Griz Rumor: to 1-A

[WA Griz]

Title IX kills wrestling programs.

I disagree. Administrators kill wrestling programs. Title IX is about equity. A school can either ad scholarship sports or eliminate scholarship sports to achieve that equity. We took the easy way out to balance our support of a I-AA football program by cutting wrestling, as did our peers.
The funny thing is, in other cases we've taken the more expensive route. UM opted for women's soccer in the 1990s, as did some other Big Sky schools. MSU on the other hand skipped soccer, cut men's scholarhips for low-profile sports and added no new women's sports (this is always worth keeping in mind when comparing the budgets of the two schools. MSU flat offes fewer scholarships and has fewer bills to pay in order to keep in the black).
At this point, our athletic budget could probably handle wrestling and a women's sport with skulling or swimming with a like number of scholarships, but who would we play? We run with a pretty low-budget crowd, which limits what sports we offer no matter what kind of revenue we have.
Maybe we could offer more if we had competitors close by. Doesn't Sac State offer scholarhips sports the rest of the Big Sky does not?

 

[first11]

I hope no move...but won't be surprised when it comes to pass. I would be surprised to see it happen in next few years however. Likely to be a very expensive adjustment, taking some major lumps as we adjust to a higher level of FB, even it is primarily teams from mountain west.

An indication of 'the move' would be adding several thousand seats in south ez, given our current financials is still a ways off!

I will enjoy our current role as a big dog in 1-AA until our eventual move up.

Prediction for 2006.....9-2 regular season, playoffs ..NC Champs!!!

 

[Grizbacker1]

Title IX kills wrestling programs.

I disagree. Administrators kill wrestling programs. Title IX is about equity. A school can either ad scholarship sports or eliminate scholarship sports to achieve that equity. We took the easy way out to balance our support of a I-AA football program by cutting wrestling, as did our peers.
The funny thing is, in other cases we've taken the more expensive route. UM opted for women's soccer in the 1990s, as did some other Big Sky schools. MSU on the other hand skipped soccer, cut men's scholarhips for low-profile sports and added no new women's sports (this is always worth keeping in mind when comparing the budgets of the two schools. MSU flat offes fewer scholarships and has fewer bills to pay in order to keep in the black).
At this point, our athletic budget could probably handle wrestling and a women's sport with skulling or swimming with a like number of scholarships, but who would we play? We run with a pretty low-budget crowd, which limits what sports we offer no matter what kind of revenue we have.
Maybe we could offer more if we had competitors close by. Doesn't Sac State offer scholarhips sports the rest of the Big Sky does not?

Comparing UM to msu at the time Title IX compliance was taking place is not comparing apples to apples. The formula is based on the male/female student ratio. UM has a higher percentage of females than do a lot of schools, including msu, therefore UM had to add more female sports to be in compliance. The other reason is most of the other BSC school went with soccer so scheduling was pretty simple. The soccer program has been very successful while affording many Montana girls the opportunity to stay in state as a result.

 

[grizadam]

Title IX kills wrestling programs.

I disagree. Administrators kill wrestling programs. Title IX is about equity. A school can either ad scholarship sports or eliminate scholarship sports to achieve that equity. We took the easy way out to balance our support of a I-AA football program by cutting wrestling, as did our peers.
The funny thing is, in other cases we've taken the more expensive route. UM opted for women's soccer in the 1990s, as did some other Big Sky schools. MSU on the other hand skipped soccer, cut men's scholarhips for low-profile sports and added no new women's sports (this is always worth keeping in mind when comparing the budgets of the two schools. MSU flat offes fewer scholarships and has fewer bills to pay in order to keep in the black).
At this point, our athletic budget could probably handle wrestling and a women's sport with skulling or swimming with a like number of scholarships, but who would we play? We run with a pretty low-budget crowd, which limits what sports we offer no matter what kind of revenue we have.
Maybe we could offer more if we had competitors close by. Doesn't Sac State offer scholarhips sports the rest of the Big Sky does not?

Comparing UM to msu at the time Title IX compliance was taking place is not comparing apples to apples. The formula is based on the male/female student ratio. UM has a higher percentage of females than do a lot of schools, including msu, therefore UM had to add more female sports to be in compliance. The other reason is most of the other BSC school went with soccer so scheduling was pretty simple. The soccer program has been very successful while affording many Montana girls the opportunity to stay in state as a result.

While close to correct backer, title 9 has more than just male/female ratio...

1) Participation: Title IX is not a quota system. Every institution has three options to demonstrate fairness in athletic opportunities. Schools can show that they comply with Title IX if they can demonstrate any one of the following:
-Substantially proportionate athletic opportunities for male and female athletes;
-A history and continuing practice of expanding opportunities for the under-represented sex;
-Full and effective accommodation of the interests and abilities of the under-represented sex. Schools do not necessarily need to offer identical sports, yet they do need to provide an equal opportunity for females to play in sports of interest.

2) Scholarships: The total amount of athletic aid must be substantially proportionate to the ratio of female and male athletes. For example, consider a college with 90 female athletes and 115 male athletes and a scholarship budget of $100,000. An equitable distribution of funds would award $44,000 in scholarship aid to female athletes and $56,000 to males.

http://www.american.edu/sadker/titleix.htm

I would imagine that more than the sex ratio was used

 

[Grizbacker1]

Title IX kills wrestling programs.

