Titke IX supreme court case

[Kelvin green]

Forget Title IX it got left behind in the ashes.

It became an equal protection case. The court case had to be filed in federal District Court since it was originally files as a TitleIX and 14th Amendment Case. The federal Courts had to get involved once there was a suit filed.


Scholarships was only one issue.
Remember this was more than just Basketball, it dealt with soccer, golf, and swimming seasons and which ones were advantagoeus and which ones were not

Jimgolf stated "The court should look at whether or not athletes have equal opportunity to physical fitness and competition" EXACTLY!

The Boys had superior opportunities.

Poor conditions at golf courses, poor soccer field conditions, more injuries, cant play the same out of state games,(or cant play out of state period), BB season is three weeks shorter, less practice time, etc So they did not in fact have equal opportunity for competition!

Robmoz stated "If athletes are striving for scholarship opportunities, there are other ways to get noticed besides activities sponsored by their high school. (i.e. AAU participation or camp attendence)." EXACTLY!!!

but the boys could and girls could not given the way seasons conflicted with many of these opportunities since these opportunies happen in the off seasons...

I guess I do not understand how switiching seasons prevents girls from multiple participation. Girls do it now where I live and have done it for some 25 Years (long with 43 other states)

[Jimgolf]

Originally posted by Kelvin green
cant play the same out of state games,(or cant play out of state period), BB season is three weeks shorter, less practice time, etc So they did not in fact have equal opportunity for competition!

Why not require the other 49 states to match Michigan's season? Because it would be stupid. As is the court's entire involvement. The Federal government has no authority to regulate state sports. The 14th Amendment was never intended for this purpose. This is junk law being applied to it's absurdity. Judges should go back to letting legislatures pass laws.

[Robmoz]

More than 82 percent of Michigan schools which responded to the last survey indicated that they opposed this realignment of seasons. Associations of coaches for basketball, tennis, swimming and diving, golf and soccer are opposed. Associations of volleyball officials are opposed.

For example, a coach of boys and girls swimming at one Michigan high school volunteered that if the girls and boys seasons had been conducted at the same time of year, he would have eliminated 600 boys and girls from his programs over the last ten years because of facility limitations.

The group (Communities for Equity, the litigants) will tell you that forcing girls to play volleyball in the winter and basketball in the fall is costing them precious college scholarships.

Hogwash! First of all, it is not the role of the MHSAA to make sure students have the opportunity to receive athletic scholarships. Less than 1 percent of our athletes are going to receive athletic scholarships anyway, so changing the athletic calendar for those few students is sheer lunacy. But pretend for a moment that athletic scholarships are priority No. 1 for the MHSAA. As it turns out, it is doing quite well in that area, thank you.

Last year, the state produced the fifth-highest number of Division I volleyball scholarship athletes in the country and was No. 6 in the nation in women's basketball scholarship winners. This is why: Michigan's high school sporting schedule provides a tremendous advantage to basketball and volleyball players here.

Ask yourself: When is the easiest time for a college coach to evaluate prospects? When that coach isn't coaching his/her college team. College coaches can come here to evaluate players and not have to worry about coaching their team or neglecting their home state in recruiting.

You might say that since volleyball is played in the fall in other states, college coaches are finished recruiting by the time we even begin playing volleyball here. That is not true because college recruiting has become so sophisticated, most college coaches know to whom they are going to offer scholarships before the athlete's senior season even begins. Most coaches spend the school season concentrating on evaluating juniors, not seniors.

Many of the litigants are parents of volleyball players who want the volleyball season moved from the winter season to the fall season, in hopes of increasing their daughters' exposure to college coaches. What such litigation ignores, however, is that even if volleyball players would benefit from such a switch, an equal number of other athletes would suffer. The rearrangement in South Dakota, for instance, shifts girls' basketball to the winter, causing the state's female basketball players to receive less exposure to college recruiters. Worse yet, many girls are forced to choose between two sports that did not conflict in the previous system. Thus, regardless of whether the sports seasons are rearranged or the current schedule remains in place, it is unavoidable that some girls will feel as though they are denied the opportunities and exposure that other girls receive.

In more than half of the states in which both girls' and boys' basketball are scheduled for the same season, freshman or junior varsity squads have been eliminated! This was done in order "to accommodate [increased] demands on facilities, coaches and officials. With the current scheduling, Michigan averages 30 girls' basketball players per school, far more than in other states. For example, Missouri and Iowa average 24 players, Ohio averages 23 players, Florida averages 21 players, Alabama and Oklahoma average 15 players, and Tennessee averages 14 players per school. Judge Enslen used Kentucky to illustrate that a state can schedule boys' and girls' basketball during the same season. However, Kentucky has only 5,950 girls playing basketball, well surpassed by the 21,000 girls playing basketball in Michigan.

