kikuria

10 minutes ago, UAFAN said:

Nothing to do with Title IX. Siena Basketball program(s) a disaster, and many programs non-competitive (see dropping of Field Hockey).

Thanks for the correction. My info came from a guy that was playing football at the time. When it impacts you directly, I suppose it can color your interpretation of what you're told.  Agreed on the disaster of Siena basketball. Which disappointments me insomuch as cross-town rivalry's are almost always good.

1 hour ago, UAFAN said:

Move to D3

I assume that you know that D3 has the same Title IX requirements for proportionality, right?   Siena's solution to their Title IX issue was to cut football and focus on basketball.  When we were D3 the school cut the wrestling team (among others) to do the same thing. 

D1 requires a minimum number of sports on both the men's and women's side so the AD already has his back up against a wall. There's not a lot of ways to fix that problem that doesn't include adding another sizable women's sport.  As much as they seem to be trying to avoid that.  

5 hours ago, UA1882 said:

Siena fans were ripping us for a minor title IX issue and now this happens. 

I LOVE IT!!! I truly despise those arrogant pompous delusional jerks over there. 

Respectfully, the Title IX violations are not minor as UAlbany was short 97 roster spots.  But those violations do PALE by comparison what's going on over at Siena. All we have to do is add another sport.  How do you fix THAT problem over there?

54 minutes ago, Clickclack said:

What are the terms of his contract? How many years etc? He's done some good things and some really strange things with some of the policy decision, Title IX etc. 

3 minutes ago, Dane96 said:

Unless that person was the sxhool President, I’m not buying it.  The President is not letting info like that leak.  

That said, not sure he had done enough to wipe away the title ix issue he inherited but, more importantly, not sure his ticket procedures gave us any leg up on finances.  Arguably, it’s been made worse

Jury still out.  

Came in 2014.  My understanding that's it's a 5 year and hasn't been extended yet.  @Dane96 Person is pretty well connected but I'm with you.   The person that told me ddefinitely would have had contact with the President before but can't see how this would have come up in conversation.  Suppose it could have been a leak from someone else that picked on some general dissatisfaction.  Lots of things could have been handled better so, agreed, jury still out.

On 3/29/2018 at 8:31 PM, Dane96 said:

It was a critical error by Benson, overall, and is one of the reasons I am not sold on him being an administrator.  Marketing guy...yep.  But not sold on the package.

I was with someone this past weekend that told me that Benson in on the chopping block at the end of his contract. This person has been pretty reliable in the past but I'm not convinced in this case.  I thought he had a pretty big win with the stadium donor.  Anyone know what the real story is?  

Just showed this to someone that does graphic design work.   Her response was a bit technical "Yuck".  Then "Looks like a cross between graphic writing/graffiti lettering and ms dos/unix text. Ugly"

There have been threads on this in the past, but I can't seem to find them from the mobile browser. With attendance seemingly down this season (I don't know of that's true as I haven't seen the numbers, and this is just from being at the games) I think it's time to start this discussion again.

 

I just got back into the country from a cruise (I was on the pier in Playa Del Carmen when the ferry exploded) and I won't be back in the 518 until after the game tomorrow, but I'm curious on everyone's thoughts on where to go from here...

 

I bring up the cruise, because I wore one of my great Danes t shirts on the boat one day, and while sitting in the sports bar watching a college game (Wisconsin vs. Northwestern) a guy started a conversation with me who's son will be a freshman next year from the Newburgh area. He was a college basketball fan, but his son isn't into sports, and will be a finance major. He didn't know that UA was D1, nor that they were any good. He had no idea that the LAX team was ranked #2, nor that the football team was FCS and has a guy named Vinny Testaverde on the roster next season.

 

How can we grow the fanbase, put butts in the seats, when a sports fan, with a kid attending next season, just over an hour away from Albany didn't even know the program was growing and having success?

 

This starts as a failure of marketing, and also speaks to the relatively new upgrade to D1.

