Name-calling on this thread is really unnecessary. I don't really care if Joe Blow is a sexist or not. The problem, as WIAF noted, is that we are the only P12 team that still uses Prong 3, which leads to all these problems. Prong 1 is cleaner--# of participants v. % of student body. As for following women's sports, I follow women's sports in those that I am interested in, e.g., tennis, basketball, aquatics. Women swimmers are just as exciting as men, and I love to see Serena Williams against Azerenka as much as Rafa v. Federer. I used to pay to go to swim meets all the time (I no longer pay,since I'm a donor to the aquatics program). I don't get those who have no interest in women playing sports they otherwise follow, but whatever (I do have a problem with folks like Jim Rome who says he won't watch WNBA because the women are ugly and look like horses). Bottom line: Title IX has been in important boon to women in universities, but like most sets of regulations, it is mucked up by bureaucrats.

BearGoggles said:

---

Fyght4Cal said:

---

It's unfortunate so many feel this way. Women's basketball remains the team game that we remember from earlier time.

Because my daughter's played sports since 4 years old, I enjoy watching girls and women's sports. I think Cal WBB has a following. With more successs it possibly could become a revenue sport.

---

I mean this as a serious question - what can be done to change the way people feel/act regarding womens sports? Do you think that better promotion of womens sports (as the feds are requiring of Cal), will have any effect? If not, what is the solution, if any?

Personally, I would watch a Cal womens sports event on TV (soccer, basketball, softball, swimming, water polo), but wouldn't spend money to attend. As a student, I would have gone to some of those events possibly.

Beyond that, I would watch a ncaa womens game where someone I know is playing (e.g., friend's daughter who plays D-1 soccer). Other than that, my time and limited dollars will be spent on other things (professional hockey/baseball and other sports). There are lots of mens sports I wouldn't pay to watch either (minor league baseball, professional basketball, etc.)

---

I'll watch the USWNT play soccer, I enjoyed watching Rhonda Rousey during her run.. there are examples. But some sports have sufficient talent pools to be interesting, while others don't.

Have you tried watching Lady's Mud Wrestling? Not so dull.

BearGoggles said:

---

Fyght4Cal said:

---

It's unfortunate so many feel this way. Women's basketball remains the team game that we remember from earlier time.

Because my daughter's played sports since 4 years old, I enjoy watching girls and women's sports. I think Cal WBB has a following. With more successs it possibly could become a revenue sport.

---

I mean this as a serious question - what can be done to change the way people feel/act regarding womens sports? Do you think that better promotion of womens sports (as the feds are requiring of Cal), will have any effect? If not, what is the solution, if any?

Personally, I would watch a Cal womens sports event on TV (soccer, basketball, softball, swimming, water polo), but wouldn't spend money to attend. As a student, I would have gone to some of those events possibly.

Beyond that, I would watch a ncaa womens game where someone I know is playing (e.g., friend's daughter who plays D-1 soccer). Other than that, my time and limited dollars will be spent on other things (professional hockey/baseball and other sports). There are lots of mens sports I wouldn't pay to watch either (minor league baseball, professional basketball, etc.)

---

Familiarity is key. I got into Cal women's basketball several years ago because of Eliza Pierre, who's the goddaughter of a close friend & Cal fan. Through them, I met Coach G and the rest of the team and staff. Then I met the Bearants and other family members. Now I'm hooked.

In fact, Coaches Smith & Farrow sat right in front of us at the OM game Saturday. We had a great discussion about the upcoming season. We even made plans for the LA swing in January and talked about a possible trip to the Final Four in Columbus.

The same is true for football. I came up for Fan Fest and met the players. What outstanding young men! I had a blast and I care so much more deeply about the team now.

For old folks like me, the personal touch is key. In fact, on Saturday at the donor tailgate the women's golf was introduced and went from table-to-table meeting the donors. I wonder if social media are enough to bond millenials and younger with our athletes.