Equal opportunity? You want equal opportunity?

If the lawsuit filed against the MHSAA seeking to switch when some sports are played does produce that result, try this for some equal opportunity:
[list][*]Boys and girls will both have a greater chance of being cut from a team. [*]Those who make the team will not have as much time to practice their skills. [*]They will have a chance to play under coaches of lesser quality than they do now. [*]They will get to have their games worked by inferior officials. [*]They can even play in front of smaller crowds and draw less attention from the media. [*]All in the name of what has sadly become the holy grail of high school sports the college scholarship.

Sounds like a winner, doesn't it? NOT!

[Stat-Man]

Robmoz:

That last post is from a Mick McCabe article, isn't it? (I remember when it first came out, and I love how outspoken he is).

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Robmoz

If athletes are striving for scholarship opportunities, there are other ways to get noticed besides activities sponsored by their high school. (i.e. AAU participation or camp attendence).

AAU?? Camps??

The last thing I want between my kid & a ncaa scholarship is an AAU coach or someone running a big time summer camp.

From what I see the ncaa is going out of their way to reduce & eliminate the power of AAU coaches & summer camps.

[Robmoz]

Yes, I incorporate excerpts from various articles including Mike's. I made it a point to get information from news organizations around the state.

[Robmoz]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

AAU?? Camps??

The last thing I want between my kid & a ncaa scholarship is an AAU coach or someone running a big time summer camp.

From what I see the ncaa is going out of their way to reduce & eliminate the power of AAU coaches & summer camps.

Maybe so Dan, but I see college coaches at camp every year and the AAU program (at least in S.E. MI) is so strong that many coaches cannot help but to come see the talent. This is not just true for basketball but you should see how nuts it is for volleyball!

[gsf23]

I still don't understand the facilities argument. Isn't volleyball an indoor sport that also requires a gym? How is it not a problem with VB and Basketball but a problem for basketball and basketball? Where I was at, we only had one gym so it didn't matter how the seasons were aligned, there would be a facility problem either way.

The officiating seems to be a state problem. The way I have seen in worked, the boys and girls play double-headers. One crew of officials work BOTH jv games and then antother crew works BOTH varsity games. In that case there is no argument about quality because it is the same refs for both.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by gsf23


The officiating seems to be a state problem. The way I have seen in worked, the boys and girls play double-headers. One crew of officials work BOTH jv games and then antother crew works BOTH varsity games. In that case there is no argument about quality because it is the same refs for both.

That is not the case in my state. Boy's play on one night, girls play on another night. Officials here do not want to work both side or are not capable of working both sides. There are a lot of officials that would not want to work both. And many places do not want their officials to work two games a night. Whether that is a JV/Sophomore game first and a varsity game second or a varsity doubleheader. I just would not go over well here. And you cannot make officials do what they have no desire to do.

Peace

[OverAndBack]

You mean two games a night if one of them is a varsity game, right Rut? Because us lower-level guys do two or three games at a time all the time.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by OverAndBack
You mean two games a night if one of them is a varsity game, right Rut? Because us lower-level guys do two or three games at a time all the time.

You work them because you have to. I had to. All varsity officials had to at some point. I can tell you there is a big different in doing two freshman games than doing a Girl/Boy doubleheader.

I work a lot of games during the summer at one time. Four games are not out of the question during one setting. But we do not switch on every foul. We do not run to the reporting area if report the fouls formally at all. And those games are not in the paper or on the radio or affect playoff consideration. There is quite a difference.

Peace

[refaholic]

Originally posted by Robmoz
More than 82 percent of Michigan schools which responded to the last survey indicated that they opposed this realignment of seasons. Associations of coaches for basketball, tennis, swimming and diving, golf and soccer are opposed. Associations of volleyball officials are opposed.

For example, a coach of boys and girls swimming at one Michigan high school volunteered that if the girls and boys seasons had been conducted at the same time of year, he would have eliminated 600 boys and girls from his programs over the last ten years because of facility limitations.

The group (Communities for Equity, the litigants) will tell you that forcing girls to play volleyball in the winter and basketball in the fall is costing them precious college scholarships.

