GV 2 Whistle, ACLU Stepping in
 

ACLU is concerned with prep officiating cuts | detnews.com | The Detroit News

I thought you all may be interested.

Well, that solves that problem. This will be the end of 3-man crews in Michigan.

When FL was going to cut number of games allowed as a cost saving measure, but exempted football, the threatened lawsuits reversed the decision.

From that article, "In a prepared statement ACLU attorney Jessie Rossman said, "by treating student-athletes differently based on gender, the Downriver League is sending a troubling message to our young people that girls are inferior and are therefore less valuable."

Shouldn't the ACLU be working on the evening news to give as much air time to the D-1 women's game as they do the men's game, for the same rationale quoted above?

Figures
 

I'd hate to have common sense get in the way of politically correct! Geez:rolleyes:

Methinks the ACLU focuses on the battles that they can win.

If they were rational, they would admit there is a deference between boys' and girl's basketball and acknowledging that difference is in no way, shape or form a statement of any kind on the quality or value of girls.

I knew this would eventually start happening in areas that use 2 for girls but 3 for boys. It's the same reason schools that have double headers are starting to rotate the order of the games. The same reason Michigan had to end their tradition of fall ball for girls. Had Iowa not ended their 6 player game 18 years ago, they would have likely seen a lawsuit eventually as well.

I understand you don't always need 3 officials on a GV game (even though it will always provide the best coverage), but that isn't always the overriding concern in our society.

I will say the savings estimated seems about right; $500 per season per varsity team.

shhh!!!!

There's even a difference. ;)

But good luck if this goes to court being able to prove in legal or civil terms how those differences equate to only needing 2 officials for girls but 3 for boys.

Eliminating 1 official from girls varsity to save $500-700/school per year is probably not the brightest decision. How could those in charge not anticipate that this would create litigation? All those savings and more will now be going to lawyers.

Which is why the schools will back down before it goes anywhere.

It's quite possible that it was known (even obvious?) to the PTB that this would create "an issue" and therefore, they'd relent and also revert VB to 2 officials, saving even more money.

I will say that this is the only league that has considered this (to my knowledge) in Michigan. At least it hasn't been brought to any of the associations with which I am a part of. I sincerely hope this isn't where baskeball is going here in Michigan...the cost savings is so minuscule compared to the benefits. However, the bottom line is getting to be a political thing as opposed to a practical thing. It's more about grandstanding as opposed to actual solutions.

But then what would they do with the WNBA?

NBA Draws about 17,0000 plus per game.

WNBA draws 7,800 ( which shocks me that it's that high) ( I bet they give a lot of tickets away free)

There IS a difference.

My guess is they will sue all Americans in an attempt to require us to attend more women's basketball games but will actual end up with a legal cap on men's basketball attendance equal to the the attendance at the last women's game. (It's as logical as most of their arguments.)

The ACLU doesn't care that there's a difference. They think it's possible to make women men and vice versa if only they can find the right person to sue.

Maybe not free, but I'll bet they're significantly cheaper.

Of course there is a difference - the NBA and WNBA are entertainment businesses. And they would and should be handled differently than an optional activity in an educational setting.

Given that there is such a huge disparity, I'm sure you would tell the ticket takers, janitors, and concession workers that if they work at a WNBA event, they should also expect less of an hourly wage? Does their concession stand uniform cost less? Do they somehow drive a lesser distance to the game, even if the game is in the same arena?

Let's move that same argument to the school setting - does the janitor get paid a lesser wage for cleaning up after a girls' game? Should the table crew get paid less, because there is a difference in attendance between a girls' vs. a boys' game? How should the attendance at a game affect the number of officials used for that particular game?

Possibly that rationale came from: http://biglizards.net/Graphics/Foreg.../JanetReno.jpg

I think the answer to all of these questions is most likely (or most likely should be) yes. Athletics at the school level should be self-supporting. It is quite likely, given the disparity of paying fans, that girls basketball doesn't bring in enough money to pay for three officials. I'd go further and say that most girls programs are probably subsidized by the boys program in the first place.

I know a lot of members of this forum think $500 a year is insignificant, but if it's $500 a year the program doesn't have, it is a big deal.

Touche.

That will never happen. It's a direct violation of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution for imposing cruel and unusual punishment.

Oh, the humanity, the humanity.......:eek:

So scholastic sports should be available based upon the attendance of the events?