Logistics problems start to mount fairly quickly. My father and I have season tickets to football and men's basketball. He also has season tickets to women's basketball. That means he spends most of his weekends in basketball season watching either the men or women at home. With a 3-year-old, I just can't spare the time to do that. If they did some men's/women's doubleheaders, I'd consider going and taking my daughter with me, even if the tickets cost more to attend both games. I would still like to take her to a VB game, if I can work it into our schedule.

Jeff82 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Bottom line: get on to prong 1 ASAP. If essentially every other power 5 conference program can do it, Cal has no excuses. This is so obvious for so many reasons.

---

This. We can't afford the prong we're on, especially since it's basically a completely subjective evaluation. Better to bit the bullet, get on Prong 1, and make whatever men's cuts need to be made to do so, in turn allowing some women's cuts as well.

---

I apologize in advance for asking a "Booth" question, here, but can you explain "getting on Prong 1"?

I'll admit - no in depth knowledge of Title IX compliance (and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express), but I did do a quick Google search and see that there are three sections for compliance, with Section 1 having a "3 prong" test.

Section 1, as I understand it basically says you have to meet one of the following:
- Percentage of females participating in sports needs to match the percentage of females in the school
or
- Can show a recent (3 to 5 year history) of expanding women's competitive sports offerings
or
- Administer and record survey results that show female interests and abilities are being fully accommodated

Demonstrating evidence of any of the above items satisfies Section 1 and the school is "in compliance" for Section 1.

However, there are two other sections.
Section 2: Proportional financial assistance. (Not sure, but I guess this means that if there is a 40/60 mix of women/men in competitive sports, the women's programs should receive 40% of the financial assistance provided)
Section 3: Equivalence in other benefits and opportunities

Looks like Section 3 is the challenging section and where the women's lacrosse legal action was focused.

So, it seems that there is more than a "one prong" approach to me bet here, but ...

After further review, it looks like a revised compliance test for Title IX was issued in 2010:
Prong 1: Substantial Proportionality Test
Prong 2: Continued practice of program expansion
Prong 3: Effective accommodation of athletic interests and abilities

So, assuming this is the "Prong 1", then I guess the solution you're proposing is to increase number of women in athletics so it matches the percentage in the student population?

How would this have solved the Women's Lacrosse issue?
Would "meeting the proportion" test have been sufficient to keep OCR from coming on campus to respond, even if there were no practice or field available? Would the upgrades/accommodations to Underhill have been unnecessary? Could the complaint simply have been ignored/overruled with a response of "we feel really bad about the situation, but we're meeting the proportionality test"?

Lastly - is there any information on how far off Cal is from meeting a "substantial proportionality test" today?

Feel free to correct my woefully inadequate understanding of Title IX the way my Rhetoric 1A instructor corrected my first essay submission my Freshman year.

good questions. we are fairly far out of compliance with Prong . Approximately 54% of students are women, while around 40% of athletes are.

The main problem with Prong 3 is that we need to accommodate interests--in addition to the current teams, there is sand volleyball on the horizon, as well as triathlon, bowling, and several others that there could be potential demand for--each of which requires facilities. It is not enough to merely have teams--you have to show that you are giving them the same level of resources as other teams (not necessarily in terms of dollars, but quality). Thus, the lacrosse suit.

In order to switch to Prong 1, we will need a combination of increased women's athletes and a reduction in men's--either by cutting sports or cutting rosters. btw, the definition of roster size does not have to do with scholarships, but with the number of players suited up (or eligible to suit up in the case of injured players) for the first game or match. Thus, football with 85 scholarship players has a roster size of about 140-145. This can be cut by at least 20 without hurting the team one iota. Crew has a current roster size of over 70, and the coaches are on record as wanting a roster of about 35 (roughly double the size of 2 crews). The problem here is that influential alumni/donors wanted to keep the tradition that anyone who wanted to be on the crew team could walk on. Now that Gary Rogers has passed away, perhaps that might change.

As for the women's lacrosse issue--my understanding is that it would have been moot if we were on Prong 1 to begin with.

Hope this helps.

UrsaMajor said:

---

good questions. we are fairly far out of compliance with Prong . Approximately 54% of students are women, while around 40% of athletes ...

