ACC 'Expansion' Thoughts | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

ACC 'Expansion' Thoughts

dollarbill44 said:
Why the heck don't VT, BC, NCSU (or Wake) and Clemson add lax? Seems like they would be natural fits. UofL has a good women's team. Why don't they add men's? I can't believe we can't scrabble together enough teams from within.

Government regulation

They want 70% of college grads to be female I guess (since 60% are female now)

Title 9 had its place, that place is over and now colleges are hostile toward boys
 
Government regulation

They want 70% of college grads to be female I guess (since 60% are female now)

Title 9 had its place, that place is over and now colleges are hostile toward boys
Most schools are about ~55/~45 right now. UVa would be at least 70/30 without an affirmative action program that admits males. (They also admit they have one.) There's no government involvement about this now, so please spare us the "government is gunning for males" stuff. The admission "total packages" submitted by females are simply of better quality than those submitted by males.
 
The admission "total packages" submitted by females are simply of better quality than those submitted by males.
When I work college fairs (for Syracuse), I try to tell the guys that schools really aren't looking for kids that only play video games. Apparently, not all listen...
 
When I work college fairs (for Syracuse), I try to tell the guys that schools really aren't looking for kids that only play video games. Apparently, not all listen...
What? Do you expect kids to read books? Are you archaic? A relic from the past? You probably think kids should do homework and study, too. Don't you know that kids can learn everything they need to know from video games? (Sarcasm off)
 
Most schools are about ~55/~45 right now. UVa would be at least 70/30 without an affirmative action program that admits males. (They also admit they have one.) There's no government involvement about this now, so please spare us the "government is gunning for males" stuff. The admission "total packages" submitted by females are simply of better quality than those submitted by males.
Interesting. I'm not in higher education, so I wasn't aware of the huge discrepancy in numbers. In your opinion, is there still a need for Title IX then? If the college numbers are so heavily in favor of females, I would have expected women's sports to be more revenue-generating, obviating the need for government regulation of funding for women's sports. Or maybe, it is moving in that direction and just isn't there yet.
 
Interesting. I'm not in higher education, so I wasn't aware of the huge discrepancy in numbers. In your opinion, is there still a need for Title IX then? If the college numbers are so heavily in favor of females, I would have expected women's sports to be more revenue-generating, obviating the need for government regulation of funding for women's sports. Or maybe, it is moving in that direction and just isn't there yet.
Title IX is designed to protect any student facing any sort of discrimination by an academic institution receiving Federal money either directly (like research money) or through its students (like Pell Grants); it's not just designed for protecting women. The context that most of us view it is on sports boards discussing how opportunities for men are held back (expanding D-1 MLax) or sports are disbanded (wrestling) to help the athletic departments comply with Title IX that makes us think it's designed to protect women.

The leading cause of non-compliance by schools is the 65 or 85 scholarships for D-1 football (as well the other expenses it has). D-1 schools that don't have varsity football don't have deal with that handicap to compliance. Look at Marquette. It doesn't have a varsity football team, so I would be shocked if their men's and women's sports are not very close to being fully compliant with Title IX based on the male/female ratio of their students. The Ivies work on the D-3 model, so their athletes have to apply for financial aid through the regular process used by all students, eliminating the primary Title IX problem right there. Their Title IX problem is trying to get the expenditures for their sports programs to be relatively the same. For them, if they're maximizing the number of women's teams; giving them full access to all athletic department facilities; and allocating the women's teams a budget that funds just about any reasonable request, they should be OK in the eyes of the Department of Education, the Title IX enforcement arm.

Revenue generation has nothing to do with any aspect of Title IX. Senator John Tower of Texas tried to get football exempted from Title IX about the time it was enacted, primarily using the argument it made money and paid for everything else, and was turned down. Schools make money from their patents, but discrimination of any sort in that money-making area is not exempted from Title IX.
 
Title IX is designed to protect any student facing any sort of discrimination by an academic institution receiving Federal money either directly (like research money) or through its students (like Pell Grants); it's not just designed for protecting women. The context that most of us view it is on sports boards discussing how opportunities for men are held back (expanding D-1 MLax) or sports are disbanded (wrestling) to help the athletic departments comply with Title IX that makes us think it's designed to protect women.

The leading cause of non-compliance by schools is the 65 or 85 scholarships for D-1 football (as well the other expenses it has). D-1 schools that don't have varsity football don't have deal with that handicap to compliance. Look at Marquette. It doesn't have a varsity football team, so I would be shocked if their men's and women's sports are not very close to being fully compliant with Title IX based on the male/female ratio of their students. The Ivies work on the D-3 model, so their athletes have to apply for financial aid through the regular process used by all students, eliminating the primary Title IX problem right there. Their Title IX problem is trying to get the expenditures for their sports programs to be relatively the same. For them, if they're maximizing the number of women's teams; giving them full access to all athletic department facilities; and allocating the women's teams a budget that funds just about any reasonable request, they should be OK in the eyes of the Department of Education, the Title IX enforcement arm.