I disagree. Administrators kill wrestling programs. Title IX is about equity. A school can either ad scholarship sports or eliminate scholarship sports to achieve that equity. We took the easy way out to balance our support of a I-AA football program by cutting wrestling, as did our peers.
The funny thing is, in other cases we've taken the more expensive route. UM opted for women's soccer in the 1990s, as did some other Big Sky schools. MSU on the other hand skipped soccer, cut men's scholarhips for low-profile sports and added no new women's sports (this is always worth keeping in mind when comparing the budgets of the two schools. MSU flat offes fewer scholarships and has fewer bills to pay in order to keep in the black).
At this point, our athletic budget could probably handle wrestling and a women's sport with skulling or swimming with a like number of scholarships, but who would we play? We run with a pretty low-budget crowd, which limits what sports we offer no matter what kind of revenue we have.
Maybe we could offer more if we had competitors close by. Doesn't Sac State offer scholarhips sports the rest of the Big Sky does not?

Comparing UM to msu at the time Title IX compliance was taking place is not comparing apples to apples. The formula is based on the male/female student ratio. UM has a higher percentage of females than do a lot of schools, including msu, therefore UM had to add more female sports to be in compliance. The other reason is most of the other BSC school went with soccer so scheduling was pretty simple. The soccer program has been very successful while affording many Montana girls the opportunity to stay in state as a result.

While close to correct backer, title 9 has more than just male/female ratio...

1) Participation: Title IX is not a quota system. Every institution has three options to demonstrate fairness in athletic opportunities. Schools can show that they comply with Title IX if they can demonstrate any one of the following:
-Substantially proportionate athletic opportunities for male and female athletes;
-A history and continuing practice of expanding opportunities for the under-represented sex;
-Full and effective accommodation of the interests and abilities of the under-represented sex. Schools do not necessarily need to offer identical sports, yet they do need to provide an equal opportunity for females to play in sports of interest.

2) Scholarships: The total amount of athletic aid must be substantially proportionate to the ratio of female and male athletes. For example, consider a college with 90 female athletes and 115 male athletes and a scholarship budget of $100,000. An equitable distribution of funds would award $44,000 in scholarship aid to female athletes and $56,000 to males.

http://www.american.edu/sadker/titleix.htm

I would imagine that more than the sex ratio was used

Of course it does, I was simply addressing the ratio part of it. There was enough to keep several lawyers well paid for years.

 

[TheBud]

With all the talk that NDSU might go 1-A, this string was just begging to be rehashed...

 

[Shakermaker]

With all the talk that NDSU might go 1-A, this string was just begging to be rehashed...

And then shot back out the pervervial "who gives a FU#$" corn hole of IA life.

Not going to happen. PERIOD. Not this year or next year.

 

[CrunchGriz]

With all the talk that NDSU might go 1-A, this string was just begging to be rehashed...

And then shot back out the pervervial "who gives a FU#$" corn hole of IA life.

Not going to happen. PERIOD. Not this year or next year.

Not to put too fine a spin on this, but what the heck is a "pervervial"?

I know what you meant, but what you wrote sounds like the proverbial neighborhood persona non grata. :yikes:

 

[TheBud]

With all the talk that NDSU might go 1-A, this string was just begging to be rehashed...

And then shot back out the pervervial "who gives a FU#$" corn hole of IA life.

Not going to happen. PERIOD. Not this year or next year.

Maybe you did not bother to read any of the string to see how I feel about a move to 1-A...

:fuelfire:

 

[Shakermaker]

With all the talk that NDSU might go 1-A, this string was just begging to be rehashed...

And then shot back out the pervervial "who gives a FU#$" corn hole of IA life.

Not going to happen. PERIOD. Not this year or next year.

Not to put too fine a spin on this, but what the heck is a "pervervial"?

I know what you meant, but what you wrote sounds like the proverbial neighborhood persona non grata. :yikes:

True, thanks for the spelling catch. :thumb: Sometimes we dumb Americans spell things phonemically, because we do love to spell things in the manner we pronounce them... at times.

At least I don't have the nations eye and can spell potato. Or was that potatoe? :wink:

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Look at the grizfan10 account that was deleted to save somebody from legal troubles.

Slimy lawyer trick

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Just like the "Lulay loophole" all over again...................liar

 

[EverettGriz]

All I get from this thread is that while he hasn't been posting for like 6 years, I'm still only half way to Backer.


I got some serious work to do. Still, "No hill for a climber"!

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

This place sucks without GB1.

You are right though, he does have the 2nd most posts on this site............

 

[Paytonlives]

The day is coming...

Just hope the Griz leadership has their crap ready. Dont want to be with the left outs like ISU and Southern Utah.

 

[cclarkblues]

This place sucks without GB1.

You are right though, he does have the 2nd most posts on this site............

If he hadn't gone into seclusion, it wouldn't even be close.

 

[EverettGriz]

This place sucks without GB1.

You are right though, he does have the 2nd most posts on this site............

If he hadn't gone into seclusion, it wouldn't even be close.

Seclusion. Is that what the kids are calling Deer Lodge these days?

 

[AZGrizFan]

This place sucks without GB1.

You are right though, he does have the 2nd most posts on this site............

Your next post is 20,000.

You'd better make it a good one, fucker. :x :x :x

 

[Gaeilge1]

I haven't posted recently but just couldn't resist. Frankly I don't care any more whether we move up or not. But it is interesting to note the overall downward trend in attendance at the FCS level. Admittedly attendance during the playoffs was up, but not enough to offset the regular season numbers. In addition this last year saw the 4th straight loss in attendance throughout the division.

If this trend continues it will only be a matter of time before some hard choices will have to be made both here and throughout the FCS. I am not suggesting that a collapse of the FCS is imminent, but any administrator with half a brain has to be concerned. The FCS simply does not have access to sufficient outside money like the FBS.

It is therefore, at least to me, beneficial to continue the conversation despite its repetitive nature.

 

[PDXGrizzly]

I feel that the overall decline in FCS attendance could be a result of some of the most attended teams (Appalachian State, GSU, ect) making the jump to FBS. Their numbers (as well as ours) skew the data. Without them the data more accuratly reflects FCS attendance.