UPDATE: Court Injunction BLOCKS Iowa from Dropping Women's Swimming for 2021-2022 School Year after 4 Iowa Women Swimmers filed Title IX lawsuit

[Frosty7130]

The division three business model relies on athletes to stay open despite not receiving any television money....or really any outside funds at all.

None of their athletes are referred to as nonrevenue because it is a nonsense term made up for political reasons.

Because they make that money off of the student-athletes paying ever-increasing tuition. It's ridiculous to compare D1 and DIII athletics in the first place. Of course they're nonrevenue, it's just not a term that's needed when there are no athletes at the schools that aren't nonrevenue.

Not sure why you get so worked up about the "nonrevenue" label when it's quite self-explanatory.

 

[hawkedoff]

Because they make that money off of the student-athletes paying ever-increasing tuition. It's ridiculous to compare D1 and DIII athletics in the first place. Of course they're nonrevenue, it's just not a term that's needed when there are no athletes at the schools that aren't nonrevenue.

Not sure why you get so worked up about the "nonrevenue" label when it's quite self-explanatory.

No it really isn't ridiculous. There is no such thing as a nonrevenue student athlete. They all bring in revenue.

Flip the question....why are you so dogmatic about downgrading and demeaning student athletes that don't play football?

The fact is the majority to colleges across divisions that offer athletics do not turn any sort of net positive on revenue from those sports including football and yet manage to continue to offer those sports. You can weedle away all you want but the fact remains that the wealthiest of the programs like Iowa can't seem to find a way to balance their budget while those with little to no outside revenue manage it just fine.

This is an incompetence issue on budget and truly nothing else. The big schools hot fat and lazy on huge tv contracts and so didn't do their due diligence on building a sustainable model. Add in the political desire to keep athletics on a separate track so they can claim no tax dollars are used and it was always going to end badly...

Stop defending bad business practices by the wealthiest programs when there are plenty of examples even within an hour drive of Iowa City that are making it work without tv revenue.

You have been brainwashed. There is no such thing as a nonrevenue sport.

 

[Frosty7130]

No it really isn't ridiculous. There is no such thing as a nonrevenue student athlete. They all bring in revenue.

Flip the question....why are you so dogmatic about downgrading and demeaning student athletes that don't play football?

The fact is the majority to colleges across divisions that offer athletics do not turn any sort of net positive on revenue from those sports including football and yet manage to continue to offer those sports. You can weedle away all you want but the fact remains that the wealthiest of the programs like Iowa can't seem to find a way to balance their budget while those with little to no outside revenue manage it just fine.

This is an incompetence issue on budget and truly nothing else. The big schools hot fat and lazy on huge tv contracts and so didn't do their due diligence on building a sustainable model. Add in the political desire to keep athletics on a separate track so they can claim no tax dollars are used and it was always going to end badly...

Stop defending bad business practices by the wealthiest programs when there are plenty of examples even within an hour drive of Iowa City that are making it work without tv revenue.

You have been brainwashed. There is no such thing as a nonrevenue sport.

Get that bullshit out of here. Nowhere have I said or implied that these athletes are lesser. I simply acknowledge the reality that their sports don't help keep the lights on, and therefore are in a more tenuous position.

If you wanna stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the realities of division 1 athletics, be my guest, but I live in the real world.

 

[hawkedoff]

Get that bullshit out of here. Nowhere have I said or implied that these athletes are lesser. I simply acknowledge the reality that their sports don't help keep the lights on, and therefore are in a more tenuous position.

If you wanna stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the realities of division 1 athletics, be my guest, but I live in the real world.

Yes. You have. If you are feeling a little defensive about your position then perhaps you need to do some soul searching.

The reality of division one athletics? According to who?

The truth is the model you are defending just drove off a cliff.

 

[cidhawkeye]

The sport is non revenue, the student is the revenue. You are cracking me up with this thread.

 

[Run&Blade]

Revenue vs profit for those living on semantics.

 

[cidhawkeye]

Revenue vs profit for those living on semantics.

Touche...good point.

 

[hawkedoff]

The sport is non revenue, the student is the revenue. You are cracking me up with this thread.

Once again that is just an accounting trick. Neat trick to separate the kid away from the sport don't you think?

