Big Sky Athlete Stipends

[gfhockey]

Who loses more

Women's hockey or football

[niouxsiouxfan]

Football pays for itself nowhere save for a few P5 schools. Basketball is better because of far fewer scholarships.

Hockey pays for itself at a very very few unique places.

I understand what you are trying to debate. But I'm not saying scholarships will be paid for. We've moved up to D1, now things have changed and paying COA is a reality. That is what should be able to be paid for thru increased ticket revenue, gambling, donations... I just don't want to be waiting on other schools. Want to continue getting athletes from the TC area. Want to get an edge on NDSU, and once they start paying at least be ahead of them, and still be the better option? These are the times we are in. If we can't find the money, then I don't see us competing at the D1 level.

[fightingsioux4life]

I understand what you are trying to debate. But I'm not saying scholarships will be paid for. We've moved up to D1, now things have changed and paying COA is a reality. That is what should be able to be paid for thru increased ticket revenue, gambling, donations... I just don't want to be waiting on other schools. Want to continue getting athletes from the TC area. Want to get an edge on NDSU, and once they start paying at least be ahead of them, and still be the better option? These are the times we are in. If we can't find the money, then I don't see us competing at the D1 level.

This is the hard truth that Kelley and Faison (and some people on here) need to come to terms with.  If we wanted to run our programs on a shoestring budget, then we should have stayed D-II and joined the NSIC.

[Hammersmith]

 

Sorry for the ugly formatting, but ... 

 

 

Source: http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/pdf/sportslaw/spring07/art4.pdf

 

Basically that says when criteria for use of the third prong (interests and abilities survey) was loosened up, the NCAA was opposed. --> Urged members to decline use of the Additional Clarification (a.k.a. the third prong approach). 

 

Why were the NCAA and 140 Congressional representatives opposed to the survey approach? As it says,

 

129 womens athletes at NDSU (third prong: interests survey); over 200 at UND (first prong: proportionality). 

 

8 mens, 8 womens sports at NDSU; 10 mens, 11 womens sports at UND. 

 

Wow, not only did you totally misstate your source, you are also (exactly) five years out of date. Was that carelessness or a deliberate act?

 

Your source is from 2007 and is responding to a 2005 OCR Clarification from the Bush administration which significantly loosened the third prong. The 140 Democrats and the NCAA were not attacking the third prong, they were attacking this new Clarification. In fact, your source seems to favor the pre-2005 third prong. It mentions in several places that the courts do not favor institutions who rely solely on statistics to support their case.

 

Remember that the NDSU lawsuit came in the late-90s under the Clinton administration before the third prong was gutted in 2005. Besides that, the 2005 Clarification was revoked by a 2010 OCR letter under the Obama administration which restored the third prong to its former toughness. So your source is now completely meaningless to our discussion.

 

Here's my source. It's directly from the NCAA and incorporates the latest OCR rulings. It has no problem with the third prong.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4268-equity-and-title-ix-in-intercollegiate-athletics-a-practical-guide-for-colleges-and-universities-2012.aspx

 

And here's the 2010 OCR letter which completely invalidates your source: (five years ago today)

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20100420.html

[UND-1]

Wow, not only did you totally misstate your source, you are also (exactly) five years out of date. Was that carelessness or a deliberate act?

 

Your source is from 2007 and is responding to a 2005 OCR Clarification from the Bush administration which significantly loosened the third prong. The 140 Democrats and the NCAA were not attacking the third prong, they were attacking this new Clarification. In fact, your source seems to favor the pre-2005 third prong. It mentions in several places that the courts do not favor institutions who rely solely on statistics to support their case.

 

Remember that the NDSU lawsuit came in the late-90s under the Clinton administration before the third prong was gutted in 2005. Besides that, the 2005 Clarification was revoked by a 2010 OCR letter under the Obama administration which restored the third prong to its former toughness. So your source is now completely meaningless to our discussion.

 

Here's my source. It's directly from the NCAA and incorporates the latest OCR rulings. It has no problem with the third prong.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4268-equity-and-title-ix-in-intercollegiate-athletics-a-practical-guide-for-colleges-and-universities-2012.aspx

 

And here's the 2010 OCR letter which completely invalidates your source: (five years ago today)

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20100420.html

 

Why doesn't everyone use the third prong if it allows you to be that far out of 'compliance' as we understand it? 

