Last Edited: 2/11/2014 1:54:53 PM by L.C.

Alan Swank wrote:

Personally I'm tired of the title ix argument.  We shouldn't even have or need a title ix.  We should simply do what's right and that's provide equal opportunity for both sexes.  Also try telling someone who swims or runs track that they play a minor sport.

Last Edited: 2/11/2014 4:49:55 PM by L.C.

L.C. wrote:

Alan Swank wrote: Personally I'm tired of the title ix argument.  We shouldn't even have or need a title ix.  We should simply do what's right and that's provide equal opportunity for both sexes.  Also try telling someone who swims or runs track that they play a minor sport.   I  have to admit that I've never seen anything rational or fair about Title IX, which requires money from revenue-producing sports to be diverted to support sports of the opposite gender. In a situation such as Ohio, the result is that nearly all of the universities contributions to athletics have to go to women's sports, and meanwhile men's sports like swimming and track have to be discontinued.  In the end the question becomes, is it more fair to divert the money produced by football to pay for women's sports, or to use it to benefit the players themselves, the ones who put themselves at risk of injury? Given the unionization efforts, I would say that the players themselves don't see the current situation as fair at all.

-Provide participation opportunities for women and men that are substantially proporitonate to their respective rates of enrollment of full-time undergraduate students. (If you have X amount of students, you should have Y and Z amount of athletic opportunities for men and women. So if you have a school with a 3-1 women-to-men ratio, you're almost automatically creating more women's teams. I'm not sure what the ratio is at Ohio but I imagine more gals attend than guys.)

-Demonstrate a history and continuing practice of program expansion towards the underrepresented sex; OR

-Fully and effectively accomodate the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

The scholarship requirements for a Division I athletic institution are as follows:

Title IX requires that male and female student athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation. (Similar to the above participation rule, if 60% of your athletes are male, then 60% of scholarship dollars should go to them.)

There is also a provision stating that Title IX requires the equal treatment of male and female athletes with regards to facilities, recruiting, transportation, etc. 

http://equity.missouri.edu/resource-library/athletics.php 

Last Edited: 2/12/2014 8:12:58 AM by GoCats105

Last Edited: 2/12/2014 11:50:23 AM by GoCats105

1. Regarding the young man's Post editorial: If I took the time to list all the goods and services I view as non-essential to my existence that I support through all the various fees and taxes I pay in life, I would never leave my house.  While I respect his right to his opinion, I rarely spend time worrying about the things in my life that only pertain to 2.5-3% of my out of pocket expense.  Football will always carry the burden of these discussions due to the size of the roster, and the size of the physical plants that support the enterprise.  Having myself chosen not to have children, imagine how much more I could have donated to OHIO if only those who have children had to carry 100% of the cost of their K-12 education, and I could have taken an educational voucher as a donation to the institution of my choosing.  But I didn't have to buy my house and pay the property taxes that come with that privilege to support those public schools, just as the student didn't have to choose to attend OHIO.  I hope the Board and the President will continue to support ICA and allocate Student Fees in their support, as they did when I was a student.  The irony is that when I was a student in the 80's, state institutional support was much higher, making tuition far more affordable and the student fee a much greater percentage of my total cost to attend.  DAMN, I SHOULD HAVE BEEN REALLY PISSED RELATIVE TO THIS GENERATION'S PISSEDNESS!  What a dumbass I was back then.  Is there such a thing as retroactive pissedness?!  But I digress.
2. MPF/The Walter Gift and Student Fees to Run It: The Walter Gift for the MPF was never designated exclusively for the benefit of the Football program just as the Walter Gift for the renovations of the Convo was not for the exclusive benefit of the Men's Basketball Program.  The Fieldhouse was always intended as a multi-purpose facility that would primarily but not exclusively benefit athletics.  It was always intended to benefit the student body, and that is why it is being overseen as such.  And recall, the only reason it has a four lane track is due to the insistence of student leaders that it have such.  Is it appropriate that it is exclusively being maintained by the student fee?  Refer back to point one above.
3. OUr Donor Hole: I don't believe I would be betraying the confidence of a former development officer if I shared some insight that was passed along to me that can explain our particular void of donor support for ICA.  If you deep dive our potential donor base, there is a precise, 25 year void of significant donors in an age range of people that were in their undergrad years between Alden and Glidden.  It also exists to a lesser extent in the general fundraising efforts.  As we all know, those were the dark years for OHIO Football, and I am certain many of you know OHIO grads from that era that make significant financial contributions to the evil empire.  This 25 year void of engagement of people with high donor potential in their peak contributing years can be traced directly back to when we saw little institutional support for ICA, and our present fundraising efforts are having to play catch up to fill that generational void.

Last Edited: 2/13/2014 7:08:29 PM by D.A.