 

[hawkedoff]

Revenue vs profit for those living on semantics.

That isn't semantics.

 

[Frosty7130]

Yes. You have. If you are feeling a little defensive about your position then perhaps you need to do some soul searching.

The reality of division one athletics? According to who?

The truth is the model you are defending just drove off a cliff.

Joseph McCarthy used the same logic to attack "communists".

Sorry you can't have a rational discussion without working yourself into a fervor.

 

[hawkedoff]

Joseph McCarthy used the same logic to attack "communists".

Sorry you can't have a rational discussion without working yourself into a fervor.

Yeah. I'm the one in a fervor.

 

[Peckerboy]

Do you even give any thought at all to the things you post, or just let your hatred decide your thoughts? "Some rationality to THIS department". REALLY? So what is it exactly that Iowa is doing that the other 65 P5 teams are not in this scenario? The money is obscene, absolutely, BUT. Do you want a competitive athletic program at Iowa? Yes or No? How exactly would they compete in the current climate if they weren't "keeping up with the Joneses"? As for the $$$$, almost all of it comes from the TV contract, and donations, not from tax dollars or from the school, so where exactly is the problem? On top of that this cash windfall totally finance all these other programs that have absolutely ZERO financial following or interest on a larger scale. Do you think that Fox or ESPN will start handing out the $$ for the swimming or tennis programs to be on TV? Not hardly.
Unfortunately with Iowa in the news the last several months, this will be yet another black eye for the school in the media, but there will many, many other schools in the same situation very soon.....

Do I want a competitive program ... sure to an extent but not at the cost of losing programs because of poor budgeting decisions and waste . Believe it or not money is not the sole determination of athletic success. If that was the case we would win the National Champiobship every year .

 

[Peckerboy]

Everyone stop replying to pecker head he’s just a troll.

And your a loser

 

[Peckerboy]

You are so right dickboy. Lets drop the salaries to say 1 mill or less for the head coach and to say 100,000 for assistants. Then the program can go totally in the tank with no money for any sport or any support for the football team. That will show them. You have no clue what you are talking about but I have seen your reply in how many posts? Maybe if some of these sports nobody watches or cares about would dial; down what they think they are owed it would be a start. And I will add this. It should be a requirement to have a certain % of your team from the state. Why are we funding a team like field hockey that you can't get one kid from the state of Iowa??

Your logic is senseless, there are many college teams working on far less expenses than Iowa is right now and having more success than we are . No need to get into specifics just go look it up for yourself.

 

[cidhawkeye]

That isn't semantics.

Revenue

Do I want a competitive program ... sure to an extent but not at the cost of losing programs because of poor budgeting decisions and waste . Believe it or not money is not the sole determination of athletic success. If that was the case we would win the National Champiobship every year .

On what basis would Iowa win a National Championship? I am sure you have some stats to back that up.

 

[cidhawkeye]

Your logic is senseless, there are many college teams working on far less expenses than Iowa is right now and having more success than we are . No need to get into specifics just go look it up for yourself.

You make the claim, then tell others to look it up. Always a solid way to support your claim.

 

[Kabby]

You make the claim, then tell others to look it up. Always a solid way to support your claim.

Dickboy is a real gem. Maybe the tax payers would be happy paying more taxes so these sports could be played. The non revenue sports need to do some fund raising of their own for that sport if they want to keep them going. Why do you feel that you need to steal more money from other programs to keep your program afloat when it is just a drain and most have no support or interest to keep them going.

 

[amahawk]

Since "men" can play " womens" sports does Title IX even mean anything?

 

[Jizzer]

Iowa was competing in swimming and other olympic sports decades before TV existedand football provided any meaningful income. How do schools like Grinnell and others provide men’s and women’s Olympic sports and have no significant income in football or basketball?

Wut?

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

Great I hope they win and sue the heck out of the University and force them to bring all the programs back.

It was a horrible decision to begin with , if they want to save money they can start by eliminating the bloated salary’s of the football staff and the obscene spending of the football program. It’s about time someone brought some rationality to this department

Yep. Killing the golden goose is a great idea. Then it can all come tumbling down. Where do you think the money comes from to pay for those programs? You're not too bright, are you.....