[jdub27]

This is the hard truth that Kelley and Faison (and some people on here) need to come to terms with.  If we wanted to run our programs on a shoestring budget, then we should have stayed D-II and joined the NSIC.

 

You keep insisting that they are ignoring FCOA and trying to run the department on a shoestring budget.  I keep telling you that neither of those are true.  I know for a fact they have paid very, very close attention to FCOA.  That should be obvious since they are the only school in the area or conference that has announced they are paying it at some sort of level.  In terms of budget, they can only work with what they are provided.  This goes for all schools, not just UND.  Just because some of our friends from the south think and proclaim they are able to provide FCOA across the board with no issues doesn't make it so.  If it was that easy for them, they would have announced they were doing it immediately.  Everyone is in a wait and see mode because it costs real dollars to do this.  No one outside of the P5 schools particularly want to go down this path.  Outside of a very select few, athletic departments lose money (lots of it in some cases) and only look they way they do because they are subsidized heavily by the schools themselves, state funds and student fees.

 

Now all of that doesn't mean that UND can't and won't be able to offer FCOA even more so than they have already announced they will.  They will continue to look for ways to fund it at whatever level they need to.  They will continue to look for ways to strengthen the budget.  It may end up that UND needs to cut 1-2 sports.  At 21 sports, they sponsor significantly more than their peers (NDSU - 16, SDSU - 19, USD - 15, UM - 15, MSU - 15).

 

If you really are that concerned about this, I urge you to write an e-mail to Faison and Kelley expressing your sentiments. 

[fightingsioux4life]

You keep insisting that they are ignoring FCOA and trying to run the department on a shoestring budget.  I keep telling you that neither of those are true.  I know for a fact they have paid very, very close attention to FCOA.  That should be obvious since they are the only school in the area or conference that has announced they are paying it at some sort of level.  In terms of budget, they can only work with what they are provided.  This goes for all schools, not just UND.  Just because some of our friends from the south think and proclaim they are able to provide FCOA across the board with no issues doesn't make it so.  If it was that easy for them, they would have announced they were doing it immediately.  Everyone is in a wait and see mode because it costs real dollars to do this.  No one outside of the P5 schools particularly want to go down this path.  Outside of a very select few, athletic departments lose money (lots of it in some cases) and only look they way they do because they are subsidized heavily by the schools themselves, state funds and student fees.

 

Now all of that doesn't mean that UND can't and won't be able to offer FCOA even more so than they have already announced they will.  They will continue to look for ways to fund it at whatever level they need to.  They will continue to look for ways to strengthen the budget.  It may end up that UND needs to cut 1-2 sports.  At 21 sports, they sponsor significantly more than their peers (NDSU - 16, SDSU - 19, USD - 15, UM - 15, MSU - 15).

 

If you really are that concerned about this, I urge you to write an e-mail to Faison and Kelley expressing your sentiments. 

Ah yes, the all-purpose jdub27 solution to every problem, write e-mails.  But in all seriousness, I plan on doing just that.  I want us to get out in front of the situation and force our competitors to play catch-up with us for once.  I think a special fundraising campaign along the lines of the Champions Club is in order.  If Faison and Kelley were to announce their intentions to fund FCOA for our bedrock programs (MH, FB, WBB, MBB) and ask that boosters and alumni chip in whatever they can afford, I think there would be no shortage of boosters and alumni that would step up and deliver.  Our track record of raising financial support for stuff like this is very good and I don't see it changing for FCOA.  And it doesn't have to depend entirely on big money donors.  Remember, 1,000 people giving $100 each is the same as one person giving $100,000.  If you look at the Champions Club membership rolls, the Coaches Club is the largest and it's not even close (I am in the Coaches Club).  If we could establish an endowment for athletics to fund stuff like this, it will provide a steady stream of revenues that will help us cover the cost of all this.