Hogwash! First of all, it is not the role of the MHSAA to make sure students have the opportunity to receive athletic scholarships. Less than 1 percent of our athletes are going to receive athletic scholarships anyway, so changing the athletic calendar for those few students is sheer lunacy. But pretend for a moment that athletic scholarships are priority No. 1 for the MHSAA. As it turns out, it is doing quite well in that area, thank you.

Last year, the state produced the fifth-highest number of Division I volleyball scholarship athletes in the country and was No. 6 in the nation in women's basketball scholarship winners. This is why: Michigan's high school sporting schedule provides a tremendous advantage to basketball and volleyball players here.

Ask yourself: When is the easiest time for a college coach to evaluate prospects? When that coach isn't coaching his/her college team. College coaches can come here to evaluate players and not have to worry about coaching their team or neglecting their home state in recruiting.

You might say that since volleyball is played in the fall in other states, college coaches are finished recruiting by the time we even begin playing volleyball here. That is not true because college recruiting has become so sophisticated, most college coaches know to whom they are going to offer scholarships before the athlete's senior season even begins. Most coaches spend the school season concentrating on evaluating juniors, not seniors.

Many of the litigants are parents of volleyball players who want the volleyball season moved from the winter season to the fall season, in hopes of increasing their daughters' exposure to college coaches. What such litigation ignores, however, is that even if volleyball players would benefit from such a switch, an equal number of other athletes would suffer. The rearrangement in South Dakota, for instance, shifts girls' basketball to the winter, causing the state's female basketball players to receive less exposure to college recruiters. Worse yet, many girls are forced to choose between two sports that did not conflict in the previous system. Thus, regardless of whether the sports seasons are rearranged or the current schedule remains in place, it is unavoidable that some girls will feel as though they are denied the opportunities and exposure that other girls receive.

In more than half of the states in which both girls' and boys' basketball are scheduled for the same season, freshman or junior varsity squads have been eliminated! This was done in order "to accommodate [increased] demands on facilities, coaches and officials. With the current scheduling, Michigan averages 30 girls' basketball players per school, far more than in other states. For example, Missouri and Iowa average 24 players, Ohio averages 23 players, Florida averages 21 players, Alabama and Oklahoma average 15 players, and Tennessee averages 14 players per school. Judge Enslen used Kentucky to illustrate that a state can schedule boys' and girls' basketball during the same season. However, Kentucky has only 5,950 girls playing basketball, well surpassed by the 21,000 girls playing basketball in Michigan.

Equal opportunity? You want equal opportunity?

If the lawsuit filed against the MHSAA seeking to switch when some sports are played does produce that result, try this for some equal opportunity:
[list][*]Boys and girls will both have a greater chance of being cut from a team. [*]Those who make the team will not have as much time to practice their skills. [*]They will have a chance to play under coaches of lesser quality than they do now. [*]They will get to have their games worked by inferior officials. [*]They can even play in front of smaller crowds and draw less attention from the media. [*]All in the name of what has sadly become the holy grail of high school sports the college scholarship.

Sounds like a winner, doesn't it? NOT!

Did we all forget this as well as the parents, it was not the MHSAA who set these standards of when the sports were played it was the schools. So if anyone is going to go to court and be suied it should be the schools and coaches associations. The MHSAA left it up to its memeber insitutions and they( THE SCHOOLS)said play Girl's Basketball in the Fall and Volleyball in the winter/spring. The only reason the MHSAA is involved is because they are the state association. People need to research things before they get sue happy.

[Kelvin green]

MHSAA was the correct defendant. They were ruled a state actor because of their involvement. This was based on the Supreme Courts decision on how Tennesse's Activities Association worked.

If they were not the correct defendant the case would have been tossed.

[Stat-Man]

Originally posted by Kelvin green
MHSAA was the correct defendant. They were ruled a state actor because of their involvement. This was based on the Supreme Courts decision on how Tennesse's Activities Association worked.

If they were not the correct defendant the case would have been tossed.

Part of the MHSAA's position is that Michigan Law prohibits school districts from ceding their power (regarding athletic matters) to the MHSAA. Is anyone aware of the exact statute in question?

[mick]

Originally posted by Kelvin green
MHSAA was the correct defendant. They were ruled a state actor because of their involvement. This was based on the Supreme Courts decision on how Tennesse's Activities Association worked.

If they were not the correct defendant the case would have been tossed.

* The Michigan Supreme Court rejected the argument that the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving the Tennessee High School Athletic Association which made the Tennessee organization a state actor automatically makes the MHSAA a state actor; and it rejected the argument that a state actor must be automatically subject to the Michigan Freedom of Information Act.

http://www.mhsaa.com/news/05michsupreme.htm