 

[NorthDSMHawk]

JFC, I don't know why you guys keep responding to these two morons. It was clear in the last thread they'll just keep using the same nonsensical arguments over and over, no matter how many times you shoot it down. Just let them talk to each other, they'll lose interest soon enough. They probably miss chatting at the pool while watching their daughters compete.

 

[LarryMullenJr.]

Once again that is just an accounting trick. Neat trick to separate the kid away from the sport don't you think?

Whether or not something makes money by spending more than they take in is an accounting "trick"? Are you in Congress?

 

[LarryMullenJr.]

Since "men" can play " womens" sports does Title IX even mean anything?

Honestly, I would love to see this string play out in real. It already has started in a few cases and the girls are fighting back with legal tactics. But I would love to see the SJWs response when this all comes full-circle and they've essentially eaten themselves.

 

[twindman]

A serious question here: Do places like Grinnell charge admission for things like tennis matches or track and field (if they have those sports)? Just wondering.
Because if not, then those sports ARE non revenue since they bring in NO REVENUE.

 

[hawkfeever]

JFC, I don't know why you guys keep responding to these two morons. It was clear in the last thread they'll just keep using the same nonsensical arguments over and over, no matter how many times you shoot it down. Just let them talk to each other, they'll lose interest soon enough. They probably miss chatting at the pool while watching their daughters compete.

Paid agitators.

 

[Run&Blade]

A serious question here: Do places like Grinnell charge admission for things like tennis matches or track and field (if they have those sports)? Just wondering.
Because if not, then those sports ARE non revenue since they bring in NO REVENUE.

Grinnell charges nothing. Been to a few of their basketball games to watch their crazy style.

Some DIII do charge.

Today’s education system must suck when people don’t understand the difference between revenue and profit.

 

[hawkedoff]

A serious question here: Do places like Grinnell charge admission for things like tennis matches or track and field (if they have those sports)? Just wondering.
Because if not, then those sports ARE non revenue since they bring in NO REVENUE.

No. They don't for the most part.

It is funny to watch people on here twist themselves into knots.

Let me give you all another hint. Tuition money doesn't belong to the colleges in which the student attends classes. The money belongs to the University.

Football money shouldn't belong to football. Football belongs to the University not the other way around.

 

[LarryMullenJr.]

No. They don't for the most part.

It is funny to watch people on here twist themselves into knots.

Let me give you all another hint. Tuition money doesn't belong to the colleges in which the student attends classes. The money belongs to the University.

Football money shouldn't belong to football. Football belongs to the University not the other way around.

This is a very fair point.
But let's also not pretend that higher education isn't a business, and is altruistic.
If a business has a number of "product lines", and one of them does very well, they keep the money cycle flowing. By that I mean they keep the product line fresh, attractive, and commit resources to keep it that way.
If other product lines aren't making money, or are barely holding their own, they make choices that reflect that.
Take a business course some time---even the liberal teachers will explain why when businesses don't make money they aren't around very long.

 

[hawkfeever]

No. They don't for the most part.

It is funny to watch people on here twist themselves into knots.

Let me give you all another hint. Tuition money doesn't belong to the colleges in which the student attends classes. The money belongs to the University.

Football money shouldn't belong to football. Football belongs to the University not the other way around.

You'd be the same dumbass bitching cause Kirk can't get good recruits as we fall behind in the arms race that is NCAA football. So maybe have Alabama and Ohio State go first with this.

And why these sports? Why don't we have hockey or lacrosse or bowling, they are all just as popular as swimming is? How come just these sports get to whine and say "it's not fair". How come these and not those instead?

 

[kceasthawk]

Do I want a competitive program ... sure to an extent but not at the cost of losing programs because of poor budgeting decisions and waste . Believe it or not money is not the sole determination of athletic success. If that was the case we would win the National Champiobship every year .

Your last sentence tells me you trolling. Do you really think we spend more $$ then OSU, Clemson, Texas, or Alabama on football? Here's a hint: there are dozens of teams that pay their coaches way more then Iowa does. KF is middle of the pack in the BIG alone now. Using your logic why doesn't Michigan win the Natty every year? They pay their staff almost THREE times what Iowa pays theirs, and they can't even beat Iowa most years when they play. Do some research before making comments like these........