 

Suggestions?

I think people need to recognize that butts in seats is the culmination of engaging students in the right way while they're still on campus. It's a cultural thing that has been done so poorly for years, and by most accounts, students still think the school is doing a crappy job. This I put on the student affairs staff. They just have the wrong people in leadership positions who then hire people that are equally as weak.

The stories that I've heard make my skin crawl. Students are pretty shrewd and they sense when you're feeding them a line of *h*t There isn't a marketing budget big enough to fix that kind of grass roots problem. Obviously I have specific examples. Fixing something after the fact is hard. The culture has to be changed to the point where students are seen as the priority rather than a something that staff has to deal with to get ahead.

A better question maybe would be "How do you change an on campus culture?"

A new columnist for the T-U chimes in

 

https://www.timesunion.com/sports/article/Skodnick-Stability-raises-stakes-for-UAlbany-12604677.php

I think he's the Sports Editor for the TU.

I'm hearing he was under pressure to grow the roster to offset MLAX number.

WLAX = 25

MLAX = 49

Is this where I get to tell kikuira..."I told you so..."

Fair enough. 18 months is a long time to be sure. I was hoping the judge would weigh in on the other issues that were laid out by the plaintiffs in terms of their motion but recognize that if there's no 'irreparable harm' then there's no need. Still a bummer (not the ruling but the lack of additional information.)

I'm afraid that there is an unfortunate lesson to be taken with this part of the story when dealing with UAlbany. One that I'm not entirely comfortable with.

File the lawsuits first and don't bother with talking until afterwards.

 

DO NOT BRING BACK TENNIS. It does not and will not have any effect or baring on UA's Title IX violation. Screw up or not by Bensen et all; it is now out in the open and must be addressed. 6 or 9 tennis players will not correct the issue; and now that it is out in the open, it must be handled properly for multiple reasons. No least of which (not that we agree with it or not), Title IX is the law. We should fight any injunction the court issues regarding tennis, on the grounds that it will not in any way resolve our Title IX violation. We will not save face as some are claiming. Move on from the embarrassment/screw-up and address the issue.

 

I'm not so sure about this...in order to meet the requirements of Title IX I believe I read in the original communication between UA and the governing body administering this program is that it's NOT a strict 1-1 calculation. Title IX speaks to equal opportunity which can be shown with a campus wide survey or similar type polling of the student community asking if there are unmet or unavailable opportunities for females on campus as it related to athletic participation. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong but I could have sworn I read this. UA has NOT demonstrated and clearly CAN'T demonstrate this point and thus is non-compliant by virtue that there are known cases of female tennis players that can't play because there is no program. Restoring this program MAY (maybe, big maybe) in whole or in part restore confidence in that equal opportunity is provided.

 

I'm not sure if my reading is correct on this...

 

I linked to the OCR findings, Resolution Agreement, and Timesunion article.

Accommodations of Interests and Abilities is a 3-prong test. When OCR looked at it, UAlbany and Benson could not demonstrate compliance with any of those parts.

Surveys are generally considered acceptable to demonstrate that a school is already meeting interest and therefore in compliance. I'd go so far as to say they are essential in some cases.

The problem in this situation is that it a survey would only acceptable to OCR if there have been no requests to add a sport as those requests would, by definition, demonstrate interest. The motion for preliminary injunction provided declaration(s) showing that there was 2-3 requests made to add a sport in the last five years - again, demonstrating interest. I was told last weekend that there was another request submitted sometime in November (sorry, don't have details otherwise I would provide them.) Again, demonstrating interest.

In the resolution agreement with OCR the school (and therefor Benson): "...will demonstrate that participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments." Agreed upon date is October 1, 2020.

I've never understood how they were going to do that base on this quote from Benson: ""We have no plans to add any teams or bring teams back and no plans to cut any programs," Benson said. "We're not in a position from a budgetary standpoint to do that."