And only schools who can self-sustain sports should field teams? So if a child is from the projects, or a rundown trailer park, or is female they shouldn't have scholastic sports available to them in public schools?

They should be based on being self-supporting. Attendance is just one of the ways they can do this.

Should schools provide sports with the money they could use on teachers, books and supplies when they are short on these things? No. It has nothing to do with who the children are or what gender they are. It's about good stewardship of the funds the school has. Just because you want to offer sports doesn't mean you have the money to do so at the level you would like.

Ultimately, athletics is not a necessary part of the school function. So why should we take money away from the necessary parts to fund the unnecessary parts? Obviously, I'm a big fan of high school sports. I like to see everyone get a chance to play that wants to. But you can't spend money you don't have (well, you shouldn't).

Very few amateur athletic programs anywhere are self-supporting by any meaningful definition of the word.

You're suggesting that almost all amateur athletic programs are run by simply accumulating debt that is never paid back? I find that very unlikely. After all who would loan them the money in the first place?

Most amateur athletic programs are run via registration fees, sponsorships, donations and fund raising but at the end of the day they have to pay their bills. This is what I mean when I say self-supporting.

Who says the money isn't there? It's how the money is budgeted that determines if it's there or not. And the money that is available goes to the entire school district. It should cost each school in a particular school district/city the same amount money to fund its programs.

There should be no money in the school's budget for athletics (as a separate entity from PE). If a school can't run it's athletics program without taking money out of the main budget of the school, it shouldn't be running an athletics program.

The athletics program is not part of the mission of the school. If it can run one without taking money away from it's mission, that's great. If it can't, it shouldn't be doing it at all.

I understand you won't agree with this; and I'll happily admit it's a bit of an odd position for someone who's second job is officiating high school sports.

No, stop assuming what I'm suggesting because you keep getting it wrong. You'll save time.

I said "any meaningful definition." The fact that virtually every amateur athletic program in the world either gets sufficient support makes your statement meaningless. Of course they're all self-supporting, but so?

Now, some of them get support from other sports (the men's tennis team at the University of Iowa, for example, is likely taking their funds from the football team). Others get it straight from donors. Others get it from tax dollars, raffles, bake sales, etc.

Ah, now you're defining it in a way that's meaningful (and therefore debatable), and where I thought you were heading. The vast majority of scholastic athletic budges of which I'm aware are indeed general-budget-funded and therefore, in your definition, not self-supporting.

I'm willing to bet this is the case with most colleges as well. Athletic budgets will necessarily drain funds from the general budget that would be used for other things.

You'll note that I asked if that was what you were suggesting. I didn't assume it.

So, you said very few were self-supporting. Now, of course they all are.

This is my point exactly (well, except for the tax dollars bit). They should support themselves, not take tax money. (Unless, of course, the tax was specifically raised for the purposes of supporting athletics.)

1. I missed the question mark on what was grammatically written as a statement. Fair enough.

2 and 3. I addressed them in my next post. I'll just say that most school budgets are passed with the assumption that sports are included.

I'll take this bet (and win running away). At the collegiate level, football is a money-maker that pays for all the other athletics.

There a significant difference between scholastic athletic budgets (which I agree are not for the most part self-supporting) and most amateur athletic budgets of which scholastic athletics are a significant part but also include the innumerable baseball, basketball, soccer, football, etc leagues that exist.

It's a nasty habit that I need to get rid of when writing on forums.

Been to a high school football game in Texas or Florida lately...they are absolutely self-supporting. May not be the norm, but they generate a LOT of money.

This is why Football was not included in the reduction of games recommended and nearly imposed by the FHSAA until a girl's parent got involved. I don't think boys basketball is self-supporting, either, based on the attendance I have seen at most games. At least here, when soccer of both genders, basketball of both genders and other events seem to be scheduled on the same nights.

I think the idea that more than half of the colleges in the country earn enough money from their 2 major men's sports to support the entire athletic budget is a fallacy. Even assuming the top 20 teams can do that (which I don't assume), that's not even close to 50% of Division 1 colleges. Add to that the large number of Division 2, 3, and NAIA schools, and you're going to lose this bet with force before you limp away.

Unless you think schools like Iowa State, Northwestern, Colorado State, New Mexico, etc., are somehow able to keep their athletic programs self-sustaining, you're going to lose the bet even if we keep it to the FBS schools.

For the record, I'm not suggesting any of these football programs aren't self-sustaining at the D1 level. They may well be, but to suggest that the football and basketball revenue at Iowa State is able to support the expenditures of all sports is incorrect at best.