As for the women's lacrosse issue--my understanding is that it would have been moot if we were on Prong 1 to begin with.

Hope this helps.

---

Thanks. Explanation helps quite a bit.
Usually lots of good information and analysis on this board, this just reinforces that assessment.

But can't help wondering if "indefinite monitoring" is anything like " double secret probation".

I think the issue was with the women's field hockey team, not the lacrosse team.

northendbear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

good questions. we are fairly far out of compliance with Prong . Approximately 54% of students are women, while around 40% of athletes ...

As for the women's lacrosse issue--my understanding is that it would have been moot if we were on Prong 1 to begin with.

Hope this helps.

---

Thanks. Explanation helps quite a bit.
Usually lots of good information and analysis on this board, this just reinforces that assessment.

But can't help wondering if "indefinite monitoring" is anything like " double secret probation".

---

Sorry about that. These issues have been discussed a lot on this board, so I resorted to bureaucratic shorthand, assuming that everyone reading would know the technical details. The explanation given was accurate. Basically, a lot of us think that trying to comply how we're currently complying, which is basically a qualitative standard, is not going to be sustainable given IAD's financial problems. Therefore, the idea is to comply numerically, which would permit a smaller athletic department overall that costs less. There's no mandate to offer any certain number of sports, other than the sports that are required for membership in the Pac 12 (football, men's and women's basketball, women's volleyball and softball, I believe).

Jeff82 said:

---

There's no mandate to offer any certain number of sports, other than the sports that are required for membership in the Pac 12 (football, men's and women's basketball, women's volleyball and softball, I believe).

---

Not softball. Oregon State, Washington State, and Colorado do not field Pac 12 women's softball programs.

Jeff82 said:

---

northendbear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

good questions. we are fairly far out of compliance with Prong . Approximately 54% of students are women, while around 40% of athletes ...

As for the women's lacrosse issue--my understanding is that it would have been moot if we were on Prong 1 to begin with.

Hope this helps.

---

Thanks. Explanation helps quite a bit.
Usually lots of good information and analysis on this board, this just reinforces that assessment.

But can't help wondering if "indefinite monitoring" is anything like " double secret probation".

---

Sorry about that. These issues have been discussed a lot on this board, so I resorted to bureaucratic shorthand, assuming that everyone reading would know the technical details. The explanation given was accurate. Basically, a lot of us think that trying to comply how we're currently complying, which is basically a qualitative standard, is not going to be sustainable given IAD's financial problems. Therefore, the idea is to comply numerically, which would permit a smaller athletic department overall that costs less. There's no mandate to offer any certain number of sports, other than the sports that are required for membership in the Pac 12 (football, men's and women's basketball, women's volleyball and softball, I believe).

---

Basically, it means getting rid of mens sports with large rosters - rowing and track/field seem like candidates. Mens Gymnastics might go too just because of cost. For political reasons baseball, aquatics, and, mens rugby are safe but may need to reduce size and/or start a women's rugby team.

I'll also touch the third rail - they could reduce the percentage of woman students to match the overall population (which I believe is only 50.80% female). That would help.

Final thought - I would love for Cal or a consortium of schools to challenge the Title IX regulations which are regulations, not laws. I would like to see a distinction made between revenue and non-revenue sports with the school required to devote equal $$ to the non-revenue sports only. That is in the spirit of the law though not an approved implementation. But there is no reason that the regs have to be the "only" way to comply with the law.

BearGoggles said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

northendbear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

good questions. we are fairly far out of compliance with Prong . Approximately 54% of students are women, while around 40% of athletes ...

As for the women's lacrosse issue--my understanding is that it would have been moot if we were on Prong 1 to begin with.

Hope this helps.

---

Thanks. Explanation helps quite a bit.
Usually lots of good information and analysis on this board, this just reinforces that assessment.

But can't help wondering if "indefinite monitoring" is anything like " double secret probation".