 

I am looking at the long-term consequences, not the short-term.  Right now, it isn't a big problem.  In the future, it might become one when our coaches are trying to recruit top-notch athletes to come to Grand Forks.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Wow, not only did you totally misstate your source, you are also (exactly) five years out of date. Was that carelessness or a deliberate act?

 

I'm catching up on the reading. I only download the 2012 NCAA reference over the weekend and haven't started that. 

[jdub27]

fightingsioux4life, on 20 Apr 2015 - 12:09 PM, said:fightingsioux4life, on 20 Apr 2015 - 12:09 PM, said:

I want us to get out in front of the situation and force our competitors to play catch-up with us for once.  I think a special fundraising campaign along the lines of the Champions Club is in order.  If Faison and Kelley were to announce their intentions to fund FCOA for our bedrock programs (MH, FB, WBB, MBB) and ask that boosters and alumni chip in whatever they can afford, I think there would be no shortage of boosters and alumni that would step up and deliver.  Our track record of raising financial support for stuff like this is very good and I don't see it changing for FCOA.  And it doesn't have to depend entirely on big money donors.  Remember, 1,000 people giving $100 each is the same as one person giving $100,000.  If you look at the Champions Club membership rolls, the Coaches Club is the largest and it's not even close (I am in the Coaches Club).  If we could establish an endowment for athletics to fund stuff like this, it will provide a steady stream of revenues that will help us cover the cost of all this.

 

I am looking at the long-term consequences, not the short-term.  Right now, it isn't a big problem.  In the future, it might become one when our coaches are trying to recruit top-notch athletes to come to Grand Forks.

 

I fully support all of this.

 

 

And feel free to make fun of my comments about e-mailing or contacting the administration but I fully support people doing that (in a respectful manner of course).  How do you think that they get feedback on things?  It isn't by reading message boards.  People seem to think that they aren't approachable or they are impossible to get a hold of and it is quite the opposite.  While I haven't received a response on every single e-mail I've written, I know that they are read.  Does it make a ton of difference or "solve every problem"?  It isn't going to change the entire course of action but I know that it does make some difference, I have been told that.  I guess in my mind, its a solution that is much more worthwhile than complaining on a message board and then being shocked that somehow that opinion isn't taken into account.  I'm truly am glad you appreciate the situation enough to do so, I wish more people did the same.

[The Phoenix]

I do enjoy the wishful thinking that maybe NDSU will not do FCOA in football and MBB.  You can keep telling yourselves that if it makes you feel better.  Read what Dom Izzo is saying and others "in the know."  Much of the discussion (ie silence), currently, is likely about which sports and staying Title IX compliant.  

 

jdub and fightingsioux4life are correct; you are in big danger of becoming a hockey only competitive school when it comes to the big money sports.  If I was a fan of your school, I'd be burning up the e-mail/phone lines to your leadership.  It feels like 2003 all over again.

[The Sicatoka]

Admittedly just a cursory read through the NCAA document, but I find this interesting:

 

Prong 3 tests whether the institution is fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of the under-represented sex. The women whose interests and abilities are being assessed include currently enrolled female students and women who have been admitted but are not yet enrolled.

 

It is quite possible that an imbalance of participation opportunities exists (compared with enrollment figures) on a given campus, but that the imbalance may not reflect discrimination. In this instance, an institution must provide evidence that women’s interests and abilities are truly being fully and effectively accommodated. ... 

 

The interest at a specific university could be considered met when surveys indicate no interest to add or upgrade a sport to varsity status. Surveys should be conducted for the enrolled female student body, and especially among female club sport participants and intramural participants. The OCR also would expect surveys to include women already admitted to the university, but as yet not enrolled. If no individuals or no teams file the appropriate request to elevate or add a sport, and there is no other interest based on survey results, the interests are said to have been fully and effectively accommodated by the current varsity program.

 

 

 

When was the last survey done at NDSU? Did it include the very good womens club hockey team players and friends? 

 

The reading I have done about the third prong approach is that the survey results can easily be gamed by folks looking to do so. Also, the process allows for unreturned surveys to be tallied as "no interest" which seems sketchy at best. 

[Hammersmith]

Why doesn't everyone use the third prong if it allows you to be that far out of 'compliance' as we understand it?

