If one has only one thing to say about the NCAA, let it be that they have always tried their hardest to keep up the charade.
The charade, of course, is that they are an organization that extols the virtues of higher learning through athletics. We hear from the NCAA on the business side of college athletics, but even more in their role as the "enforcer" of the rules agreed upon by schools across the country. You know, the rules that supposedly keep the playing field level. Terms you might have heard about include APR, secondary violation, and the Horizon League office favorite, "student-athlete." We're supposed to go along with the act, remember that these athletes who we pay to see aren't paid to entertain beyond a scholarship. We're supposed to go along with the NCAA when they condemn John Calipari's programs for committing violations just as soon as Calipari walks out the door, but don't go after the man himself. And we're supposed to believe that the NCAA was astonished to find out a bunch of Tar Heels were taking phantom classes like "Blacks in the Carolinas."
While we're throwing out terms, I'll give you another one.
Title IX.
Fans of college sports, especially the big ones (football, men's basketball, ice hockey, baseball and lacrosse, but really just the first two) curl their lips in disgust at the sound of the words. Those in favor of equality and women's rights champion the cause. It is misunderstood in a lot of ways by a lot of different people, but its truly is one of the better parts of the NCAA.
Of course, Title IX is not an NCAA bylaw. The relevant text:
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity."
What that means, at the end of the day, is that as long as college sports are attached to colleges, women need to have the same rights as men.
This has caused a lot of heartbreak in its 40 years, as the law has laid to waste many a men's program and budget for the big sports like football. Having to account for double the amount of scholarships has put the screws to a lot of good teams, especially baseball around us in the north. Cleveland State is recent and UNI is a familiar name, but Wisconsin's cut of baseball 20 years ago hits pretty close to home in our haughty older brother's room.
This is not women's fault, of course. It's 2012; they have every right to get the same opportunities as men, and personally I've been much better entertained by our women's volleyball and soccer programs than I have been by many men's sports in the area. But there's a lot of people who like to point to Title IX as the reason their school isn't able to do what it wants. Bucky fans point to Title IX and complain that they don't have baseball, UNO fans complain that they had to cut wrestling to move up to D-I, and here in Milwaukee, Title IX is the most talked-about reason that college football isn't played in Brew City.
And it's a load of hogwash.
Title IX has very little bearing on whether or not the Milwaukee Panthers play football. You may read this with a quizzical look, but I can tell you that Andy Geiger's quotes in Michael Hunt's story today, taken from his opening press conference when he was introduced as AD, were the words of a man who either wasn't educated on our unique situation or was hiding behind Title IX to avoid serious discussion of football. I'm going to take a wild guess and say it was the former, because everything I've come to know about Andy Geiger is that he's a straight shooter who isn't going to blow smoke up your you-know-what. If money's the problem, he'll tell you it's money. If Title IX were the real problem, he'd repeat his words today. But it's not (it's money, duh). Here's why.
Title IX, of course, is the law. The actual NCAA rule that came about concerns financial aid - the "be denied the benefits of" portion of the quote. Men's and women's sports can have widely disparate funding, and one look at basketball salaries will tell you that's true. What needs to be equal is the financial aid - scholarships, room and board, meal plans - across both genders. That rule is this:
The ratio of scholarships for women to men must be within five percent of their representation in the overall student body. That is, if you have 100 students at a school and 50 each are men and women, you need to have at least 45 percent of your scholarships going to women.
So what does that mean for Milwaukee? It means that the Panthers need to adhere to that five percent rule. They can't have the percentage of athletics scholarships get more than five percent from the percent of the university's student body, which is 51% female, 49% male. So the Panthers need at least 46% of their athletics scholarships to go to women.
Just what is the percentage right now, you ask? Well, put it this way: Milwaukee is one of, if not the most, Title IX compliant school in America. If one can assume that Milwaukee is offering the maximum amount of scholarships in each sport, then the Panthers are playing with 55.2 men's scholarships and 79 women's scholarships, which comes out to 59%, a full 13% more scholarships than needed to comply with the rules brought about by Title IX.
Of course, football has a lot of scholarships that would tip the scales. To play I-AA football - a level that would bring us up to peer athletics programs at North Dakota State, Old Dominion, Southern Illinois, Northern Iowa, Missouri State, Georgia State and UT-San Antonio - we would need to add 63 football scholarships. That is if we want to offer every scholarship that I-AA FCS football is allowed.
So what is the percentage then? Unfortunately, women's scholarships would make up only 40% and change, nearly a full six percent less than required.
But you know me, and you know I have ideas. Right now, baseball is a dying sport, especially in the north. The appearances in the College World Series by Kent State and Stony Brook really are a fairy tale, rarer than a mid-major in the Final Four. We have a dilapidated baseball field, and the way to make the team competitive is by sinking millions into a new playing facility. Even then the team won't be nationally relevant, not in the Horizon League, which is the equivalent of the men's basketball SWAC.
What if we made the ball bigger, the diamond smaller and the players more feminine?
Switching out baseball for softball is an even switch. Both sports take up 12 scholarships, so the move cuts out some spending (softball is cheaper overall than baseball), ends the need for a full-fledged baseball stadium, and brings the percentage to...
Just over 46%.
Does it solve the problem? No. Eventually we may want to go to I-A FBS. We may want to keep baseball.
But this at least puts to bed the notion that it's impossible because of Title IX.
vBulletin Message