He suggests in the same article that they're going to roster manage to compliance but OCR said in their findings that they were already doing that.

OCR Letter with Findings

http://www.timesunion.com/file/237/8/2378-DOE%20finds%20UAlbany%20out%20of%20Title%20IX%2C%20OCR%20letter.pdf

Resolution Agreement

http://www.timesunion.com/file/237/9/2379-UAlbany%20Title%20IX%20resolution%20agreement.pdf

Article that it was pulled from:

http://www.timesunion.com/sports/article/Feds-UAlbany-athletics-in-violation-of-Title-IX-12200960.php

********************

Edit: Reinstating tennis could be a step but would not seem sufficient in terms of numbers. But your correct about the fact that having a team when it was cut demonstrated interest.

Additionally: As far as " irreparable" damage to the tennis players: their scholarships were/are honored, hence guaranteeing them their right to a college education which is what intercollegiate athletics is all about. As far as continuing their tennis "careers," assistance in transferring to another institution was/is offered and in fact taken advantage of by other members of the team. As far as the coach, his contract was/is honored according to law.

 

DO NOT BRING BACK TENNIS. Fight any injunction. Address Title IX violation, in a manner which brings us in compliance. [tennis will NOT bring us in compliance.]

I agree with you on most of this. But the act of cutting tennis the tennis program is evidence in and of itself of a Title IX violation because it demonstrates that there was interest on campus (wouldn't have mattered if school was in compliance though.) This is the original sin if you will. We'll know in a few weeks in terms of the ruling on the injunction.

But I really, really, really agree with you on Benson needing to address the Title IX violations.

Im not going to go through lawsuit procedures with you because you think you know something. Benson is covered by the State and its insurance. By your logic, Benson has control over the case more so than the State. Come on, you cant believe that as a fact.

 

Benson is named in his capacity as a NYS employee. Lets move on and let the actual lawyers in the court room do their job instead of you speculating, especially when your speculation is simply wrong...legally speaking.

I've confirmed, Benson was named individually in the suit. You can search most of this stuff on PACER (although not all of it's available.) But whether that's viable from a legal perspective is another matter entirely. I agree with you that he should be covered in his capacity as a state employee unless his contract states otherwise (e.g. illegal wrongdoing, etc ....) Attorney General's office is already defending him and filed a written motioned to have the count against Benson dismissed on the exact basis that you're speaking of. For clarity, I'm not disputing that State is responsible for the defense of the case.

To the extend that Benson and company have control - if he decided to re-instate tennis (which he has the authority to do with approval of the President) OR otherwise immediately came into compliance with Title IX, at the very least a motion to dismiss the request for injunction could be made (based on my read of the filing.) If Benson had added a different women's sport to compensate for the lost of tennis, it would be a much weaker argument.

The implied idea that "the state" is the one calling the shots here takes responsibility away from Benson, his staff, Title IX Coordinator, etc... They can solve the problem that provides the underlying basis for the suit. They don't need get approval from the AG's office for that.

The article states it is the AAG Mark Mitchell who is defending UA.

 

The AG's office sole purpose (other than clerical items listed in the State Constitution) is to defend both the State and the people of the State. As such, the AG's office has the sole discretion to choose when they would like to intervene on a particular case that lists the State as a defendant. As an arm of a State Agency (SUNY), a claim against UA as a defendant is actually a claim against the State.

 

You are correct, in most instances (NY and MA follow similar laws and I was an Associate General Counsel for a major MA agency) in-house agency lawyers will often times go to court. However, in cases involving high stakes (whether it be media coverage, politics, monetary claims, or new precedent) you will often see the AG's office step in.

 

Under NY law, generally the DA's (District Attorneys) deal with the local cases. However, this case fits the high-profile concept on many levels, including the fact that the State needs to defend itself in a claim that the State violated Federal Law.