The football teams can probably support the football teams in those states, but I doubt they're able to support the rest of the sports at these schools as well.

My younger brother played HS football and had a trip to Masillon, OH. There he learned that the football team was essentially the student council. Because of the money they brought in, they had a large voice in how money was dispersed - by helping purchase uniforms, etc, for other sports.

Now, I'm just dying to know. Does anyone have any idea of how to track this down?

Maybe there is a stat guy or table guy or something...

Are you looking for football programs in FBS? Or Athletic departments in general?

Again, I'm not saying there aren't exceptions. But even this statement, "by helping purchase..." assumes funds were coming from elsewhere and the football revenue was a help.

We'd need to see the Statement of Activities for the whole athletic department with enough breakdown in the revenue section to be sure whether there are any transfers from the school's general budget.

I'd go so far to say the exception at the high school level would be self-supporting departments.

This site can be used to find the budgets and breakdown of most colleges. Data is disclosed by virtue of the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act.

Equity in Athletics Data Analysis Cutting Tool

Thanks, unfortunately, this report is not in enough detail to determine the level of "institutional support" as they put it as there's one line for revenue "Not Allocated by Gender/Sport" which would include this item if it exists.

Interestingly though, the University of Iowa ran a "profit" in it's athletic department of $14.3 million for the 09-10 year. The men's teams ran at a $26.9 million profit and the women's teams ran at a $10.3 million loss (not counting indirect expenses). The football team brought in $45.85 million in revenue out of $58 million total allocated revenue. There was also $30.5 million non-allocated revenue.

I'd say my side of the bet is looking good, but this is in no way determinative.

This USA Today article from 2008 quotes a study suggesting that only 19 of 119 FBS athletic departments broke even or made money. In addition, only 67 of the 119 FBS schools even broke even on football, let alone having the football team subsidize the rest of the athletic department. I'm going to guess that most, if not all, FCS, DII, DIII and NAIA athletic departments draw funds from their schools general budget.

Few athletics programs in black; most need aid - USATODAY.com

Snaqs is right about Iowa State. Because of the state of Iowa's general budget crisis, the Iowa Board of Regents has instructed all three state schools to eliminate general budget expenditures for athletics. U of Iowa achieved the feat in 2007, Iowa State is getting very close, but Northern Iowa doesn't have a realistic chance.

Regents approve modest funding cut to UNI athletics | Des Moines Register Staff Blogs

According to the good folks at Equity in Athletics, Iowa State made $6.6 million in profit on the football program in 09-10 (before indirect expenses). However, the department as a whole showed only a $200k profit which would lead me to believe there likely was subsidization from the general budget.

An interesting video from Forbes discussing the major costs of college athletics. Video clocks in at 10:00 minutes.

Forbes.com Video Network | Billionaires: College Sports Programs Losing Big Money

While this discussion has been interesting, I still have yet to see how it applies to the basics of Title IX, and how it affects women's and men's sports in schools. Very few, if any, sports departments would exist on an income and profit-producing basis only. I would like to see how many schools' math departments would be self-supporting. But there is something both departments have in common - both have to provide the same opportunities to both women and men. How silly would it sound to say women math majors would only have the TA's teach them, while the guys would be taught by the professors, because there are more guys in the program, and thus pull in more tuition dollars to the department?

Same in sports - if it is offered to the guys, the (relatively) same opportunities will be offered to the girls. If both together cannot be afforded, neither should be offered. It is still up to the school to determine if is worth subsidizing both; it has nothing to do with which sport brings in the most dollars. That's where the OP's article comes in - is providing 2 officials to girl's basketball games the "same opportunity" as providing 3 officials to the boy's games?

Of course, this only applies to the educational setting, not the business and entertainment field. I don't think anyone has said this applies to making people watch the WNBA, or that professional women soccer players need to make the same salaries as their male conterparts.

And again, Iowa is a top 20 program in Football. It is also, in spite of the feelings of many Cyclone fans, the dominant school in the state from a marketing (licensing rights) perspective. That school year includes a BCS game as well. 14 million seems high, but the Orange Bowl has quite the payout.

Thanks for a very succinct and understandable explanation.

And whether girls' ball is better or not, it's much harder to ref, especially at the hs level, and thus should be MORE likely to get the 3-whistle crew, not less likely. just IMO.

Do they have to use as many spotters at a girls weightlifting meet?

Patently absurd.

I see evidence to the contrary every night.