---

Sorry about that. These issues have been discussed a lot on this board, so I resorted to bureaucratic shorthand, assuming that everyone reading would know the technical details. The explanation given was accurate. Basically, a lot of us think that trying to comply how we're currently complying, which is basically a qualitative standard, is not going to be sustainable given IAD's financial problems. Therefore, the idea is to comply numerically, which would permit a smaller athletic department overall that costs less. There's no mandate to offer any certain number of sports, other than the sports that are required for membership in the Pac 12 (football, men's and women's basketball, women's volleyball and softball, I believe).

---

I'll also touch the third rail - they could reduce the percentage of woman students to match the overall population (which I believe is only 50.80% female). That would help.

---

Great idea. Let's deny Berkeley educations to qualified women because our IAD can't get its act together. I'm hoping this is sarcasm.

If the rumors are true that the campus will assume part of the stadium debt from IAD in return for replacing Edwards Field with student housing, then obviously track is a sport that departs. Soccer could presumably be played in Memorial if the field were restriped, or maybe at Maxwell.

Correct, Yogi. Pac12 mandates football, basketball, women's basketball, and women's volleyball. HOWEVER, the NCAA mandates a total of 14 sports (either 7 men's and 7 women's or 6 men's and 8 women's).

Jeff82 said:

---

If the rumors are true that the campus will assume part of the stadium debt from IAD in return for replacing Edwards Field with student housing, then obviously track is a sport that departs. Soccer could presumably be played in Memorial if the field were restriped, or maybe at Maxwell.

---

Witter would make sense too. Dimensions are more similar to rugby.

The issue is if we get rid of women's track, Cal has to meet prong 1. That would almost certainly mean cutting rugby.... and baseball, men's soccer and mens crew. Or adding women's rugby, but that's a huge expense.

ColoradoBear said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

If the rumors are true that the campus will assume part of the stadium debt from IAD in return for replacing Edwards Field with student housing, then obviously track is a sport that departs. Soccer could presumably be played in Memorial if the field were restriped, or maybe at Maxwell.

---

Witter would make sense too. Dimensions are more similar to rugby.

The issue is if we get rid of women's track, Cal has to meet prong 1. That would almost certainly mean cutting rugby.... and baseball, men's soccer and mens crew. Or adding women's rugby, but that's a huge expense.

---

No way crew is eliminated--it has a huge endowment. The roster, however, can be cut in half. Rugby is also virtually self-funded, so it would stay. Prong 1 is likely to be met by a combination of cutting rosters (you can eliminate 35 crew members, about 20-25 football players, and some number of T&F athletes without affecting competitiveness), adding women's rugby, which men's rugby has pledged to help fund, and possibly dropping 1-2 sports (baseball is a prime candidate--large roster, high cost, and it frees up Evans Diamond for other uses).

BearGoggles said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

northendbear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

good questions. we are fairly far out of compliance with Prong . Approximately 54% of students are women, while around 40% of athletes ...

As for the women's lacrosse issue--my understanding is that it would have been moot if we were on Prong 1 to begin with.

Hope this helps.

---

Thanks. Explanation helps quite a bit.
Usually lots of good information and analysis on this board, this just reinforces that assessment.

But can't help wondering if "indefinite monitoring" is anything like " double secret probation".

---

Sorry about that. These issues have been discussed a lot on this board, so I resorted to bureaucratic shorthand, assuming that everyone reading would know the technical details. The explanation given was accurate. Basically, a lot of us think that trying to comply how we're currently complying, which is basically a qualitative standard, is not going to be sustainable given IAD's financial problems. Therefore, the idea is to comply numerically, which would permit a smaller athletic department overall that costs less. There's no mandate to offer any certain number of sports, other than the sports that are required for membership in the Pac 12 (football, men's and women's basketball, women's volleyball and softball, I believe).

---

Basically, it means getting rid of mens sports with large rosters - rowing and track/field seem like candidates. Mens Gymnastics might go too just because of cost. For political reasons baseball, aquatics, and, mens rugby are safe but may need to reduce size and/or start a women's rugby team.

