UPDATE: Court Injunction BLOCKS Iowa from Dropping Women's Swimming for 2021-2022 School Year after 4 Iowa Women Swimmers filed Title IX lawsuit
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
Iowa had no problem staying even until COVID. That's pushing a lot of departments in the red, or further in the red. I think you're being unfair on that comparison.
D3 comparisons are stupid because those athletes don't get scholarships. It's utterly absurd to compare.
Every athlete "brings in revenue" to the university via tuition. Nobody is arguing otherwise. What you fail to address is the obscene costs associated with the travel and everything else related. That part isn't revenue neutral and you know it, and apparently you're also brainwashed to think otherwise.
Literally every college does this. It's how the whole thing works. Honestly I am fully convinced you're just a troll.
The obscene costs that division three manages just fine within their business model. As does places like UNI.
The only one brainwashed is you. You are so conditioned to believe these sports are lesser and couldn't support themselves you turn your brain off. All of these other places make it work where they don't have 50 million coming in tv revenue and have zero gate receipts to speak of and yet the big power schools with immense budgets can't make it work. The truth is they don't want to make it work.
These other schools look at their entire budget inclusive of athletics and recognize that they are net positive by pushing athletics. In fact the division three schools would for the most part disappear without athletics to balance their books because these students are seen as what their presence brings in total revenue. By the way there are lots of scholarships at these schools but since you can't move beyond the silo of athletics budget you don't count that money against the budget when in reality it should when looking at the total profit loss.
Big schools like Iowa have been allowed to be lazy in their approach and have played this game with politicians in order to say athletics doesn't get any tax dollars. They should have had the expectation for these other programs contribute to the bottom line but also should be looking at these programs as a total profit/loss to the University budget. Most have very few scholarships when compared to the total number if people on the team. Mens track and field and cross country has I believe a total of 12 to cover the entire program. A kid might be in scholarship but it isn't much. The only male athletes that get full rides are in basketball and football. If you look at the revenue produced by the entire team in terms of tuition, room and board, and fees vs the cost of scholarships the school would be net positive on the student cost. The coaching cost and other expenses like travel may push that budget into negative territory and that is where schools like Iowa have gotten fat and lazy off of football money. There are ways to offset those costs that haven't ever really been tried because...football money. Or they used to be done and they quit doing it because football money. Overall these coaches and athletes need to be advocates for their sport and build their brand and have done nothing there because football money.
You want to call names and whatever then good for you. These sports make money in other parts of the world meaning there is an appetite out there if you are willing to work for it. Universities haven't because they are riding the football budget. We have junior hockey that was making it in cedar rapids. Essentially high school kids from elsewhere playing hockey in a nonhockey place are making it but Iowa baseball can't make money? Seriously?
Take a step back and really look at it. There is zero reason other than effort that many of these programs can't be viable and self supporting.
Irs how the whole thing works that is the problem. That is the entire issue.
Even with all that said, if the university “doesn’t want to make it work”, why shouldn’t that be the university’s right to choose in how it manages itself. There are a lot of sports or academic majors that the university could have but doesn’t. University leadership is tasked with making those decisions. There is no god given right that the university should have to pay for swimming coaching and travel.
As for the judges ruling, I guess I don’t understand it. Is the school in compliance with Title IX or not? I thought they were and it looks like they cut more men’s scholarships than women’s by far, so how would this take them out of compliance?
We will lose over 50 million this year alone. Why is axing a sport we cannot afford a terrible decision? Barta said early on the cancellations are in compliance with Title 19. Hopefully he was right
I was thinking the same thing based on the numbers reported in the Press-Citizen article:
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.
But this is just reporting the number of people affected. I believe athletes in these sports can receive partial scholarships. So if for example all the women were on full scholarship and all the men were on half; the athletic department could have cut more womens funding than mens.
True. I don’t think a ton of Gary Barta, but I would expect the compliance group at Iowa would have triple checked this to make sure it didn’t take them out of compliance. That’s where I’m a bit skeptical of how they would be violating Title IX here.
