President Kennedy Message on Athletics

[The Sicatoka]

Sticking all of the $2.3 million expense for use of the REA facilities under just MIH when WIH, MBB, WBB, WVB, and WSoc all use the facility (admittedly to varying degrees) is a gross misrepresentation of reality.

I'm not sure that would pass muster with any GAAP audit. 

[UND-1]

2 hours ago, BIGSIOUX said:

i guess i read her comment as to say " jeez, if we move those expenses to the womens sports, we may be able to justify less womens activities."  

As I read it again, it seemed like that as well.  She was actually kind of saying that if they reported it the way they are supposed to then Womens sports numbers will look worse and probably justify some cutting or whatever.   I am sure she is not happy about that.  

[UNDvince97-01]

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

The books have been cooked for quite some time. 

They have hidden womens expenses buried all over the place and most of them are being put on the mens side in order to not be labeled as "hyper-compliant".

It's as obvious as ever that we indeed are exactly that - "hyper-compliant".

It will only become more obvious as we move along here...

[RD17]

Analyzing some information from different sources:

• UND's student body is 53.8% male Source
• 50.5% of all scholarship $ go to female student-athletes Source
• In 2015 51.7% of all student-athletes on UND campus were male Source on page 41

Why is the above information important? Because this proves that under the proportionality "prong" of Title IX Source, males are actually the under-represented sex. Which then leads us to....

UND cutting two men's sports last spring. Even with golf being reinstated, baseball was cut, eliminating 30 male student-athletes. Using the same numbers from above, this drops the percentage of male student athletes on campus to 48.9%. 

The three prongs of Title IX read as follows (one of which must be satisfied):

• Provide athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the undergraduate enrollment.

• Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex.

• Fully accommodate the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

Remember, Title IX works both ways folks. Did UND set itself up for a potential Title IX lawsuit by eliminating baseball? I would say yes, based on the fact that the school does not meet any of the three prongs to be in compliance.

The bigger question is, did our athletic department leadership or interim president even consider any of this when choosing to cut sports? 

[The Sicatoka]

"Substantially proportionate" does not mean exact numbers match. It means as close as you can reasonably estimate year to year undergraduate enrollment fluctuations. But, to your point, moving the fraction of athletic opportunities away from the fraction of men on campus is good for a question. 

[jdub27]

39 minutes ago, RD17 said:

Analyzing some information from different sources:

• UND's student body is 53.8% male Source
• 50.5% of all scholarship $ go to female student-athletes Source
• In 2015 51.7% of all student-athletes on UND campus were male Source on page 41

Why is the above information important? Because this proves that under the proportionality "prong" of Title IX Source, males are actually the under-represented sex. Which then leads us to....

UND cutting two men's sports last spring. Even with golf being reinstated, baseball was cut, eliminating 30 male student-athletes. Using the same numbers from above, this drops the percentage of male student athletes on campus to 48.9%. 

The three prongs of Title IX read as follows (one of which must be satisfied):

• Provide athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the undergraduate enrollment.

• Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex.

• Fully accommodate the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

Remember, Title IX works both ways folks. Did UND set itself up for a potential Title IX lawsuit by eliminating baseball? I would say yes, based on the fact that the school does not meet any of the three prongs to be in compliance.

The bigger question is, did our athletic department leadership or interim president even consider any of this when choosing to cut sports? 

Your points are all valid and accurate in regards to scholarships but you also need to look at how much money is spent on programs, not just scholarships when factoring this in. This is why the public revelation that all the REA/Betty expenses are being allocated to the MH team is somewhat important as it makes it appear that men's sport have higher expenses than they should. Of course, then you get into Tiering, which is my guess to why women's hockey has the budget it does (offsetting the men's program being in the "top tier" of support).

UND is currently in compliance with all 3 prongs of Title IX (hyper-compliance as some would say). These issues were most definitely addressed when looking at what sports would be cut, though one could likely argue that it was done with information that may not have told a completely accurate story.

[The Sicatoka]

40 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

UND is currently in compliance with all 3 prongs of Title IX (hyper-compliance as some would say). 

Can you really claim that for prong three (interests and abilities)? I mean, I don't know of any highly scientific polling done on to a broad campus audience recently (unlike what is surely done with great diligence by folks that use prong three elsewhere). 

[jdub27]

19 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Can you really claim that for prong three (interests and abilities)? I mean, I don't know of any highly scientific polling done on to a broad campus audience recently (unlike what is surely done with great diligence by folks that use prong three elsewhere). 

I don't know the exact methodology used and maybe it isn't as specific as other schools (and I use that term very loosely), but I believe they are in compliance across the board whether it be officially or not, which is well beyond what they need to be. I'll point out that as previously stated, the third prong is not something that UND relies on nor do they plan on doing so because the methodology can be very flawed and almost impossible to defend, however I believe it to be more of a function of being in compliance with the other prongs than anything.

[geaux_sioux]

2 hours ago, RD17 said:

Analyzing some information from different sources:

• UND's student body is 53.8% male Source
• 50.5% of all scholarship $ go to female student-athletes Source
• In 2015 51.7% of all student-athletes on UND campus were male Source on page 41

Why is the above information important? Because this proves that under the proportionality "prong" of Title IX Source, males are actually the under-represented sex. Which then leads us to....

UND cutting two men's sports last spring. Even with golf being reinstated, baseball was cut, eliminating 30 male student-athletes. Using the same numbers from above, this drops the percentage of male student athletes on campus to 48.9%. 

The three prongs of Title IX read as follows (one of which must be satisfied):

• Provide athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the undergraduate enrollment.

• Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex.

• Fully accommodate the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

Remember, Title IX works both ways folks. Did UND set itself up for a potential Title IX lawsuit by eliminating baseball? I would say yes, based on the fact that the school does not meet any of the three prongs to be in compliance.

The bigger question is, did our athletic department leadership or interim president even consider any of this when choosing to cut sports? 

I can only give you a single +1 so I hope this will do.

[RD17]

On 9/13/2016 at 1:43 PM, The Sicatoka said:

"Substantially proportionate" does not mean exact numbers match. It means as close as you can reasonably estimate year to year undergraduate enrollment fluctuations. But, to your point, moving the fraction of athletic opportunities away from the fraction of men on campus is good for a question. 

No, what UND did does not meet the definition of substantially proportionate. To clarify, the standard is as follows: (page 30)

Quote

OCR's explanation is that participation is considered substantially proportionate to enrollment when the number of opportunities that would be required to achieve substantial proportionality is not sufficient to sustain a viable team. A viable team is loosely defined as a team for which there is a sufficient number of interested and able students and enough available competition to sustain an intercollegiate team (p. 2).

How the definition has been applied in the real world: link

Quote

In a letter dated August 24, 2000, the Office for Civil Rights advised officials at the University of Wisconsin that, based on its deviation of 2.89 percentage points (involving an enrollment of women of 52.96% compared with their intercollegiate athletic participation of 50.07%), it failed to comply with its commitment in a plan submitted to OCR to meet the first prong of the three-part test. In this letter, the Office for Civil Rights stated the deviation represented as many as 46 participation opportunities for women, which would be sufficient to sustain the addition of a viable women’s team. In short, if one gender represents 50% of a student body, its representation among varsity athletes must approximate 50%.

Remember, before baseball was cut males were already the under-represented sex when it comes to percentage of student-athletes on campus. It could be argued that UND actually needed to add another men's sport to meet the OCR's definition of substantially proportionate since the addition of 22 men's opportunities would have made the percentage of male student-athletes 53.7%.

Or alternatively- since the budget is an issue- a female sport should have been cut. Cutting soccer or softball (both have 22 players) would have left UND with 53.9% male student-athletes which would easily have met the standard of substantial proportionality.

 

[RD17]

23 hours ago, jdub27 said:

Your points are all valid and accurate in regards to scholarships but you also need to look at how much money is spent on programs, not just scholarships when factoring this in. This is why the public revelation that all the REA/Betty expenses are being allocated to the MH team is somewhat important as it makes it appear that men's sport have higher expenses than they should. Of course, then you get into Tiering, which is my guess to why women's hockey has the budget it does (offsetting the men's program being in the "top tier" of support).

UND is currently in compliance with all 3 prongs of Title IX (hyper-compliance as some would say). These issues were most definitely addressed when looking at what sports would be cut, though one could likely argue that it was done with information that may not have told a completely accurate story.

I agree that the revelation of the expenses being allocated incorrectly is important. There is nothing that says equivalent men's and women's sports must be in the same tier, although the overall opportunities within each tier must be similar.

Please see my other post on why I don't agree that UND is in compliance. There is no such thing as "hyper-compliance" with prong one. I believe "hyper-compliance" is code word for "let's give women's sports more numbers than deserved because no one cares if we screw over the men's sports."

[UNDBIZ]

4 minutes ago, RD17 said:

I agree that the revelation of the expenses being allocated incorrectly is important. There is nothing that says equivalent men's and women's sports must be in the same Tier, although the overall opportunities within each tier must be similar.

Please see my other post on why I don't agree that UND is in compliance. There is no such thing as "hyper-compliance" with prong one. I believe "hyper-compliance" is code word for "let's give women's sports more numbers than deserved necessary because no one cares if we screw over the men's sports."

That's exactly what it means.  And it's true, discrimination against males is allowed and occasionally encouraged in today's society.

[Oxbow6]

42 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

...discrimination specifically against white males is allowed and strongly encouraged in today's society.

FYP

[farce poobah]

On 9/13/2016 at 11:10 AM, The Sicatoka said:

Sticking all of the $2.3 million expense for use of the REA facilities under just MIH when WIH, MBB, WBB, WVB, and WSoc all use the facility (admittedly to varying degrees) is a gross misrepresentation of reality.

I'm not sure that would pass muster with any GAAP audit. 

 

On 9/13/2016 at 11:28 AM, UNDvince97-01 said:

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

The books have been cooked for quite some time. 

They have hidden womens expenses buried all over the place and most of them are being put on the mens side in order to not be labeled as "hyper-compliant".

It's as obvious as ever that we indeed are exactly that - "hyper-compliant".

It will only become more obvious as we move along here...

This may be why Kennedy moved the Finance person out from the Athletic Department ... 

[SIOUXFAN97]

talked to a major donor of the golf program yesterday...he gave a large number years ago to keep golf around but he said he gave again this time but not as much as last time...ironically when i asked him about this he only said "i'm still waiting for the professors out there to get back to teaching."

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

11 minutes ago, SIOUXFAN97 said:

talked to a major donor of the golf program yesterday...he gave a large number years ago to keep golf around but he said he gave again this time but not as much as last time...ironically when i asked him about this he only said "i'm still waiting for the professors out there to get back to teaching."

Meh...needs context.  Is this another tired, genericized, cliche criticism of higher ed, or does he have a legitimate point to make?  If it's residual nickname butthurt, well, that is self-explanatory.

[SIOUXFAN97]

1 hour ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

Meh...needs context.  Is this another tired, genericized, cliche criticism of higher ed, or does he have a legitimate point to make?  If it's residual nickname butthurt, well, that is self-explanatory.

he was a sioux guy that wanted Roughriders but is ok with hawks...he was just kinda saying don't ask for any more money if your gonna keep hiring 5 ta's for every professor and have aperson with the title "diversity and inclusion"...i just found it odd that instead of talking sports he changed the subject to the academic side...

[Goon]

On 9/12/2016 at 11:42 PM, Siouxphan27 said:

I'm apparently too dumb to even figure out what her point is. 

Me three. 

[SIOUXFAN97]

if the only good thing that comes out of this committee is irle looking dumb i'm all for it...

[bison73]

On 9/13/2016 at 11:28 AM, UNDvince97-01 said:

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

The books have been cooked for quite some time. 

They have hidden womens expenses buried all over the place and most of them are being put on the mens side in order to not be labeled as "hyper-compliant".

It's as obvious as ever that we indeed are exactly that - "hyper-compliant".

It will only become more obvious as we move along here...

Gee when I posted something in that  regard you would have thought it was the Nuremberg trials considering the reaction.

Yep more to come.

[CMSioux]

7 hours ago, bison73 said:

Gee when I posted something in that  regard you would have thought it was the Nuremberg trials considering the reaction.

Yep more to come.

That is bcause we don't like anyone with bison in their name sorry it is taking so long to sink in.

[UNDvince97-01]

9 hours ago, bison73 said:

Gee when I posted something in that  regard you would have thought it was the Nuremberg trials considering the reaction.

Yep more to come.

So way back when, you were saying womens athletic expenses were being hidden on the mens athletic expense side to avoid being hyper-compliant for Title IX?

Can you show me where that was?  I don't seem to remember that, but I certainly could have missed it. 

Or do you have your information mixed up again?

[UND-1]

9 hours ago, bison73 said:

Gee when I posted something in that  regard you would have thought it was the Nuremberg trials considering the reaction.

Yep more to come.

Slow your roll.  NDSU's time is coming due to cuts having to made public. They have been cooking their books since the Chapman days.

Is the President still shifting money from the dining budget surplus to athletics to cover the deficit?  Kind of annual event down there.

[Bison Dan]

1 hour ago, UND-1 said:

Slow your roll.  NDSU's time is coming due to cuts having to made public. They have been cooking their books since the Chapman days.

Is the President still shifting money from the dining budget surplus to athletics to cover the deficit?  Kind of annual event down there.

BS. 1.4 M deficit for only 2015? Right. Been happening every year since D1.

[UND-1]

15 minutes ago, Bison Dan said:

BS. 1.4 M deficit for only 2015? Right. Been happening every year since D1.

What are you talking about?  Stay focused.