 

[hawkedoff]

This is a very fair point.
But let's also not pretend that higher education isn't a business, and is altruistic.
If a business has a number of "product lines", and one of them does very well, they keep the money cycle flowing. By that I mean they keep the product line fresh, attractive, and commit resources to keep it that way.
If other product lines aren't making money, or are barely holding their own, they make choices that reflect that.
Take a business course some time---even the liberal teachers will explain why when businesses don't make money they aren't around very long.

I am doing just fine on the business side but thanks.

You don't determine a lines profitability in a vacuum nor it's costs. That is pretty basic stuff.

The point about making money? You count all the revenue from the sale not just the parts that are politically convenient.

Iowa athletics as a whole has a spending problem. They got lazy and fat on tv money and so didn't shore up or even build out their other product offerings. That is kicking them in the ass right now. Football may be king but that doesn't mean you don't need to pay attention to the cost structure and marketing of other products. Iowa hasn't done that at all.

The comparisons to like business models that don't have tv money is so appropriate because it completely dismisses the concept that there is such a thing as a nonrevenue sport. Following the correct logic you lay out the other colleges in the country that don't have revenue from football at a meaningful level somehow have these other product lines and are in business. Therefore the costs associated with their offerings are in line with the revenue produced to make it worth the investment. They are getting enough revenue out of having student athletes even without outside television money to support the costs and provide for the other expenses of the school.

Iowa separates the revenue produced by student attendance from the costs associated with the athletic program in which those students participate. It is therefore not a complete picture of revenue produced at all. That separation by the way is deliberate and only done for political purposes.

 

[hawkedoff]

You'd be the same dumbass bitching cause Kirk can't get good recruits as we fall behind in the arms race that is NCAA football. So maybe have Alabama and Ohio State go first with this.

And why these sports? Why don't we have hockey or lacrosse or bowling, they are all just as popular as swimming is? How come just these sports get to whine and say "it's not fair". How come these and not those instead?

Not at all. I think spending by these programs is obscene and needs to be scaled back dramatically.

As for those other programs. I agree with you but not for the reasons you push here. I don't think we should offer sports at Iowa that aren't offered in our high schools.

 

[hawkfeever]

I am doing just fine on the business side but thanks.

You don't determine a lines profitability in a vacuum nor it's costs. That is pretty basic stuff.

The point about making money? You count all the revenue from the sale not just the parts that are politically convenient.

Iowa athletics as a whole has a spending problem. They got lazy and fat on tv money and so didn't shore up or even build out their other product offerings. That is kicking them in the ass right now. Football may be king but that doesn't mean you don't need to pay attention to the cost structure and marketing of other products. Iowa hasn't done that at all.

The comparisons to like business models that don't have tv money is so appropriate because it completely dismisses the concept that there is such a thing as a nonrevenue sport. Following the correct logic you lay out the other colleges in the country that don't have revenue from football at a meaningful level somehow have these other product lines and are in business. Therefore the costs associated with their offerings are in line with the revenue produced to make it worth the investment. They are getting enough revenue out of having student athletes even without outside television money to support the costs and provide for the other expenses of the school.

Iowa separates the revenue produced by student attendance from the costs associated with the athletic program in which those students participate. It is therefore not a complete picture of revenue produced at all. That separation by the way is deliberate and only done for political purposes.

I can't believe I wasted a few minutes of my life reading this gibberish.

 

[hawkfeever]

Your last sentence tells me you trolling. Do you really think we spend more $$ then OSU, Clemson, Texas, or Alabama on football? Here's a hint: there are dozens of teams that pay their coaches way more then Iowa does. KF is middle of the pack in the BIG alone now. Using your logic why doesn't Michigan win the Natty every year? They pay their staff almost THREE times what Iowa pays theirs, and they can't even beat Iowa most years when they play. Do some research before making comments like these........

And Bama takes in ex-head coaches as assistants and their staff overall is larger.

 

[anon_bb9wlf9kj42py]

Iowa separates the revenue produced by student attendance from the costs associated with the athletic program in which those students participate. It is therefore not a complete picture of revenue produced at all. That separation by the way is deliberate and only done for political purposes.

I'm honestly confused by the point you're even making here.

1. From an accounting perspective, the athletic department is completely separate from the university. Like it or not that's a fact.