 

So, if the TU reported this improperly (about Mark Mitchell being an AAG) then I stand corrected. But the above is factually correct from a procedural standpoint.

No disputes on the AAG and their purposes. Standard procedure in face. But Benson is named personally in this case rather than just in his capacity at A.D. None of this negates the fact that the individual campuses and individuals have the ability, if not the desire, to settle the case. Another way to say it - a settlement would not be negotiated without them (unless they are terminated.)

The crux of my point is that Benson and company need to get this thing settled. Doubling down is ego driven at best.

 

 

 

 

I think I said this earlier but maybe I kept it to myself...sounds like that Graham guy had an axe to grind from the beginning and wanted the program to be re-instated. He's using the violations as a guise for his primary purpose; to reinstate his beloved program cause he has nothing better to do. Loser with a capital L.

EDIT: Yep, I/we did:

 

 

We don't want the dejected little whiner back at the university anyhow.

 

Add crew, add anything, but don't bring back Graham.

 

The school year was over. The students weren't thrown out on the street.

Graham was canned and his beloved tennis program was tossed in the trash. He's throwing a hissy fit,

and throwing the athletic department and university under the bus.

I'm of the same thought. Soon as I heard it was a coach of an axe'd program, I said, "figures". Disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind. Had his lovely program been kept, guy would have continued on without batting an eye at the so called Title IX violations. Guy is so old he can't find a tennis gig anywhere else (even the local rec center) so he's forcing UA's hand to try to weasel his way back in. Shmuck.

 

I still think we need to remedy the situation and it should have never gotten to that point...but this Graham dude is a shmuck.

Even if there were an injunction, there wouldn't be a requirement for them to bring back Graham, right? Although maybe with an injunction they would be required to go back to the way it was right before tennis was cut.

 

Setting that aside, I'm not sure why Graham or anyone else wanting to have the program reinstated is problematic. It certainly doesn't make them whiners. The real problem is that Benson half-ass'd it and cut tennis without having a plan to add another sport to replace it. He or someone else knew or should have known that it was going to be a problem in terms of Title IX.

 

To be clear, I'm not advocating for tennis. But I'm ripped $iena that the UA people screwed the pooch on this one.

 

I can't help but just laugh if this is true at the amateur hour being run over there...between last second facility policies, lack of communication and now this...what, did NO ONE think this wasn't going to go over well and have a plan?

 

We spent weeks kicking around crew...just bring back tennis and the 6 scholarships or so...and the coaches if it resolves title IX issues and call it a day. How much could that program cost?

I'm with you. Bring it back or do whatever needs to be done to settle the damn lawsuit. Get it out of the spotlight and start repairing the damage to the school's image that has been done.

 

Not sure how much it would cost to bring back tennis but it only gets more expensive the longer Benson waits. And I'm not even talking about running the program. If an injunction is issued the room to negotiate gets way smaller and the potential for punitive damages goes through the roof in order to act as a deterrent. Seriously, we're talking the potential of 7-figures given the size of the University.

 

Injunctions mean the judge/court thinks there's a high probability of success in the suit. If the judge said he would issue his ruling at the same time that jurisdiction was settled, it means he probably knows how he's going to rule based on arguments made. Based on what we already know, that ruling is unlikely to favor Benson and UAlbany.

 

Please someone talk some sense into Benson.

Completely inaccurate on so many levels.

 

1. An injunction issued is not for the reasons stated...whatsoever.

2. Benson doesn’t have control over the case...the STATE does...and that is run by the A.G.’s office.

 

Everyone take a damn breath.

 

And no, I’m not defending our school or the decisions that were made. However, until the facts play out...let’s not claim to know what occurred...and what decisions go on in a court room.

 

Benson and company have complete control over whether this continues forward. They are the named defendants. They tell the AG's office to settle and it's done.

I take no issue if anything that I stated needs to be corrected. Would rather have accuracy than anything else so please share if you have something specific in mind. But I think you would correct on at least one aspect - I left out showing an irreparable harm. I think we could probably agree that not being able to play this spring would be, by definition, irreparable.

