fewer for other men's sports. I'm not arguing for a football exemption though. It's a complicated issue. Reducing football scholarships will disproportionately affect minority and low-income students who might not otherwise go to college. But making a football exemption will allow schools to continue to elevate it above all other sports, and there aren't many schools where that's justified. It's an issue where there should be active study and monitoring to make sure that whatever rules are decided are also reviewed regularly so that they're true to their intent.

This is close, but not quite correct. As we've discussed on the board many times, Title IX is a three part test (and all 3 must be met to be in compliance, despite some articles others have posted).

One of those three tests is whether athletic scholarship dollars are being awarded in a manner that is proportional to the number of male and female athletes at a school. A 1% variance is allowed. So, for example, if at school X 49% of its athletes are male and 51% of its athletes are female, then men must receive at least 48% of the total athletic scholarships dollars awarded by the school. This test doesn't have anything to say about total number of scholarships, it's only focused on scholarship dollars as compared with the make-up of the school's athletes. If a school is able to get away with a situation where they had 70% male athletes and 30% female athletes (a big if, because they would likely have a problem with another prong of Title IX we've already discussed), they would be able to provide a much larger number of athletic scholarships to males than females (71% of dollars to males and 29% to females).

In W&M's case, last year we had 282 male athletes and 228 female athletes (unduplicated count). So 55% of the athletes were male and 45% were female. That means women had to be receiving at least 44% of the total athletic scholarship dollars awarded by W&M. W&M easily met the allowable 1% variance rate, with women receiving 47% of athletic scholarship dollars ($4,226,615). In fact, the male athletes are the ones who would have a beef in W&M's situation.

Football is definitely a problem in meeting this test for a lot of schools, even more so at the FBS level than in the FCS (85 scholarships vs 63). There are many FBS schools that are way out of compliance on the athletic scholarship dollars test.

I also forgot to mention that there were a large number of schools, and the NCAA itself, who lobbied Congress to include a football exception in Title IX. Essentially, football teams wouldn't be taken into account in analyzing whether a school is in compliance with Title IX.
10-19-2020 09:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tribal Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,449
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 145
I Root For: William & Mary
Location:
Post: #731
RE: W&M Cuts 7 Sports
(10-18-2020 04:48 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  
(10-18-2020 03:59 PM)Tribal Wrote:  
(10-18-2020 03:42 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  
(10-18-2020 02:25 PM)Tribal Wrote:  I don't know how they came to this conclusion, but it's the biggest bunch of garbage I've read in years:

"...white students with married, wealthy, educated parents are more likely to play sports."

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

I would guess it's in the sources or tables cited in the paper.
Doesn't jive with commonsense

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

This is the person to contact: https://fordschool.umich.edu/faculty/betsey-stevenson
I figured. Google is awesome.

She has a partner but won't marry him "for tax reasons," kids are not allowed to eat meat or birthday cake, they pay a nanny $50,000 a year to raise their kids, a driver takes them to work, and her research is driven by her *extreme* leftist agenda. Looks like another privileged, elitest, guilt-driven [++++++]. Bill Burr nailed it.

https://youtu.be/MVMmiltdp1U





Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
10-19-2020 09:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WMInTheBurg Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,416
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 24
I Root For: William & Mary
Location:
Post: #732
RE: W&M Cuts 7 Sports
(10-19-2020 09:38 AM)Tribal Wrote:  
(10-19-2020 09:30 AM)Tribe2011 Wrote:  Well, it seems like Tribal has disproven the existence -- or even the possibility of existence -- of any empirical fact or data point, ever. This is great news for us: now no one can prove that we have never made the NCAA tournament!
Awww, you'll be okay. Don't question anything, believe everything that supports your beliefs, and find excuses when evidence doesn't agree. It's adorable.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

I was all set to just let it die, but "find excuses when evidence doesn't agree"? You're arguing that your anecdotal evidence outweighs the only data analysis shown here. Certainly new data or new analysis of existing data can result in new accepted science. But you've provided nothing of the sort.

"Doesn't jive with commonsense"

"Commonsense prevails."

To borrow your analogy, "commonsense" was once that the earth was flat. Extensive data collection and analysis had to be done to show this was wrong. If you are arguing a point and demanding evidence, are you not obliged to show evidence in return in order to contradict the presented evidence? I'm definitely willing to accept that this paper is not the be-all and end-all of this topic, however, in the absence of contradictory data or analysis, I'm going with that over your "commonsense".
10-19-2020 10:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WMInTheBurg Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,416
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 24
I Root For: William & Mary
Location:
Post: #733
RE: W&M Cuts 7 Sports
(10-19-2020 09:55 AM)Tribal Wrote:  
(10-18-2020 04:48 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  
(10-18-2020 03:59 PM)Tribal Wrote:  
(10-18-2020 03:42 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  
(10-18-2020 02:25 PM)Tribal Wrote:  I don't know how they came to this conclusion, but it's the biggest bunch of garbage I've read in years:

"...white students with married, wealthy, educated parents are more likely to play sports."

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

I would guess it's in the sources or tables cited in the paper.
Doesn't jive with commonsense

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

This is the person to contact: https://fordschool.umich.edu/faculty/betsey-stevenson
I figured. Google is awesome.