Revenue generation has nothing to do with any aspect of Title IX. Senator John Tower of Texas tried to get football exempted from Title IX about the time it was enacted, primarily using the argument it made money and paid for everything else, and was turned down. Schools make money from their patents, but discrimination of any sort in that money-making area is not exempted from Title IX.
Thanks, that's a lot of info. While true that Title IX is to protect against discrimination against any student, the impetus behind the law was gender equity. As it relates to athletics, the main thrust of the legislation is to provide equality in expenditures. Prior to Title IX, female participation in sports, particularly at the high school and college levels was miniscule. This is no longer the case. If all sports were able to self-fund the cost of coaches, staffs, uniforms, scholarships, etc, to match the demand of female athletes, this would be a moot point and athletics would not need to be included in Title IX. Hence why I mentioned the revenue-generating capacity of women's sports as that is fundamental to self-funding. I should have been more specific in that I meant to address Title IX only as it relates to athletics. I don't want to go too much deeper for fear of hijacking the thread further, although from what you said, the main reason that the ACC seemingly can't expand from within is that the member schools without a men's lax team can't afford to add a competitive one without falling (further) afoul under Title IX .
 
Thanks, that's a lot of info. While true that Title IX is to protect against discrimination against any student, the impetus behind the law was gender equity. As it relates to athletics, the main thrust of the legislation is to provide equality in expenditures. Prior to Title IX, female participation in sports, particularly at the high school and college levels was miniscule. This is no longer the case. If all sports were able to self-fund the cost of coaches, staffs, uniforms, scholarships, etc, to match the demand of female athletes, this would be a moot point and athletics would not need to be included in Title IX. Hence why I mentioned the revenue-generating capacity of women's sports as that is fundamental to self-funding. I should have been more specific in that I meant to address Title IX only as it relates to athletics. I don't want to go too much deeper for fear of hijacking the thread further, although from what you said, the main reason that the ACC seemingly can't expand from within is that the member schools without a men's lax team can't afford to add a competitive one without falling (further) afoul under Title IX .
Ignoring for the moment who has the money to do it, the ones standing the best chance Title IX-wise are Ga Tech and NC State, which are majority male schools because of their heavy emphasis on engineering programs. Supposedly Ga Tech is at least 75% male, and NC State is definitely over 50% male.

What's really daunting to me when I visit C'ville is that UVa's liberal arts was over 90% male when I was in school. It coeducated at the beginning of my 2nd year there.
 
The most likely targets are NCST, BC and Louisville. FSU & GA Tech are other options... I'll see if I can get the local radio crew to ask the GA Tech AD to comment on sports expansion, specifically Lacrosse.
 
The most likely targets are NCST, BC and Louisville. FSU & GA Tech are other options... I'll see if I can get the local radio crew to ask the GA Tech AD to comment on sports expansion, specifically Lacrosse.
Ga Tech was in the MCLA Final 4 this year. Lost to Chapman U of Cali.
 
The most likely targets are NCST, BC and Louisville. FSU & GA Tech are other options... I'll see if I can get the local radio crew to ask the GA Tech AD to comment on sports expansion, specifically Lacrosse.
VT, BC, and Louisville have women's teams, if that makes any difference.
 
VT, BC, and Louisville have women's teams, if that makes any difference.
It's likely to make it harder since they can't use adding a WLax team as a Title IX counterbalance to adding a MLax team. They'd have to add something else. That hurts using the Va Tech male majority to counteract Title IX requirements. Ga Tech and NC State are also engineering schools with a majority male student body. They can come closer to not going further in the Title IX hole by adding both teams.
 
Ga Tech was in the MCLA Final 4 this year. Lost to Chapman U of Cali.
It's played at my local high school. I always tend to see signage for the event when it's too late. :(
 
Wow - $13M facility for a club sport.

Yeah, very strange. A lot of money to throw into a building while not having any plan in place to advance the club team to a varsity program.
 
Yeah, very strange. A lot of money to throw into a building while not having any plan in place to advance the club team to a varsity program.

I cannot believe you dump that kind of $$$ on a facility without having a varsity program in mind.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,141
Messages
4,682,919
Members
5,901
Latest member
CarlsbergMD

Online statistics

Members online
30
Guests online
877
Total visitors
907


Top Bottom