 

Two main reasons. First, there was something of a misstatement in a letter that accompanied a 1996 OCR Clarification. It used the term "safe harbor" in regards to proportionality. On the surface, it made it sound like proportionality was "safe" and, by extension, the other two prongs were less so. That was an error on the part of OCR, but it caused a generation of athletic directors to head for proportionality because of the perceived safety. A 2003 Further Clarification tried to reverse the damage by making it clear that all three prongs were equally "safe harbors", but the damage was done. In the six years between clarifications, many schools had added women's sports or cut men's sports to comply with proportionality. They didn't want to reverse all that work, so they stayed with what they had. I think this mistaken belief is at the heart of the views of a couple outspoken posters on here.

 

The other reason is that it's harder. I believe that, when properly applied, the third prong leads to a result that is more within the spirit of Title IX than trying to use strict proportionality(especially when FB is involved). But you can't cut corners. That's what got NDSU in trouble back in the 90s. If you use the third prong, you'd better go above and beyond with the women's sports you do have. You better have a full slate of coaches and pay them well. You better give them good facilities and budgets. You definitely can't just pay lip service to Title IX. Some schools just aren't willing to make that commitment.

 

 

(btw OCR = US Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights)

 

 

The 2003 Further Clarification: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/title9guidanceFinal.html 

 

The transmittal letter accompanying the 1996 Clarification issued by the Department described only one of these three separate prongs - substantial proportionality - as a "safe harbor" for Title IX compliance. This led many schools to believe, erroneously, that they must take measures to ensure strict proportionality between the sexes. In fact, each of the three prongs of the test is an equally sufficient means of complying with Title IX, and no one prong is favored. The Department will continue to make clear, as it did in its 1996 Clarification, that “nstitutions have flexibility in providing nondiscriminatory participation opportunities to their students, and OCR does not require quotas.”

[The Sicatoka]

I do enjoy the wishful thinking that maybe NDSU will not do FCOA in football and MBB.  

 

That's about 75 scholarships between those two sports. You'll have to do wrestling also I'd expect. Can we say about 85 for the men? And double that to cover the women. Say $3000 per, that's an extra cool half a million dollars. Figure 5 home games, and 20000 seats per, or 100,000 stubs sold --> add $5 per stub, right? I assume none will balk at that. 

[FargoBison]

That's about 75 scholarships between those two sports. You'll have to do wrestling also I'd expect. Can we say about 85 for the men? And double that to cover the women. Say $3000 per, that's an extra cool half a million dollars. Figure 5 home games, and 20000 seats per, or 100,000 stubs sold --> add $5 per stub, right? I assume none will balk at that. 

 

I don't think it is a coincidence that suddenly a large chunk of seats required a team maker donation this year. 

[The Sicatoka]

 The other reason is that it's harder. I believe that, when properly applied, the third prong leads to a result that is more within the spirit of Title IX than trying to use strict proportionality. But you can't cut corners. That's what got NDSU in trouble back in the 90s. If you use the third prong, you'd better go above and beyond with the women's sports you do have. You better have a full slate of coaches and pay them well. You better give them good facilities and budgets. You definitely can't just pay lip service to Title IX. Some schools just aren't willing to make that commitment.

 

And you'd better make sure your surveys are accurate and reflect the (ever changing) interests and abilities of your student body and potential student body. 

 

As to the spirit (opportunities for women) of Title IX, I guess I struggle with that when I see 129 women competing in DI at NDSU while there are 282 men. (UND numbers: 205 women, 244 men) If that makes me a "first prong safe harbor thinker" I'm guilty. I guess I see it more as getting females onto the playing surface. 

[jdub27]

I do enjoy the wishful thinking that maybe NDSU will not do FCOA in football and MBB.  You can keep telling yourselves that if it makes you feel better.  Read what Dom Izzo is saying and others "in the know."  Much of the discussion (ie silence), currently, is likely about which sports and staying Title IX compliant.  

 

And I enjoy the wishful thinking that this won't be an issue for NDSU.  I mean, they are what, still almost $2 million short on paying for the football renovations done almost 10 years ago.  And what's the latest number on the shortfall for fundraising on the SHAC?  $5 or 6 million?  Or possibly even more.....?

