[ColoradoBear1]

Originally Posted by wifeisafurd

Cal is not in compliance with the numerical complaince NOW. The change in rugby did not get Cal into numerical compliance. Sandy said as much in the initial announcement. The move with rugby got Cal closer to numerical compliance. Pandora has her box.

I've never quite understood the enforcement of Title IX - every school with a football team is going to have almost no chance to be in numerical compliance, but yet it's seemingly OK.

Then there is this prong of Title IX:

Provide full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex

Seems to me it give a lot of wiggle room. If women aren't as interested as men in playing football, should it's numbers really count against title IX number balancing (not even considering that football profits fund other sports).

[Hintite]

Originally Posted by wifeisafurd

"There's no disagreement here Cal is NOW in compliance with the proportionality clause, BUT there is nothing to preclude circumstances changing in the future (reinstatement of the two women's sports--along with the three cut men's sports) that prevents Cal from being in compliance with prong 3 again."

Cal is not in compliance with the numerical complaince NOW. The change in rugby did not get Cal into numerical compliance. Sandy said as much in the initial announcement. The move with rugby got Cal closer to numerical compliance. Pandora has her box.

My point was inartfully stated. It was meant to agree that NOW (after the sports were cut) Cal's only chance of being in compliance with Title IX was the proportionality clause, but if the five sports were reinstated in the FUTURE Cal could then be in compliance with prong 3. You are correct, if the sports are not brought back the possibility of roster and scholarship changes in other sports remains open.

"Will other actions need to be taken to make Cal Title IX compliant, such as squad limits?

In order to meet the proportionality standard, the department will work with coaches to more closely manage squad sizes for its intercollegiate teams. Some teams will be allowed to increase their rosters, while others will have a reduction from current levels. Similar decisions will also be made regarding scholarship allocations."

[TrackLife]

Originally Posted by Hintite

You are correct, if the sports are not brought back the possibility of roster and scholarship changes in other sports remains open.

"Will other actions need to be taken to make Cal Title IX compliant, such as squad limits?

In order to meet the proportionality standard, the department will work with coaches to more closely manage squad sizes for its intercollegiate teams. Some teams will be allowed to increase their rosters, while others will have a reduction from current levels. Similar decisions will also be made regarding scholarship allocations."

It's ALREADY happening now.

The Men's Water Polo team will no longer field a 41-man roster.
It is being reduced to 31 starting next season. This has nothing to do with program budgets. It's ALL about Title IX compliance which the school is still not at from a strict numbers/ratios point of view.

[TrackLife]

Originally Posted by Hintite

Maybe you should care what's in the FAQs. Cal was NOT in the "progressing towards towards Title IX compliance" category, as you maintain, but were IN COMPLIANCE (with prong 3) per the original FAQs released when the programs were cut.

"The university was previously in compliance by “fully and effectively” accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex."

Fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex doesn't necessarily mean that the accomodation has been achieved via strict numbers. There is an awful lot of "wiggle" room and ways of interpreting the quote that you have cited.

How do you measure interests?
How do you measure abilities?

Are you even aware that POLLS and SURVEYS are taken of the undergraduate female population, with all sorts of fairly "subjective" types of questions like "Do you feel that the University supports women's sports?" in order to "measure" whether or not a school is "progressing towards compliance."?

Believe it or not, those surveys go a long way in determining Title IX compliance, especially when the school is in the mode of ADDING women's programs vs cutting them.

[TrackLife]

Originally Posted by wifeisafurd

Cal is not in compliance with the numerical compliance NOW. The change in rugby did not get Cal into numerical compliance. Sandy said as much in the initial announcement. The move with rugby got Cal closer to numerical compliance. Pandora has her box.

Agreed 100%.

[Hintite]

Originally Posted by TrackLife

Fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex doesn't necessarily mean that the accomodation has been achieved via strict numbers. There is an awful lot of "wiggle" room and ways of interpreting the quote that you have cited.

How do you measure interests?
How do you measure abilities?

Are you even aware that POLLS and SURVEYS are taken of the undergraduate female population, with all sorts of fairly "subjective" types of questions like "Do you feel that the University supports women's sports?" in order to "measure" whether or not a school is "progressing towards compliance."?

Believe it or not, those surveys go a long way in determining Title IX compliance, especially when the school is in the mode of ADDING women's programs vs cutting them.

Fully aware and it's precisely that subjectivity that would allow Cal to be in compliance with prong 3 if the five sports were reinstated. If I'm following your points made on several threads you seem to believe the original cuts were a huge Title IX issue. Title IX had no bearing on the decision to cut sports; money did. However, when it was decided to cut a women's sport Title IX had to be accommodated (because of how Cal was in compliance before the cuts) resulting in the "pandora's box" effect now happening. Again, if I'm following your points, you also seem to believe that the five sports cannot be reinstated without some drastic changes either by adding a "ton" of women's spots or major cuts to men's rosters to maintain compliance with the proportionality clause. I maintain if the five sports are reinstated Cal would use prong 3 to achieve Title IX compliance. The AD's letter and FAQs certainly can't be accused of sugarcoating the huge financial burden the Administration expects the cut sports to overcome to get back into the game. If Cal felt that Title IX was a deal breaker for reinstatement of the Cal 5, that sentiment could have easily been included in these releases saving everyone valuable time, effort and money.

[TrackLife]

Originally Posted by Hintite

Fully aware and it's precisely that subjectivity that would allow Cal to be in compliance with prong 3 if the five sports were reinstated. If I'm following your points made on several threads you seem to believe the original cuts were a huge Title IX issue. Title IX had no bearing on the decision to cut sports; money did.