I'll also touch the third rail - they could reduce the percentage of woman students to match the overall population (which I believe is only 50.80% female). That would help.

Final thought - I would love for Cal or a consortium of schools to challenge the Title IX regulations which are regulations, not laws. I would like to see a distinction made between revenue and non-revenue sports with the school required to devote equal $$ to the non-revenue sports only. That is in the spirit of the law though not an approved implementation. But there is no reason that the regs have to be the "only" way to comply with the law.

---

1. For the love of god we are not a sports program with a university attached. The tail doesn't wag the dog. We are not changing general admissions policy to suit our athletic department.

2. Cal would be sued and would lose. Ask Lowell High School how mandating percentages by gender works out.

So...eliminate 20-25 non-scholarship football players? We have that many walk-ons? Would it affect our ability to compete? How about limiting travel of revenue negative sports if the funds for travel come from the university? If donors want to pay for travel for exotic trips....have at it.

SRBear said:

---

So...eliminate 20-25 non-scholarship football players? We have that many walk-ons? Would it affect our ability to compete? How about limiting travel of revenue negative sports if the funds for travel come from the university? If donors want to pay for travel for exotic trips....have at it.

---

I don't know about this year, but in 2016 we had 85 scholarship players (NCAA limit) and about 60 walk-ons. Dykes and staff said that 125 total was more than enough and they could do with as few as 115. As for funding, the funds are not the issue in Prong 1, the # of bodies is.

UrsaMajor said:

---

SRBear said:

---

So...eliminate 20-25 non-scholarship football players? We have that many walk-ons? Would it affect our ability to compete? How about limiting travel of revenue negative sports if the funds for travel come from the university? If donors want to pay for travel for exotic trips....have at it.

---

I don't know about this year, but in 2016 we had 85 scholarship players (NCAA limit) and about 60 walk-ons. Dykes and staff said that 125 total was more than enough and they could do with as few as 115. As for funding, the funds are not the issue in Prong 1, the # of bodies is.

---

All three prongs, even 1, have the potential for ambiguity. It's definitely not as simple as number of roster spots. On top of that, the interpretation for each prong depends on the current administration's guidance, so this can change over time.

According to this NCAA site, the OCR considers scholarship spending as part of prong 1:

Quote:

---

1998 OCR Letter on Financial Aid

On the 25th anniversary of Title IX, the National Women's Law Center filed complaints of financial aid discrimination with the OCR against 25 colleges and universities. In the midst of litigation, the OCR issued a letter stating that financial aid disparities are calculated by comparing the percentage of the total financial aid dollars awarded to each sex with their respective financial aid student-athlete percentage rate. For example, if females make up 48 percent of the student-athlete population, but only receive 45 percent of the athletically related financial aid, there would be a disparity of 3 percent. It further states that the OCR will presume discrimination where there exist unexplained disparities of greater than 1 percent.

---

So, I interpret that statement regarding scholarships as pretty onerous when it comes to prong 1, and it actually applies to all prongs.

For instance, if we are meeting title ix by using prong 2's "continual expansion of athletic opportunities", we could have roster slots that are imbalanced, and scholarships imbalanced at the same proportion. If we are moving to prong 1, that would seem to require that roster slots be proportional to the student population, and that scholarships be within 1% of the roster distribution.

ColoradoBear said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

If the rumors are true that the campus will assume part of the stadium debt from IAD in return for replacing Edwards Field with student housing, then obviously track is a sport that departs. Soccer could presumably be played in Memorial if the field were restriped, or maybe at Maxwell.

---

Witter would make sense too. Dimensions are more similar to rugby.

The issue is if we get rid of women's track, Cal has to meet prong 1. That would almost certainly mean cutting rugby.... and baseball, men's soccer and mens crew. Or adding women's rugby, but that's a huge expense.

---

Not if men's rugby picks up the cost, which Jack Clark previously pledged they would do. Again, it's a philosophical issue. I just think trying to comply on Prong 3 is a fool's errand, because it's subjective, and puts IAD at risk of perennial demands for new women's sports, which we can't afford to underwrite.