 

But you can keep telling yourselves that this is no sweat at all if it makes you feel better.

[jdub27]

And you'd better make sure your surveys are accurate and reflect the (ever changing) interests and abilities of your student body and potential student body. 

 

As to the spirit (opportunities for women), I guess I struggle with that when I see 129 women competing in DI at NDSU while there are 282 men. (UND numbers: 205 women, 244 men) If that makes me a "first prong safe harbor thinker" I'm guilty. I guess I see it more as getting females onto the playing surface. 

 

One of the major tenets of Title IX is opportunities and equality within those opportunities.  Sure, the opportunities that are available may be on equal footing, but when the discrepancy between those numbers is so large, are there really equal opportunities?  And the tired old argument about being able to point at some of the successes on the women's side and claim that means things are being done right is completely inaccurate.  Title IX has nothing to do with success and everything to do with providing equal opportunities to be successful. 

[The Phoenix]

And I enjoy the wishful thinking that this won't be an issue for NDSU.  I mean, they are what, still almost $2 million short on paying for the football renovations done almost 10 years ago.  And what's the latest number on the shortfall for fundraising on the SHAC?  $5 or 6 million?  Or possibly even more.....?

 

But you can keep telling yourselves that this is no sweat at all if it makes you feel better.

 

What part of "Sicatoka Math 101" did you fail?  When you sell out your football games, and have 1000 person backlog for season tickets, you have options.  

[jdub27]

What part of "Sicatoka Math 101" did you fail?  When you sell out your football games, and have 1000 person backlog for season tickets, you have options.  

 

Quick question, how much money do you think NDSU is currently getting and will be able to get in the future from those people on the backlog for season tickets?  Here's a helpful hint since UND has had a waiting list for hockey tickets for years: Not much. 

[The Sicatoka]

Title IX has nothing to do with success and everything to do with providing equal opportunities to be successful. 

 

Title IX -- the actual words:

 

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 receiving federal financial assistance.

 

It only mentions participation, not outcomes (success or not). 

 

282 male NDSU students have opportunity to participate as DI athletes.

 

Just 129 female NDSU students have that participation opportunity.

 

 

(Again, for reference, UND numbers: 244 male, 205 female)

[jdub27]

 

The other reason is that it's harder. I believe that, when properly applied, the third prong leads to a result that is more within the spirit of Title IX than trying to use strict proportionality(especially when FB is involved). But you can't cut corners. That's what got NDSU in trouble back in the 90s. If you use the third prong, you'd better go above and beyond with the women's sports you do have. You better have a full slate of coaches and pay them well. You better give them good facilities and budgets. You definitely can't just pay lip service to Title IX. Some schools just aren't willing to make that commitment.

 

You can't really believe this can you?  Because its harder?  Come on.  Look at the levels that the P5 and G5 schools to do some of the things they do.  You think a survey is really that big of a barrier for them to not squeeze a few more dollars out of non-revenue programs if they were able to? 

 

Title IX is about equal opportunity and equality within those opportunities.  I won't argue one bit that NDSU provides the second part of the equation but the numbers clearly show they don't do the first, regardless of what some self monitored survey says.

[SiouxVolley]

Two main reasons. First, there was something of a misstatement in a letter that accompanied a 1996 OCR Clarification. It used the term "safe harbor" in regards to proportionality. On the surface, it made it sound like proportionality was "safe" and, by extension, the other two prongs were less so. That was an error on the part of OCR, but it caused a generation of athletic directors to head for proportionality because of the perceived safety. A 2003 Further Clarification tried to reverse the damage by making it clear that all three prongs were equally "safe harbors", but the damage was done. In the six years between clarifications, many schools had added women's sports or cut men's sports to comply with proportionality. They didn't want to reverse all that work, so they stayed with what they had. I think this mistaken belief is at the heart of the views of a couple outspoken posters on here.

The other reason is that it's harder. I believe that, when properly applied, the third prong leads to a result that is more within the spirit of Title IX than trying to use strict proportionality(especially when FB is involved). But you can't cut corners. That's what got NDSU in trouble back in the 90s. If you use the third prong, you'd better go above and beyond with the women's sports you do have. You better have a full slate of coaches and pay them well. You better give them good facilities and budgets. You definitely can't just pay lip service to Title IX. Some schools just aren't willing to make that commitment.