 

 

 

I think I said this earlier but maybe I kept it to myself...sounds like that Graham guy had an axe to grind from the beginning and wanted the program to be re-instated. He's using the violations as a guise for his primary purpose; to reinstate his beloved program cause he has nothing better to do. Loser with a capital L.

 

EDIT: Yep, I/we did:

 

 

 

We don't want the dejected little whiner back at the university anyhow.

 

Add crew, add anything, but don't bring back Graham.

 

The school year was over. The students weren't thrown out on the street.

Graham was canned and his beloved tennis program was tossed in the trash. He's throwing a hissy fit,

and throwing the athletic department and university under the bus.

 

I'm of the same thought. Soon as I heard it was a coach of an axe'd program, I said, "figures". Disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind. Had his lovely program been kept, guy would have continued on without batting an eye at the so called Title IX violations. Guy is so old he can't find a tennis gig anywhere else (even the local rec center) so he's forcing UA's hand to try to weasel his way back in. Shmuck.

 

I still think we need to remedy the situation and it should have never gotten to that point...but this Graham dude is a shmuck.

 

 

 

Even if there were an injunction, there wouldn't be a requirement for them to bring back Graham, right? Although maybe with an injunction they would be required to go back to the way it was right before tennis was cut.

 

Setting that aside, I'm not sure why Graham or anyone else wanting to have the program reinstated is problematic. It certainly doesn't make them whiners. The real problem is that Benson half-ass'd it and cut tennis without having a plan to add another sport to replace it. He or someone else knew or should have known that it was going to be a problem in terms of Title IX.

 

To be clear, I'm not advocating for tennis. But I'm ripped $iena that the UA people screwed the pooch on this one.

 

 

 

I can't help but just laugh if this is true at the amateur hour being run over there...between last second facility policies, lack of communication and now this...what, did NO ONE think this wasn't going to go over well and have a plan?

 

We spent weeks kicking around crew...just bring back tennis and the 6 scholarships or so...and the coaches if it resolves title IX issues and call it a day. How much could that program cost?

 

I'm with you. Bring it back or do whatever needs to be done to settle the damn lawsuit. Get it out of the spotlight and start repairing the damage to the school's image that has been done.

Not sure how much it would cost to bring back tennis but it only gets more expensive the longer Benson waits. And I'm not even talking about running the program. If an injunction is issued the room to negotiate gets way smaller and the potential for punitive damages goes through the roof in order to act as a deterrent. Seriously, we're talking the potential of 7-figures given the size of the University.

Injunctions mean the judge/court thinks there's a high probability of success in the suit. If the judge said he would issue his ruling at the same time that jurisdiction was settled, it means he probably knows how he's going to rule based on arguments made. Based on what we already know, that ruling is unlikely to favor Benson and UAlbany.

Please someone talk some sense into Benson.

 

I think I said this earlier but maybe I kept it to myself...sounds like that Graham guy had an axe to grind from the beginning and wanted the program to be re-instated. He's using the violations as a guise for his primary purpose; to reinstate his beloved program cause he has nothing better to do. Loser with a capital L.

 

EDIT: Yep, I/we did:

 

 

 

We don't want the dejected little whiner back at the university anyhow.

 

Add crew, add anything, but don't bring back Graham.

 

The school year was over. The students weren't thrown out on the street.

Graham was canned and his beloved tennis program was tossed in the trash. He's throwing a hissy fit,

and throwing the athletic department and university under the bus.

 

I'm of the same thought. Soon as I heard it was a coach of an axe'd program, I said, "figures". Disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind. Had his lovely program been kept, guy would have continued on without batting an eye at the so called Title IX violations. Guy is so old he can't find a tennis gig anywhere else (even the local rec center) so he's forcing UA's hand to try to weasel his way back in. Shmuck.

