Quinnipac Title IX Decision

started the same thread a minute ago with a different spin on the xc/track ruling. i think they should support the men's cross team in competing in indoor and outdoor, since it won't affect numbers.

Interesting point, you could reopen a full men's program with no impact. The problem comes back to budget - if budget weren't an issue they would have kept men's all along and just added more women's sports. Also the fact that they cut Women's volleyball and added cheer in order to save $$.

My guess is they cut Women's T&F and Women's cheer and use the combined savings to either add volleyball back or another cheap "real" sport for women.

This is not a good thing for men's sports at all if this interpretation becomes law within the ncaa. If you can't duplicate women's track/xc athletes many more men's programs will be cut.

A typical men's program may have 15(xc), 40(indoor), 40(outdoor) athletes. Total participation= 95

A typical women's program may have 30(xc), 50(indoor), 50(outdoor) athletes. Total participation= 130

In this situation, with duplication and assuming all xc runners run track, the school has +35women. Were duplication disallowed, this school would only have +10women.

Now, it's tough to say exactly what would have to be done because the total participation (ie, duplicated count) for sports must reflect the general student population. But let's assume they just need to keep the same +35women figure.

There are a few ways to fix this problem. They could adjust the track numbers to fix the problem by reducing the men's roster to 15, essentially making it a "one event" program (all sprints or all distance/xc). Or, they could RAISE the number of women to 75. They could cut other men's sports by 25, or raise another women's sport by 25.

In these tough financial times, I guarantee athletic departments would cut 25 men before adding 25 women. Many of the larger athletic departments could handle this change, but even for them it would be a hassle to reorganize their roster sizes.

they didnt cut all these sports to save money. they tried to cut womens volleyball so that they could use their volleyball courts for a new student center. This idea proceeded to blow up in the president's face resulting in all of these lawsuits

Just did some research on the ncaa equity website and came up with the following stats on DI track programs.

In 2008, there were 23 universities that had women's track rosters (dupilcated) with roster differences (women to men) of +85 or more. 17 of those 23 don't have men's track, so they would have to add more women or cut other men's sports without duplication.

The greatest difference was +157 by University of South Florida (who does have mens track, 211-54). The largest womens roster was Minnesota with 236 (compared to 140 men).

from my point of view, 6-10k in the woods has little in common with an 800m on an indoor track. there are plenty of runners covering these events. but forget about such closely-related events, i've seen folks run cross for old-time sake, make the roster, but then do something unrelated to distance running, like pole vault, during indoor/outdoor. clearly that person should count at least twice.

A shame this hasnt received more attention because the implications will only be bad for XC and track.

I hate to see any XC program get cut, but I am laughing up my sleeve at how now Title IX has resulted in a women vs women situation.

Maybe now the stauch defenders of this crazy law will feel the sting.

I find this ironic... The judge ruled that the women cannot count more than once. They had to cut men's track indoor and out for compliance issues - but kept the fall XC.

Therefore, under this premise, why are none of the men contacting the ACLU for reinstatement... If Women's team only counts once and the Men's team only counts once - why then did they have to AXE the TRACK TEAMS...

Burn in Hell JL and JM...

is it true that schools that used to have a no-cut rule in xc now have to make cuts to comply with title 9?

I was lucky enough to run xc for a d1 school that never made any cuts - great experience, but I'm not sure they can do that anymore.

Crazy.

Title niner wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38347400/ns/us_news-life/

Several things were ruled on:

A) Cheerleading does not qualify as a sport for Title IX purposes.

If cheerleading doesn't qualify on the women's side then football shouldn't qualify for men's purposes. There is more competition to get on the cheerleading team, and more athleticism involved and required than volleyball, etc. Any female scrub can bump a volleyball, but lets see the scrub do those cartwheels, flips, etc.

oiushjdhhdh wrote:

Title niner wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38347400/ns/us_news-life/

Several things were ruled on:

A) Cheerleading does not qualify as a sport for Title IX purposes.

If cheerleading doesn't qualify on the women's side then football shouldn't qualify for men's purposes. There is more competition to get on the cheerleading team, and more athleticism involved and required than volleyball, etc. Any female scrub can bump a volleyball, but lets see the scrub do those cartwheels, flips, etc.

Let's see your 5-2 cheerleader spike the ball.