I've never claimed that Title IX was the catalyst behind the 5 sports being cut. It was obviously about MONEY. What I have maintained is that Rugby was a "sacrificial lamb" towards Title IX compliance.

Originally Posted by Hintite

However, when it was decided to cut a women's sport Title IX had to be accommodated (because of how Cal was in compliance before the cuts) resulting in the "pandora's box" effect now happening.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Hintite

If Cal felt that Title IX was a deal breaker for reinstatement of the Cal 5, that sentiment could have easily been included in these releases saving everyone valuable time, effort and money.

True, and this is what I am not buying.
I do not believe that the Administration is being completely "up front" about this. Besides, why would they want to throw a bunch of cold "water" on everyone's fund-raising efforts?

For example, Jack Clark knows damn well that he cannot bring Rugby back as a Varsity sport at Cal until he elevates Women's Club Rugby to Varsity status. That's gonna take money. That is just one of the reasons why I am not "buying" into the claims that some people here are making about the reinstatement of the Cal 5. It's just not as simple as some make it out to be.

It's gonna take a lot more than that.
And it's gonna take MORE WOMEN'S athletic slots.

[Hintite]

[quote=TrackLife;431374]I've never claimed that Title IX was the catalyst behind the 5 sports being cut. It was obviously about MONEY. What I have maintained is that Rugby was a "sacrificial lamb" towards Title IX compliance.

Obviously, Rugby was the "sacrificial lamb", better them than Men's Track don't you think?


"For example, Jack Clark knows damn well that he cannot bring Rugby back as a Varsity sport at Cal until he elevates Women's Club Rugby to Varsity status. That's gonna take money. That is just one of the reasons why I am not "buying" into the claims that some people here are making about the reinstatement of the Cal 5. It's just not as simple as some make it out to be."


Jack Clark's offer was made in the context of bringing back Rugby alone, not including other sports. In that context, Cal would still have to meet the proportionality standard because by cutting Lacrosse and Women's gymnastics it would be impossible to make the argument that Cal is providing "full and effective accommodation..." Rugby's easier path back (and baseball or men's gymnastics for that matter) would be to endow the two women's sports plus their own. It then becomes a game of musical chairs with two men's sports losing out.

"In addition, due to the non-negotiable requirements of the federal Title IX law, any philanthropic campaign would have to either address the financial needs of all five impacted teams or, at the very least, create a sustainable endowment to restore the two affected women’s programs."

[Jeff82]

Originally Posted by TrackLife

Fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex doesn't necessarily mean that the accomodation has been achieved via strict numbers. There is an awful lot of "wiggle" room and ways of interpreting the quote that you have cited.

How do you measure interests?
How do you measure abilities?

Are you even aware that POLLS and SURVEYS are taken of the undergraduate female population, with all sorts of fairly "subjective" types of questions like "Do you feel that the University supports women's sports?" in order to "measure" whether or not a school is "progressing towards compliance."?

Believe it or not, those surveys go a long way in determining Title IX compliance, especially when the school is in the mode of ADDING women's programs vs cutting them.

As I understand it, the way the University complied via prong three was essentially to provide a women's team in any existing NCAA sport , and in which there were students that wanted to participated intercollegiately. That's one reason why we had 29 sports. Once you are no longer providing access to all women's sports where there's interest, you are off prong three and on to the other prongs, which are measured more or less strictly by the numbers.

[TrackLife]

Originally Posted by Jeff82

As I understand it, the way the University complied via prong three was essentially to provide a women's team in any existing NCAA sport , and in which there were students that wanted to participated intercollegiately. That's one reason why we had 29 sports. Once you are no longer providing access to all women's sports where there's interest, you are off prong three and on to the other prongs, which are measured more or less strictly by the numbers.

Exactly.

[TrackLife]

Originally Posted by Hintite

Obviously, Rugby was the "sacrificial lamb", better them than Men's Track don't you think?

Well, to be quite honest with you I was rather shocked that Cal Track and Field ( and Cross Country ) and their $1.5 million dollar annual budget was not axed given their overall lack of performance in the Pac-10 conference.

This past year, the Men's XC team came in 3rd at Pac-10's and 3rd at Regionals, and qualified for NCAA's; but if you look back over the years that kind of "top-tier" conference performance has been the rare exception. Men's and Women's Outdoor Track and Field has been even worse.

But, given that these two sports are offered to women AND the fact that Indoor and Outdoor T&F has been able to contribute points ( in a small way ) towards the overall Director's Cup Trophy standings that the AD gets measured by . . . while Rugby does not, I can see why Cal T&F and XC were not cut.

I have also heard that there were a number of criteria ( 15 issues ) that the athletic department and the 8-member "Chancellor's Panel" used to evaluate each Sports team before making their final decision to cut. It appears that the track and field and cross country coaches had "addressed" the majority of those criteria over the months leading up to this decision.

As it is, I'm still somewhat puzzled how the 5 teams that were cut add up to the financial "savings" that the Administration has claimed. For example, if Baseball was $975,000 and Mens gymnastics was $350,000 . . . I just don't see how you get to the $4 million dollars of first year savings that was claimed by the Administration.

[Hintite]

"As it is, I'm still somewhat puzzled how the 5 teams that were cut add up to the financial "savings" that the Administration has claimed. For example, if Baseball was $975,000 and Mens gymnastics was $350,000 . . . I just don't see how you get to the $4 million dollars of first year savings that was claimed by the Administration."[/quote]

I pointed this out in a post right after the cuts were announced. Figures I have heard are the five sports currently run a deficit of $3.1M. Where the other $900,000 comes from is anybody's guess? According to Cal's submissions to the NCAA in FY 2008 the five cut sports ran a deficit of just under $2M.