 

I still think we need to remedy the situation and it should have never gotten to that point...but this Graham dude is a shmuck.

 

 

Even if there were an injunction, there wouldn't be a requirement for them to bring back Graham, right? Although maybe with an injunction they would be required to go back to the way it was right before tennis was cut.

Setting that aside, I'm not sure why Graham or anyone else wanting to have the program reinstated is problematic. It certainly doesn't make them whiners. The real problem is that Benson half-ass'd it and cut tennis without having a plan to add another sport to replace it. He or someone else knew or should have known that it was going to be a problem in terms of Title IX.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for tennis. But I'm ripped $iena that the UA people screwed the pooch on this one.

 

Federal judge volleys motion to restore UAlbany women's tennis back to lawyers

 

 

For you lawyers out there: According to the article, the judge sent the case back to state court, which Graham says he actually never really filed? So it appears the judge is waiting a "week" for the state to rule on a case that they do not even have? What does this all mean or is the article typical TU bad reporting????

 

Also, still interested if anyone knows what UA's response/remedy to the ncca was/is or even if it was ever made????????

 

I just spoke directly with someone that was in the courtroom for the hearing as an observer (they're from the Binghamton area and had a law student visiting them. Thought it would be "fun.")

The judge did NOT send it back to state court. The attorney representing UAlbany claimed that the case had been ruled on in state court which would mean that he (Fed judge) wouldn't have jurisdiction. He was giving both sides a change to respond before he issues his ruling on the injunction.

Plaintiff's attorney has 7 days to file a brief explaining that they did not actually file in state court and therefore the Fed Court has jurisdiction. State has 7 days to respond. Judge stated from the bench that he would then issue a ruling on jurisdiction and injunction at the same time.

Apparently the the judge said that he couldn't find anything to indicated that it had been ruled on previously but he wanted to make certain before issuing his ruling.

Feedback from the observer was that it came at the last minute like the attorney for UAlbany was scrambling and trying to come up with a way to delay things. And that he had presented something the Fed Judge said didn't have anyone's signature on it (state court judge?). There was some question about why it wasn't included when the school originally responded to the plaintiff's motion.

Here's the thing - you can check online as to whether the case was done in state court. Hell, I did. If the online system is accurate, UAlbany is really really screwed. It's not good to waste a judge's time.

Story in the Albany Student Press about the Federal Lawsuit that was filed.

http://www.albanystudentpress.net/university-sued-over-title-ix-sports-dicrimination-charges/

Story in the Albany Student Press about the Federal Lawsuit that was filed.

http://www.albanystudentpress.net/university-sued-over-title-ix-sports-dicrimination-charges/

 

 

 

Add Women's Crew as a Varsity Sport - Title IX[/size]

 

Since this got a lot of play on another thread it seems as though it should get it's own.

 

Quick Recap: UAlbany Athletics has been found to be in violation of Title IX and that the school has offered fewer athletic opportunities for women than required by law.

 

Mark Benson and UAlbany need to find a way to make up 97 roster spots either through adding a women's sport, reducing the total number of male athletes, or some combination of the two.

 

This thread is intended to help make the case that adding Women's Crew is the obvious and logical choice for at least the following reasons:

 

(1) It is the only Women's sport that can offset the size of a football roster - 100+ rosters are not uncommon;

(2) It is the only sport that provides a cost-effective solution on a per athlete basis - consistent with Cross Country;

(3) There are already an established and LARGE group of students rowing that have indicated they would be open to becoming an NCAA program.

 

The notion that the equipment costs are exorbitant and therefore prohibitive has already been debunked so I'd rather not revisit that. But will show how a started up program can be done for an equipment purchase of roughly $20,000.

 

I have tons of questions. Throwing out a couple now.

 

Is Crew a good fit for the Athletic Department? Are their cultural hurdle to overcome?

 

What are the non-financial barriers to adding a Crew team?