Let's remember something:

It's not like there were two sets of cheerleaders cheering to a large crowd and someone said, "Hey, this would be a good time to have a football game!"

Cheerleaders lead the cheers for a sports team- that's it. It's hard, but so is being a construction worker and that's not a sport either.

This is from the NCAA article about the decision:

"Underhill decided setting targets was not itself a Title IX violation, but took issue with the school counting runners who did not have a genuine participation opportunity. In his decision, Underhill wrote that the school’s requirement that female cross country student-athletes participate on both track teams – in addition to the minimal competitive season and coaching staff supported by the school, the lack of financial aid to any track-only competitors and the failure to provide competitors in events that would allow the team to be competitive – nullifies its ability to count redshirted and injured student-athletes as multi-sport participants.

Karen Morrison, NCAA director of gender initiatives, said that the practice of counting multisport athletes as participants in each sport complied with OCR regulations.

“The law hasn’t changed,” Morrison said. “You still count an athlete every time he or she is on a sport’s roster, but you have to make sure they are having a legitimate participation experience.”

Underhill’s decision specifically supported the OCR regulations that allow triple counting of cross country and indoor and outdoor track athletes, but it equated Quinnipiac’s conduct of its indoor and outdoor programs to the roster-inflation issues elsewhere in the program."

It sounds like nothing has changed in the traditional manner of counting athletes three times; they are just ruling that Quinnipiac manipulated the rule to artificially inflate their women's numbers.

runn wrote:

Let's remember something:

It's not like there were two sets of cheerleaders cheering to a large crowd and someone said, "Hey, this would be a good time to have a football game!"

Cheerleaders lead the cheers for a sports team- that's it. It's hard, but so is being a construction worker and that's not a sport either.

"Hey, this would be a good time to have a football game!".....hahahahahahaha

oiushjdhhdh wrote:

Title niner wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38347400/ns/us_news-life/

Several things were ruled on:

A) Cheerleading does not qualify as a sport for Title IX purposes.

If cheerleading doesn't qualify on the women's side then football shouldn't qualify for men's purposes. There is more competition to get on the cheerleading team, and more athleticism involved and required than volleyball, etc. Any female scrub can bump a volleyball, but lets see the scrub do those cartwheels, flips, etc.

you missed the point. competition involves playing against someone else, there are not other teams to "play against" . and you can't play yourself.

1) Hence "competitive cheer." look it up, it exists.

2) As long as the NCAA interpretation is followed, I see nothing wrong with this ruling. Quinnipac pulled some BS to skirt the rules, and they got called out for it. This rule-bending is nothing new (see University of Minnesota's XC rosters: 21 men with 4 redshirts; 52 women with 13 redshirts) but Quinnipac was doing it to a ridiculous extent. Requiring XC runners to do both indoor and outdoor, then not giving them any races to run.

3) I wonder what the results will be as far as counting redshirts and injuries. If you have a girl who's sidelined all season, does she count? If she does, it seems like you'd almost WANT some injury prone runners around to boost your roster without costing $$$.

[quote)

but Quinnipac was doing it to a ridiculous extent. Requiring XC runners to do both indoor and outdoor, then not giving them any races to run.

where did you get this info? who says they werent given races to run. look up the womens track schedule online im pretty sure these women raced in track

whaaaaaaaaaaa? wrote:

[quote)

but Quinnipac was doing it to a ridiculous extent. Requiring XC runners to do both indoor and outdoor, then not giving them any races to run.

where did you get this info? who says they werent given races to run. look up the womens track schedule online im pretty sure these women raced in track

There is a double standard in collegiate athletics when it comes to "opportunity" for female athletes. For some reason administrators (or in this case a judge) think being on the track team means you MUST compete a set number of times to have the "full athlete experience" required to count for participation numbers. Is it just me, I though being on the team IS the opportunity. If athletes aren't good enough to compete then a coach shouldn't be expected to compete those athletes.

In no other sport are coaches required to play athletes that aren't good enough. There are no JV football or basketball games. Yet it is expected that all track athletes get to travel to B-meets.

Quinnipiac's decision by the president is so self centered. someone who is the president of a small university should care more about the student body than constantly building up his school's appearance.

the volleyball team and its coach are becoming pariahs in the athletic department especially, and let this fact be known...they are one of the WORST teams in the school (if not the worst), the conference (which is a pretty bad conference) and probably the entire NCAA.