(btw OCR = US Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights)

The 2003 Further Clarification: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/title9guidanceFinal.html

Just keep deluding yourself that NDSU is fine shape with Title IX. The local courts opinion is what matters, not NDSU or the NCAAs or even the Office of Civil Rights from the Dept of Educ. Why did NDSU not fully fund football? Had 58 instead of 63, which barely qualified them as a counter for FBS. The answer I believe is Title XI, as not funding football to the max is a good defense for Title IX, as NDSU can plead poverty then by claiming its star program is underfunded. Larsen coming from Stony Brook has to be scared sh**less about Title IX compliance.

UCDavis had a complaint filed by women's wrestlers, who thought they were entitled to a team, but DI doesn't even sponsor it. The gals didn't get anything, but their lawyers got a $1.2 settlement. Granted it was a California court, but the conventional wisdom among the bisonville is that UND law grads have such low integrity that they will do anything to cause pain for NDSU. UND law grads run the ND court system.

[fightingsioux4life]

I fully support all of this.

 

 

And feel free to make fun of my comments about e-mailing or contacting the administration but I fully support people doing that (in a respectful manner of course).  How do you think that they get feedback on things?  It isn't by reading message boards.  People seem to think that they aren't approachable or they are impossible to get a hold of and it is quite the opposite.  While I haven't received a response on every single e-mail I've written, I know that they are read.  Does it make a ton of difference or "solve every problem"?  It isn't going to change the entire course of action but I know that it does make some difference, I have been told that.  I guess in my mind, its a solution that is much more worthwhile than complaining on a message board and then being shocked that somehow that opinion isn't taken into account.  I'm truly am glad you appreciate the situation enough to do so, I wish more people did the same.

"Making fun"?  I guess I am a little more skeptical of UND administration than you are, which is an honest difference of opinion.  But I do intend on e-mailing both Kelley and Faison about this issue because I think it is one of the cornerstone, bedrock issues facing our programs right now.

[The Sicatoka]

You can't really believe this can you?  Because its harder?  Come on.  Look at the levels that the P5 and G5 schools to do some of the things they do.  You think a survey is really that big of a barrier for them to not squeeze a few more dollars out of non-revenue programs if they were able to? 

 

Title IX is about equal opportunity and equality within those opportunities.  I won't argue one bit that NDSU provides the second part of the equation but the numbers clearly show they don't do the first, regardless of what some self monitored survey says.

 

And it's about perception, because that becomes reality. If the 129 v. 282 numbers were common knowledge, no matter the "third prong" compliance, NDSU would be taking some heat from parents with daughters and other advocacy groups. 

 

Ask yourself, which would you rather be when standing behind the mike and in front of the cameras:

 

"Sure we have less than half the number of female athletes as male athletes, but they have a well paid male coach and nice locker rooms"

or

"We have male/female participation numbers that correspond to our general enrollment population." 

 

The P5/G5 use the first prong for precisely that reason: public relations (aka perceptions). 

[FargoBison]

Just keep deluding yourself that NDSU is fine shape with Title IX. The courts opinion is what matters, not NDSU or the NCAAs. Why did NDSU not fully fund football? Had 58 instead of 63, which barely qualified them as a counter for FBS. The answer I believe is Title XI, as not funding football to the max is a good defense for Title IX.

UCDavis had a complaint filed by women's wrestlers, who thought they were entitled to a team, but DI doesn't even sponsor it. The gals didn't get anything, but their lawyers got a $1.2 settlement. Granted it was a California court, but the conventional wisdom among the bisonville is that UND law grads will do anything to cause pain for NDSU. UND law grads run the ND court system.

 

NDSU football wasn't fully funded because players left the team for various reasons. There are men's sports that are getting short changed scholarships but they aren't football or basketball or wrestling(which has its own endowment). 

 

NDSU best Title IX defense would be to open its books and show every women's sports is basically funded at the top of its conference and has facilities on par with the men's teams.