I would have no objections to women's crew. The reason they dropped tennis was due to a lack of conferences they could join...at least that was the official one. A little research shows that it would not be a barrier to crew as it appears there are lots of conferences including the CAA and the MAAC that would be a good fit. Crew seems to be quite popular at the local HS level and there's activity all the time on the Hudson and Mohawk rivers. It's cited in articles that women's crew is popular at the big football schools to balance off football scholarships. So I say go for it!

I've been doing a ton of research. It appears that the current team starting attending an early season MAAC invitational in 2012 and performed reasonably well (particularly notable since they would have had no institutional support.) It also looks like they see those same schools on at least one other occasion during the regular spring season.

 

Since Women's Golf is already an Associate Member of the MAAC, it's not a stretch to think that Crew could also join as an Associate Member. The MAAC Championships for Crew is an AQ for NCAA's so there would be a direct line to post season play. It's also realistic since the they've already been able to hang with the current MAAC program.

 

The CAA also has a championships that is an AQ. Again, direct line to post season play. The current team doesn't really travel in those circles for competition so there's no direct comparison to be make. But we know that football is already an Associate Member. It's not a leap to see the team join that conference too. It's also my understanding that there's an opening as an Associate Member for Crew just left the conference.

I scanned the resolution between UA and the OCR and it appears that Nov 30, 2017 is the date by which UA has to have a plan and procedure in place for interested parties to submit requests to add new intercollegiate sports. So maybe that will be the point at which any requests will be taken seriously. I have no inside knowledge at all, just what I read in the newspaper and their links. Good luck with it!

 

This is good to know. I'll pass along to the people that I'm in contact with. Hate to say it but I'm playing the fan sitting in the "cheap seats" who wears his Monday Morning Quarterback jersey

kik,

 

I would be absolutely thrilled to see UA add women's crew; and would not cry over cutting men' soccer {my bias showing --sorry}. The problem in the first instance is MONEY of course. The four football programs referenced in your post generate enough revenue to cover the cost of the complimenting crew sport. As you eloquently showed in previous post woman's crew could be started at much less than the exorbitant amounts often bandied about. But even @ these reduced levels the athletic department would have to come up with significant revenues from SOMEWHERE. I guarantee you football @ UA barely or does not even cover it own costs. Title IX might be the law of the land, but it was NOT designed to be an equity fix for intercollegiate athletics. Perhaps a better more appropriate law with cost/revenue components should be enacted.

 

ps. sorry about the soccer comment, I would hate to see UA have to cut anymore sports. One of my best friends was on the swim team a couple of years before it got the axe.

Can't say that I disagree with anything that you've written other than cutting a men's sport (I think that baseball is more like to be on the chopping block because they already have a roster cap in place.) I'm just not in favor of cutting men's opportunities; just expanding them for women.

Looking through a bunch of old Title IX cases, more than a fair share initially cited cost as a barrier and sought dispensation from the courts. They were summarily smacked on the back-side and told to find the money even if it meant taking it from other places. It is on the University as a whole, not just Athletics, to find the money. There is more than enough $$$ flowing the the school to cover the cost of adding Crew. But solving the Title IX problem has to be elevated to priority status.

My suggestion would be to start small and grow the budget over time as resources become available. But headcount, headcount, headcount is what really matters right now. Get the monkey off the back.

For what it's worth, it's also my understanding that the current team has a very organized and supportive (financially) alumni base. I was told that they refuse to give to the school because of the way that Crew has been treated in the past and the overall lack of support for those athletes. So they just send their dollars to an outside not-for-profit or pay for things directly. Quick example: I spoke with one alum who said that when the team travels it's common for alumni to simply pay for the hotel rooms directly. He said that he and his wife "sponsor" one of the trips every year and cover all the rooms for it.

Find me team or any other group on campus that can say that! Whatever culture they've created there, they're doing something right.

