ADVERTISEMENT

Fran is done

Does this mean that the Kentucky coach should quit and never coach again since he lost to a 15 seed? Wake up guys this March madness where anything can happen. Illinois won by one point and many teams were pushed to the end by smaller teams. One and done can put a lot of pressure on a team and make them play different than usual.
How dumb are you lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: TRHawkeye145
There is nothing in title 9 that requires schools to not pay athletes or even that they would have to pay women's teams the same as mens. The language in title 9 is vague in this context and hasn't been tested by a court outside the bounds of a scholarship.

There are also other mechanisms where they can pay, such as media/conference rights agreements directly paying athletes, if a court were to interpret it differently.
Your first paragraph all but obliterated your own argument.

Title IX requires EXACTLY equal opportunity for men and women in athletics. There is no "work-around", especially when it comes to diverting media money.

NCAA and P5 loved the NIL concept exactly for that reason. It literally avoided Title IX at the institutional level.
 
You mean, like...Wisconson being projected to finish even lower than Iowa...?
A couple of things I clearly mentioned the 12 year thing correct? Seems like I did and secondly. Greg Gard certainly hasn't been great at Wisconsin considering what the job could be and was under his predecessor
 
Your first paragraph all but obliterated your own argument.

Title IX requires EXACTLY equal opportunity for men and women in athletics. There is no "work-around", especially when it comes to diverting media money.

NCAA and P5 loved the NIL concept exactly for that reason. It literally avoided Title IX at the institutional level.
Opportunity could simply mean providing equal number of scholarships for men and women. It does not necessarily mean paying women’s volleyball or men’s golf the same as football. No court has weighed in on the language. Its gonna have to be a court that weighs in because the law was made in the 70’s and well before these programs became the revenue producing machines they are. These schools will probably play scaredy-cat though (because management would never want to jeopardize its own massive payday).
 
It is pathetic that Iowa State has become a better basketball program than Iowa.

Iowa State has been as good of a basketball program or better than Iowa for the last 20 years or longer. They have made the NCAA tournament ten times since 2000. Iowa has made the tournament nine times during this time period.
 
ISU just grabbed the hammer and put another nail in Frans coffin. The “but Lickleiter” excuse is now gone for Frans fanboys.
We tried the slow it down, ugly ball with Lick, obv failed. Then the uptempo with optional defense with Fran.
Do we land somewhere in the middle now?

One common denominator with Fran is his inability to consistently recruit elite guards. There are a few exceptions like Marble, Jok, Wieskamp and Gatens. None of which were great defenders. Jok was a fantastic scorer, but a bit one dimensional (nitpicking). Wieskamp was sneaky athletic but more of a wing. Gatens was a pure shooter, and a big body, but limited quickness. Marble was the most multi dimensional.

JBo has excellent stats and huge coconuts but was a below average athlete. Clemmons and Gessel were good but not great.

The guard play becomes so critical in the NCAA tourney and we just did not have the goods in most years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pepperman
Your first paragraph all but obliterated your own argument.

Title IX requires EXACTLY equal opportunity for men and women in athletics. There is no "work-around", especially when it comes to diverting media money.

NCAA and P5 loved the NIL concept exactly for that reason. It literally avoided Title IX at the institutional level.
Bob, you are completely wrong. The correct language appears in 20 USC 1681 (a). Title IX only prohibits "discrimination" based on sex. That is nowhere like a requirement of precise equality. The school would not be discriminating by giving greater funding to the one program that costs more than any other athletic program but also brings in far more revenue than any other program or maybe all of the other athletic programs collectively (think "rational basis" as if a Constitutional question was involved).

Congress should just cut football out of Title IX, while creating some language that doesn't let a school eliminate lesser profile and revenue programs just to feed football.
 
done-and-done-spongebob.gif
 
Bob, you are completely wrong. The correct language appears in 20 USC 1681 (a). Title IX only prohibits "discrimination" based on sex. That is nowhere like a requirement of precise equality. The school would not be discriminating by giving greater funding to the one program that costs more than any other athletic program but also brings in far more revenue than any other program or maybe all of the other athletic programs collectively (think "rational basis" as if a Constitutional question was involved).

Congress should just cut football out of Title IX, while creating some language that doesn't let a school eliminate lesser profile and revenue programs just to feed football.
Wrong...again.
 
Yep, this the beginning of the long, slow road downhill. We will suffer through 3 or 4 years of less than this team before it’s obvious to the powers that be. Most of us already know that there is no higher he can take this program.
Spot on prediction….👍
 
Wrong...again.
What is your educational or experiential basis for disputing my statement of the law, which cites you directly to the statute in question? You obviously know nothing about Title IX, the law of equal opportunity, the standards of review applied in Title IX cases, or the tests applied to the substantive Title IX litigation itself. You're just arguing. Sometimes you just have to acknowledge you don't no and just STFU. I wouldn't show up on a building site and start telling the skilled tradesmen how to plumb, wire and build the structure. I wouldn't go to Best Buy and argue with the Geek Squad. Jesus isn't life too short for just pointlessly disagreeing.
 
What is your educational or experiential basis for disputing my statement of the law, which cites you directly to the statute in question? You obviously know nothing about Title IX, the law of equal opportunity, the standards of review applied in Title IX cases, or the tests applied to the substantive Title IX litigation itself. You're just arguing. Sometimes you just have to acknowledge you don't no and just STFU. I wouldn't show up on a building site and start telling the skilled tradesmen how to plumb, wire and build the structure. I wouldn't go to Best Buy and argue with the Geek Squad. Jesus isn't life too short for just pointlessly disagreeing.
Wow. Just wow.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT