Whoever asked what the I-AA budget would be for the first few years⊠Who cares? Ya know? I mean, itâs going to be significantly cheaper, and everyone knows it. But if the goal ultimately is I-A football, then you just shoot for the top. Gotta lay it out there from the start so that people know what it is going to be for the long haul.
You can meet the Title IX limits in three different ways, he addressed it in his e-mail. Scholarship-for-Scholarship is only one way.
Another would be to prove that you are serving the female student population in terms of their interests, which would require surveys, etc. etc. If the interest for more sports than you already offer isnât there, then you can say you would offer it, but no one wants it so you donât.
Thatâs the hardest of the three prongs to prove, the stickiest, because if at some point a group of five or six females did come forward and say they wanted womenâs golf ⊠Since you wouldnât be even in dollars, then, I think at that point youâd have to start offering it. Or bowling, or any other NCAA sport they wanted.
Thatâs why most schools do scholarship-for-scholarship, because then they can offer what they want and only what they want, and say this is what we have an opportunities are even based on gender.
The other option would be to add those 38 womenâs scholarships in those three new sports, plus then add scholarships in other sports where weâre currently not maxed out. I canât imagine weâre maxed out to the limit for example in track & field. So letâs say you added 5 full equivalents there. Now youâre at 43 vs. 85 for football. Youâd still be 42 short ⊠which would leave you looking to possibly cut some menâs scholarships. I donât know the situation in terms of being maxed out for other sports, but I assume track is the only one currently getting short-changed. I could be wrong.
I think thatâs why he referenced the other ways to meet the requirement, becuase he realizes without cuts we canât add 85 new womenâs scholarships.
[B]IV. Summary of Final Policy Interpretation[/B]
The final Policy Interpretation clarifies the meaning of âequal opportunityâ in intercollegiate athletics. It explains the factors and standards set out in the law and regulation which the Department will consider in determining whether an institutionâs intercollegiate athletics program complies with the law and regulations. It also provides guidance to assist institutions in determining whether any disparities which may exist between menâs and womenâs programs are justifiable and nondiscriminatory. The Policy Interpretation is divided into three sections:
[LIST]
[]Compliance in Financial Assistance (Scholarships) Based on Athletic Ability: Pursuant to the regulation, the governing principle in this area is that all such assistance should be available on a substantially proportional basis to the number of male and female participants in the institutionâs athletic program.
[]Compliance in Other Program Areas (Equipment and supplies; games and practice times; travel and per diem, coaching and academic tutoring; assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors; locker rooms, and practice and competitive facilities; medical and training facilities; housing and dining facilities; publicity; recruitment; and support services): Pursuant to the regulation, the governing principle is that male and female athletes should receive equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities.
[*][B][COLOR=red]Compliance in Meeting the Interests and Abilities of Male and Female Students: Pursuant to the regulation, the governing principle in this area is that the athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated.[/COLOR][/B][/LIST][B]----------------[/B]
[B]§ 106.41 Athletics.[/B]
(a) [I]General.[/I] No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be treated differently from another person or otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics offered by a recipient, and no recipient shall provide any such athletics separately on such basis.
(b) [I]Separate teams.[/I] Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, a recipient may operate or sponsor separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport. However, where a recipient operates or sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex but operates or sponsors no such team for members of the other sex, and athletic opportunities for members of that sex have previously been limited, members of the excluded sex must be allowed to try-out for the team offered unless the sport involved is a contact sport. For the purposes of this part, contact sports include boxing, wrestling, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball and other sports the purpose or major activity of which involves bodily contact.
© [I]Equal opportunity.[/I] A recipient which operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics shall provide equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes. In determining whether equal opportunities are available the Director will consider, among other factors:
(1) Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;
(2) The provision of equipment and supplies;
(3) Scheduling of games and practice time;
(4) Travel and per diem allowance;
(5) Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring;
(6) Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
(7) Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;
(8) Provision of medical and training facilities and services;
(9) Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;
(10) Publicity.
Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams [B]will not constitute noncompliance with this section[/B], but the Assistant Secretary may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.