The entire Title IX argument is BS. There are NO women's sports which have the same number of participants as Football for example. All other things being equal there is no opportunity to add the number of females that would cause an equal number because of that. They have other sports that men do not have like Field Hockey, but the numbers of participants are not as high. A someone else pointed out Title IX was never meant to apply to athletics - give thanks the liberals and liberal organizations like the ACLU. I am NOT a politically correct person and get tired of the BS caused by these people and organizations and the fear they cause among all of the snowflakes!!!!!

I agree with you that comparable sports like MLAX and WLAX don't have equivalent roster numbers (I have my theories as to why.) But you are factually incorrect regarding a women's spor which has the same number of participants as Football. Women's Crew is the ONLY sport that can offset rosters from football as it very often has the same number of participants as football.

Let me provide you some specific examples which I hope will get you to reconsider. These following numbers are the reported roster number from the 2015-2016 school year for men's football and Women's Crew.

Michigan - 125 Football - 108 Women's Crew

Washington - 114 (football) - 143 (Women's Crew)

Wisconsin 117 (football) - 176 (Women's Crew)

I love football but this is an inherent problem with football. The numbers have to be equated on the women's side as well as the expenditures and evidently this has not been handled well by the Athletic Department.

 

Men's soccer and women's soccer are a probably a push, men's basketball and women's basketball are probably a push but how do you balance out football on both the roster size as well as the financial expenditures.

 

This is a MAJOR problem which will cripple the budget especially on the men's side. This shouldn't be joked about or made to be trivial this is MAJOR.

Your correct, it hasn't been handled well by the Athletic Department or the larger Administration as a whole.

To balance football you have to FIRST address the roster number gap and THEN address any budgetary issues that arise (note: roster gap was the primary concern of the OCR report.)

I had a conversation about 20 years ago with the Senior Women's Administrator for another Division 1 school. She said "There's always money for priorities." So maybe the FIRST thing should be elevating this to a priority for the Department. So important that should be, if necessary, to the exclusion of other things until fully resolved. This thing will be fixed ASAP if it's that much of for Benson, Athletics, and the University as a whole.

But here's the thing, the only solution(s) to the Title IX roster problem is the addition of Crew or the cutting of a men's sport with a big roster. There's no way to hit those roster numbers any other way. The most straightforward is adding Crew because you can literally have the 97 women they need on a Crew roster. Will the school have to some spend money to do it? Of course. Does it have to take away from Men's sports? No freaking way. That's a matter of choice.

The issue isn't Graham, it's a athletics leadership issue. How do you get to the point where you're off by 97 student athletes? You don't even need a proportional number of student athletes - just had to show that you were meeting the demand. Surely there are national or regional title IX conferences or compliance officer meetings where ideas are discussed.

 

I went through most of the other America East and CAA athletic websites and they all have either rowing, swimming or gymnastics that allow the women a chance for increased athletic participation. Someone in athletics administration must have noticed that.

 

It looks like we have a Senior Women's Administrator, a compliance officer, a deputy athletics director... did none of them go to Mark Benson and say there's an issue?

I posted this as park of another thread but thought I'd include it since you mentioned the CAA.

************

I've been doing a ton of research. It appears that the current team starting attending an early season MAAC invitational in 2012 and performed reasonably well (particularly notable since they would have had no institutional support.) It also looks like they see those same schools on at least one other occasion during the regular spring season.

Since Women's Golf is already an Associate Member of the MAAC, it's not a stretch to think that Crew could also join as an Associate Member. The MAAC Championships for Crew is an AQ for NCAA's so there would be a direct line to post season play. It's also realistic since the they've already been able to hang with the current MAAC program.

The CAA also has a championships that is an AQ. Again, direct line to post season play. The current team doesn't really travel in those circles for competition so there's no direct comparison to be make. But we know that football is already an Associate Member. It's not a leap to see the team join that conference too. It's also my understanding that there's an opening as an Associate Member for Crew just left the conference.