Originally posted by GTOWN
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
RPI 2019-2020: Life after Lovisa
Collapse
X
-
Re: RPI 2019-2020: Life after Lovisa
Originally posted by MAHOCKEY FAN View PostI believe it even plays a roll in high school.
Comment
-
Re: RPI 2019-2020: Life after Lovisa
Originally posted by GTOWN View PostMy understanding is that title IX applies across ALL programs at all levels. my daughter is playing DIII and there have been discussions about title IX implications. don't think that's just a DI impact.
However, Title IX overall applies to all educational institutions receiving federal money . It requires equity between opportunities for men and women not just for athletics but all programs. I'm sure there are complicated criteria that are used to assess "equity."
Edit: I see Eeyore beat me to it.
Comment
-
Re: RPI 2019-2020: Life after Lovisa
Originally posted by rpi82 View PostThe proportionality rule applies to scholarships so that element doesn't apply to most D-III schools. It does apply to hockey at RPI due to the grandfathering provision passed about 15 years ago.
(1) Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or
(2) Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and abilities of the members of thatsex; or
(3) Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion such as that cited above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program.
Item one is not specifically about scholarships. A school that does not offer them must still provide proportional opportunities on varsity teams to satisfy the test.
There is a second issue beyond access, which is that the institution must provide equivalent treatment for the athletes in things such as: quality of facilities and equipment; practice times; travel and per diems; and a number of other measures. Substantial proportionality is not the standard here.
Comment
-
Re: RPI 2019-2020: Life after Lovisa
RPI's women's hockey team was mentioned in Sports Illustrated's first issue of the year (they only print one issue a month nowadays).
Unfortunately (though probably not surprisingly), it wasn't a particularly positive mention. A Faces in the Crowd item about Clarkson's Elizabeth Giguere mentioned that she had become the school's all-time assists leader with two assists in a 5-0 defeat of Rensselaer.
At least they spelled the school's name correctly.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Waite21 View PostRPI's women's hockey team was mentioned in Sports Illustrated's first issue of the year (they only print one issue a month nowadays).
Unfortunately (though probably not surprisingly), it wasn't a particularly positive mention. A Faces in the Crowd item about Clarkson's Elizabeth Giguere mentioned that she had become the school's all-time assists leader with two assists in a 5-0 defeat of Rensselaer.
At least they spelled the school's name correctly.Uncle Mickey: July 23, 1950-July 22, 2003
WRPI, 91.5 FM...usually color commentary.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Still Eeyore View PostThis is false. Proportionality is not limited to scholarships. Indeed, proportionality of scholarships is not actually required, though it would be difficult to satisfy Title IX if they are far out of balance over a long period. What Title IX requires, in regards to athletics and according to a large body of case law, is that an institution must provide athletic opportunities substantially proportional to gender representation in the institution as a whole. One aspect of this is that there must be substantially proportional access to such opportunities, and proportional scholarships are one of the three ways that a school can demonstrate compliance. It does have extra importance, because providing proportional scholarships provides a safe harbor, while the other two are subject to litigation. The three tests are:
(1) Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or
(2) Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and abilities of the members of thatsex; or
(3) Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion such as that cited above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program.
Item one is not specifically about scholarships. A school that does not offer them must still provide proportional opportunities on varsity teams to satisfy the test.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/inclusion/title-ix-frequently-asked-questions#complyLast edited by rpi82; 02-01-2020, 04:56 AM.
Comment
-
Re: RPI 2019-2020: Life after Lovisa
Originally posted by rpi82 View PostThe three tests you cited are alternatives to each other. If you meet 2 or 3 you do not have to meet the proportionality standard to comply with the opportunity requirements. In practice, however, you are probably right that the easiest, safest and most sustainable way to show compliance is proportionality. There is no alternative to proportionality for scholarships.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/...estions#comply
Comment
-
Re: RPI 2019-2020: Life after Lovisa
Originally posted by Still Eeyore View PostHence why I said that part one of the three part test is one of the three ways you can demonstrate compliance. And it's not a question of being "probably right" that the first is the easiest way to demonstrate compliance; the courts have ruled explicitly that it provides a safe harbor for a school that achieves it, as opposed to the other two, which can involve litigation as to whether a school has complied.
It is my understanding, however, that proportionality of scholarships is explicitly cited as a requirement in the federal regulations used to determine administrative enforcement and there are no alternative paths to compliance on that element. As far as I know there is also no competing case law.Last edited by rpi82; 02-03-2020, 12:12 AM.
Comment
-
Re: RPI 2019-2020: Life after Lovisa
Originally posted by sezenack View PostOnly 4 games away from the perfect season!Fan of CLARKSON: 2014, 2017 & 2018 NC$$ WOMEN'S DIV 1 HOCKEY NATIONAL CHAMPIONS *******https://fanforum.uscho.com/core/images/smilies/smile.gi*********
And of 3 Patty Kaz recepients: Jamie Lee Rattray, Loren Gabel and Elizabeth Giguere
WHOOOOOOOOO WHOOOOOOOOO
If Union Can Do It So Can CCT (One of These Years) *******https://fanforum.uscho.com/core/images/smilies/smile.gi*********
Comment
-
Re: RPI 2019-2020: Life after Lovisa
The MVP of the 2020 NWHL All-Star Game is @SelanderLovisa of @TheBostonPride and #TeamDempsey. #2020NWHLAllStarWeekend pic.twitter.com/Ov1Ca6lubM
— NWHL (@NWHL) February 9, 2020
Comment
-
Originally posted by MAHOCKEY FAN View PostRPI should take note....the difference a coach can make in a single year without your own recruits——-look at what Yale is doing! They have been in danger of not making playoffs for years ( and didn’t last year)....look at them now Bravo!
Comment
Comment