She has a partner but won't marry him "for tax reasons," kids are not allowed to eat meat or birthday cake, they pay a nanny $50,000 a year to raise their kids, a driver takes them to work, and her research is driven by her *extreme* leftist agenda. Looks like another privileged, elitest, guilt-driven [++++++]. Bill Burr nailed it.

https://youtu.be/MVMmiltdp1U

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Google is awesome. You should use it to find evidence to support "commonsense".
10-19-2020 10:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tribal Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,449
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 145
I Root For: William & Mary
Location:
Post: #734
RE: W&M Cuts 7 Sports
(10-19-2020 10:07 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  
(10-19-2020 09:55 AM)Tribal Wrote:  
(10-18-2020 04:48 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  
(10-18-2020 03:59 PM)Tribal Wrote:  
(10-18-2020 03:42 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  I would guess it's in the sources or tables cited in the paper.
Doesn't jive with commonsense

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

This is the person to contact: https://fordschool.umich.edu/faculty/betsey-stevenson
I figured. Google is awesome.

She has a partner but won't marry him "for tax reasons," kids are not allowed to eat meat or birthday cake, they pay a nanny $50,000 a year to raise their kids, a driver takes them to work, and her research is driven by her *extreme* leftist agenda. Looks like another privileged, elitest, guilt-driven [++++++]. Bill Burr nailed it.

https://youtu.be/MVMmiltdp1U

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Google is awesome. You should use it to find evidence to support "commonsense".
Were your lips moving when you typed that? Are you super mad?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
10-19-2020 10:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Zorch Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,214
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 20
I Root For: W&M
Location:
Post: #735
RE: W&M Cuts 7 Sports
(10-19-2020 09:38 AM)Old tribe Wrote:  ...One of those three tests is whether athletic scholarship dollars are being awarded in a manner that is proportional to the number of male and female athletes at a school. A 1% variance is allowed. ...

In W&M's case, last year we had 282 male athletes and 228 female athletes (unduplicated count). So 55% of the athletes were male and 45% were female. That means women had to be receiving at least 44% of the total athletic scholarship dollars awarded by W&M. W&M easily met the allowable 1% variance rate, with women receiving 47% of athletic scholarship dollars ($4,226,615).

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.
10-19-2020 10:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Old tribe Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 192
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation: 14
I Root For: William & Mary
Location:
Post: #736
RE: W&M Cuts 7 Sports
(10-19-2020 10:32 AM)Zorch Wrote:  
(10-19-2020 09:38 AM)Old tribe Wrote:  ...One of those three tests is whether athletic scholarship dollars are being awarded in a manner that is proportional to the number of male and female athletes at a school. A 1% variance is allowed. ...

In W&M's case, last year we had 282 male athletes and 228 female athletes (unduplicated count). So 55% of the athletes were male and 45% were female. That means women had to be receiving at least 44% of the total athletic scholarship dollars awarded by W&M. W&M easily met the allowable 1% variance rate, with women receiving 47% of athletic scholarship dollars ($4,226,615).

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
10-19-2020 11:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Zorch Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,214
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 20
I Root For: W&M
Location:
Post: #737
RE: W&M Cuts 7 Sports
(10-19-2020 11:54 AM)Old tribe Wrote:  
(10-19-2020 10:32 AM)Zorch Wrote:  
(10-19-2020 09:38 AM)Old tribe Wrote:  ...One of those three tests is whether athletic scholarship dollars are being awarded in a manner that is proportional to the number of male and female athletes at a school. A 1% variance is allowed. ...

In W&M's case, last year we had 282 male athletes and 228 female athletes (unduplicated count). So 55% of the athletes were male and 45% were female. That means women had to be receiving at least 44% of the total athletic scholarship dollars awarded by W&M. W&M easily met the allowable 1% variance rate, with women receiving 47% of athletic scholarship dollars ($4,226,615).

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).
(This post was last modified: 10-19-2020 01:00 PM by Zorch.)
10-19-2020 12:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Old tribe Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 192
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation: 14
I Root For: William & Mary
Location:
Post: #738
RE: W&M Cuts 7 Sports
(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:  
(10-19-2020 09:38 AM)Old tribe Wrote:  ...One of those three tests is whether athletic scholarship dollars are being awarded in a manner that is proportional to the number of male and female athletes at a school. A 1% variance is allowed. ...

In W&M's case, last year we had 282 male athletes and 228 female athletes (unduplicated count). So 55% of the athletes were male and 45% were female. That means women had to be receiving at least 44% of the total athletic scholarship dollars awarded by W&M. W&M easily met the allowable 1% variance rate, with women receiving 47% of athletic scholarship dollars ($4,226,615).

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.
10-19-2020 01:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Old tribe Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 192
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation: 14
I Root For: William & Mary
Location:
Post: #739
RE: W&M Cuts 7 Sports
(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:  
(10-19-2020 09:38 AM)Old tribe Wrote:  ...One of those three tests is whether athletic scholarship dollars are being awarded in a manner that is proportional to the number of male and female athletes at a school. A 1% variance is allowed. ...

In W&M's case, last year we had 282 male athletes and 228 female athletes (unduplicated count). So 55% of the athletes were male and 45% were female. That means women had to be receiving at least 44% of the total athletic scholarship dollars awarded by W&M. W&M easily met the allowable 1% variance rate, with women receiving 47% of athletic scholarship dollars ($4,226,615).

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.
10-19-2020 01:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
zablenoise Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,305
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 42
I Root For: William & Mary
Location: Washington, DC
Post: #740
RE: W&M Cuts 7 Sports
(10-19-2020 01:17 PM)Old tribe Wrote:  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.

Sorry we keep asking you questions about this one but I have another. Most people I've talked to who understand Title IX think it's a good idea but the actual law is in need of an update. Do you like Title IX as is? My biggest knock on it is, at the collegiate level, it's just not very effective. Like I certainly wouldn't say men's sports and women's sports are on an equal footing.
10-19-2020 01:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.