If I'm reading things correctly, the lawsuit claims:
1. The University of Iowa was not in compliance with Title IX at the time that the lawsuit was filed. Specifically, the level of participation by women in sports at UI was not appropriate when compared to the level of participation by men in sports at UI. It is my understanding that Title IX requires the participation levels to be "substantially similar" to the enrollment statistics. For example, if the undergraduate enrollment statistics show 51% women/49% men, then the level of athletic participation has be be "substantially similar."
2. Even after cutting men's swimming and diving, men's tennis, men's gymnastics and women's swimming and diving, men will have a disproportionate share of athletic participation when compared to the ratio of of women/men in overall undergraduate population.
3. If the women's swimming and diving team is reinstated OR additional women's sport(s) are added (assuming sufficient roster spots for women), the UI will be in compliance with Title IX.
I don't disagree, but what then is sort of cool, is the Ivy league still functions like that. So when I see them in one of the NCAA tournies, you sort of root for them.
Until you realize we will probably end up working for them in the near future.
This is where it would be helpful to have reporters speak to attorneys who have actually read the filings and have an understanding of what is being alleged/sought and the arguments presented by both sides.
I literally finished reading the UI's response in opposition to the request for injunction about 15 minutes ago.
According to the UI, by cutting the men's teams and women's teams, it expected that - for the 2021-2022 season, there will be 336 male participants (47.2%) and 376 female participants (52.8%). The total undergraduate population for 2020-2021 was 9,733 males (45.8%) and 11,501 females (54.2%). Thus, it expects to be within 1.4% of "matching" the 20-21 ratio. The UI wrote that it would take merely adding 21 female participants to meet the 20-21 ratio exactly. The UI also argued that Title IX doesn't require meeting the ratio "exactly" but "substantially" and that a 1.4% difference constitutes "substantial compliance."
The plaintiffs argued that - even though it took issue with the numbers provided by the UI (they argued that the UI inflated the number of actual women participating on the rowing team) - if the court enjoined the UI from eliminating the women's swimming/diving team, it would be in compliance with Title IX because the women's swimming/diving team involved 38 female athletes. If the UI only needed to add 21 female participants to achieve compliance, 38 female swimmers/divers gets them exactly where they need to be.
From a historical perspective, Title IX was enacted to expand opportunities for women in collegiate sports. There has been litigation where courts have been somewhat hostile to the idea that cutting men's sports to bring a school into Title IX compliance. Reason being that cutting men's sports is anathema to the concept of "expanding" opportunities for women.
Interesting, thanks for that. Do you know if “participants” means full scholarships, athletes getting any scholarship money, or just anyone participating (including walk-ons)? If if is just anyone participating, I wonder the extent UI allows / disallows walk-ons in each sport.
A couple of other interesting things, I thought UI passed a Title IX audit recently, which would have been presumably with a higher % of male athletes (before these cuts go into effect). It does seem weird that UI would cut the sport and then say they need to add female participants. I also didn’t realize how much the undergrad population is now skewing female.
Of course the University can make that decision but then they should own it. Saying that the money isn't there at a place like Clemson where their track program has produced a ridiculous number of olympic gold medalist all the while Dani makes 9m a year seems a bit off. It is an untrue statement. Especially if they haven't tried anything else.
If they simply want to cut swimming then say we aren't going to offer this any longer not we can't afford to offer this any longer.
I see this type of thing argued at the macro level and I get that may be the only way to approach compliance. Then again men are now in the minority on school campuses and the majority is arguing they are being oppressed. Interesting juxtaposition on title 9 don't you think? I wonder what happens when men start suing over things like female only scholarships or extra free tutoring for women.
Words cannot describe how much I love the University of Iowa and Iowa City and how much I hate University Administration. They operate an "us against them" system where they position themselves against faculty, students, and community. This started about 14-15 years ago and it is ruining reputation and quality of education at OUR University.
you mean the same UNI that gets state money and is about out of business because they can't afford it?
So your plan ist to reduce the spending on one of the two or three sports that MAKE money to enhance the money pit that is womens swimming? Do you realize that football, mens basketball and sometimes wrestling are the only sports that brings in money for the other sport teams? To hurt football is to kill womens and most mens sports