2. Due to that fact, the athletic department pays the tuition and room and board for the athletes. The university makes money on it, but the athletic department does not.

3. I'm getting the impression you're talking about revenue earned by the university as a whole. Like the athletes are a net positive simply because their scholarship money is flowing to the university. That's just not how it works. Even if you considered that, you're not considering the incredible amount of dollars spent servicing this very small portion of the student body.

I don't think you're making sense here honestly. I agree that schools spending like drunken sailors is absurd, but I disagree that they could have managed their money better going into Covid. No business is equipped to have the bottom drop out completely and make no changes.

 

[Run&Blade]

I'm honestly confused by the point you're even making here.

1. From an accounting perspective, the athletic department is completely separate from the university. Like it or not that's a fact.

2. Due to that fact, the athletic department pays the tuition and room and board for the athletes. The university makes money on it, but the athletic department does not.

3. I'm getting the impression you're talking about revenue earned by the university as a whole. Like the athletes are a net positive simply because their scholarship money is flowing to the university. That's just not how it works. Even if you considered that, you're not considering the incredible amount of dollars spent servicing this very small portion of the student body.

I don't think you're making sense here honestly. I agree that schools spending like drunken sailors is absurd, but I disagree that they could have managed their money better going into Covid. No business is equipped to have the bottom drop out completely and make no changes.

Does the athletic department pay for the medical insurance and IPERS contribution also?

 

[hawkedoff]

I'm honestly confused by the point you're even making here.

1. From an accounting perspective, the athletic department is completely separate from the university. Like it or not that's a fact.

2. Due to that fact, the athletic department pays the tuition and room and board for the athletes. The university makes money on it, but the athletic department does not.

3. I'm getting the impression you're talking about revenue earned by the university as a whole. Like the athletes are a net positive simply because their scholarship money is flowing to the university. That's just not how it works. Even if you considered that, you're not considering the incredible amount of dollars spent servicing this very small portion of the student body.

I don't think you're making sense here honestly. I agree that schools spending like drunken sailors is absurd, but I disagree that they could have managed their money better going into Covid. No business is equipped to have the bottom drop out completely and make no changes.

1. No. It is not separate from University as a whole. They have separated in their books for political purposes but the athletic department is as much a part of the University as any other part. The law school has their own budget as well but you wouldn't argue they are separate from the University.

2. Think carefully about what you just wrote. The University makes money off of the students being a part of those programs but the athletic department does not. That is a paper transfer type of argument. This is exactly the point. Why do you think the group trying to save these sports are asking for them to be separated from the athletic department? You just illustrated why.

3. Yes. But it isn't just scholarship money. Most of these students in these sports have zero scholarships or small partial scholarships. That means they make up the difference in their turion and room and board out if their own pocket. If you want to see the profitability of the swimming program to the university you need to account for all revenue minus expenses not just revenue from something like gate receipts. Look at the entire revenue produced by having these students, many of which are out of state students and pay higher costs, on campus. Would they be here without the sport?

The spending side is out of control and has been allowed to happen due to football money. Football shouldn't suffer for that but at the same time each of these programs needs to be reviewed as to the total cost and revenues produced for the University as a whole. Budgets need to reflect that for these programs including salaries. Don't grow the budget beyond the total positive value of the program to the university.

No to little effort for example is made for things like summer camps in these sports at the UI. They have some things but they are missing a huge revenue opportunity that the UI is in a unique position to offer. Why is that? Football money made them think it wasn't worth it. It is worth it because we have sink costs into those programs that are sitting idle.

 

[anon_bb9wlf9kj42py]

1. No. It is not separate from University as a whole. They have separated in their books for political purposes but the athletic department is as much a part of the University as any other part. The law school has their own budget as well but you wouldn't argue they are separate from the University.

What political purposes?

I wouldn't argue the law school is separate because it's getting it's funding from normal university sources, tuition and fees. The employees in the law school are paid by those same sources.

That isn't the case in the athletic department.

3. Yes. But it isn't just scholarship money. Most of these students in these sports have zero scholarships or small partial scholarships. That means they make up the difference in their turion and room and board out if their own pocket. If you want to see the profitability of the swimming program to the university you need to account for all revenue minus expenses not just revenue from something like gate receipts. Look at the entire revenue produced by having these students, many of which are out of state students and pay higher costs, on campus. Would they be here without the sport?

The spending side is out of control and has been allowed to happen due to football money. Football shouldn't suffer for that but at the same time each of these programs needs to be reviewed as to the total cost and revenues produced for the University as a whole. Budgets need to reflect that for these programs including salaries. Don't grow the budget beyond the total positive value of the program to the university.

No to little effort for example is made for things like summer camps in these sports at the UI. They have some things but they are missing a huge revenue opportunity that the UI is in a unique position to offer. Why is that? Football money made them think it wasn't worth it. It is worth it because we have sink costs into those programs that are sitting idle.

This is probably our biggest disagreement here. The revenue from partial scholarships will not come close to covering the costs of the students. They still demand all the same student services as regular students. They get many perks from being a student athlete. Their coaches and trainers are highly paid. I'm not saying that these student athletes are unworthy of their scholarships or that they are lessor than other sports, it's just that I don't think you're thinking through how expensive it is to operate a college athletics program.

As to camps, there is very little value there in today's world. Most athletes willing to pay for a camp are in some type of program locally. There is another reason why they stopped doing them - interest.

 

[Franisdaman]

Court grants injunction in Title IX case, blocks University of Iowa from dropping women's swim team
William MorrisHillary Ojeda
Hawk Central
Dec 22, 2020

A federal judge announced Tuesday she will grant an injunction blocking the University of Iowa from dropping women's swimming for the 2021-2022 school year.

The decision by District Judge Stephanie Rose came at the end of a two-day hearing on a Title IX complaint filed by four female Hawkeye athletes. The four, all members of the swimming team, said the university is violating Title IX, exacerbating the already fewer opportunities for women athletes by dropping women's swimming and diving teams, according to the lawsuit.

A university statement issued in response argues the institution is not violating Title IX, a law requiring that it offer equal educational opportunities, and cites a 2019 review by the Office of Civil Rights. University officials say the cuts are needed to help balance an estimated athletics department budget hole of $55 million to $65 million caused by lost ticket sales and other revenue because of COVID-19.

The preliminary injunction was needed, according to the plaintiffs, because the team will suffer irreparable harm if the university is allowed to move forward with its plan to drop the team while the case works its way through the court. Already, four of the team's six coaches and 15 of the 35 members of the women’s swimming team have taken new jobs or committed to another school starting next semester or next year. An additional four are in transfer portals, according to the lawsuit.

After two days of testimony, including from a former University of Texas athletics director brought in to review the university's Title IX compliance, the judge called it "a very difficult case" but said she believes the balance of harms and the public interest weigh in favor of granting the injunction.

"When you’re riding as close to the Title IX compliance line as the university has been ... when a crisis hits, options become pretty limited" for the school to react, Rose said.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for Southern Iowa in September, the complaint seeks to have the university reinstate the teams and create additional sports for women.

Freshman Alexa Puccini, sophomore Christina Kaufman and seniors Sage Ohlensehlen and Kelsey Drake are the plaintiffs in the case.

Ohlensehlen and Puccini testified Friday and shared their stories of dreaming of swimming at an institution like Iowa's and their heartbreak of seeing their team slowly "falling apart."

The university said there is one more year of competition left; therefore, reinstatement is not possible at this time, according to the statement it released in response to the complaint.

Iowa athletic director Gary Barta announced in August that the university would be cutting three men's sports and one women's sport starting after this academic year because of financial losses caused by the pandemic.

Cutting men's gymnastics, men's tennis and men's swimming, in addition to the women's swimming and diving teams will affect 64 male and 38 female athletes.

"These decisions can be undone, but only within a certain time period," the plaintiffs wrote in their motion for a preliminary injunction. "Two swimmers already left at the beginning of the year once they heard the termination news."

Court grants injunction in Title IX case, blocks University of Iowa from dropping women's swim team

The University of Iowa sought to drop four athletic programs to offset budget hit from COVID-19.

www.hawkcentral.com

 

[IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life]

This lawsuit is a joke. It's one thing to try and save swimming and diving, but to force the universities hand by making them add additional women's sports via a lawsuit is a joke.