LFN: In the End, Fordham is a Patriot League Brother

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2009/03/in-end-fordham-is-patriot-league.html


It's a very, very constructive debate. A very good debate - with many points of view offered, from the other conference members salivating at the prospect of a Fordham possibly becoming available to the views from schools like Lafayette, Colgate and Georgetown.

But it shows the edge that's developed in this debate - not so much about the abolition of need-based aid, which has basically unanimous support (myself included) with the Patriot League fan community and elsewhere, but about how Fordham went about it - putting their Patriot League membership on the line, delivering an ultimatum to the rest of the league and putting the Patriot League in a potentially bad position.

It's the type of heated argument that could only come between brothers.

Because Fordham is really that - a Patriot League brother. One that shares the values of academic and athletic excellence that the Patriot League embodies. They were there at the beginning, and even when they had differences over basketball aid and left the leage in almost all sports in the 1990s - they remained in football. They kept the league together - allowing us to ultimately get an autobid to the playoff in the process - when they didn't have to.

Brothers do that sort of thing.

If there is indeed a vote on the future of scholarships tomorrow, I will have my voice heard.

Fordham is a Patriot League brother. If they have the vision of scholarships with the Academic Index the way it is today, the Patriot League should do what they can to accomodate our "brother" and make it work somehow. Maybe not everything by the 2010 season. But they ought to make it work somehow. Fordham deserves that.

[Fordham]

Appreciate the commitment to brotherhood here, LFN. Overall, the 'edge' you refer to is a very good thing imo. Nothing wrong with arguing veiewpoints and providing different perspectives. They've all been really good discussions and it's been fun to see the PL raising so much interest in FCS overall.

We'll just have to see what happens. I really hope that there is not a vote, though, since I can't imagine a scenario where the answer isn't 'no' given how quickly they're voting versus having heard the news. We would be better off having more time to have this one thought out.

[LUHawker]

We'll just have to see what happens. I really hope that there is not a vote, though, since I can't imagine a scenario where the answer isn't 'no' given how quickly they're voting versus having heard the news. We would be better off having more time to have this one thought out.

I agree that a vote with so little time having passed since the 'ultimatum' probably doesn't bode well for a yes.

Does anyone know what is required to pass a change? Is it a simple majority, a 2/3rds majority or a unanimous vote? That could be key.

From the 'glass half-full' perspective, maybe this quick vote is a signal to Fordham that the PL is taking them seriously and that it wants to demonstrate some responsiveness, even if all the issues haven't been fully vetted. Or perhaps the vote isn't there, but maybe its close and would give Fordham some reason to 'step back from the ledge' and constructively help move the league forward on this issue.

I really think a compromise solution is possible.

[jimbo65]

If there is a vote, will we know how the members voted. My guess is FU, Colgate & Lehigh Yes: HC, Bisons, GTown & Pards No.

If Army & Navy can vote, Yes.

[LBPop]

You know, I am so glad that you put up a thread with this title. When I first read about Fordham's position I really got a little nostalgic. I view Fordham as an integral part of Patriot League football--even more than Georgetown as odd as it is for me to write that. My two trips to see LBKid play there were great fun. The campus is beautiful, I loved the New York fans (New York is being used here as an adjective), and the local italian food was :D. And now with the Kid living in Manhattan, the Fordham games give him a chance to see his beloved Hoyas every other year without traveling too far.

I am totally unqualified to offer meaningful contributions to the dialogue about the politics of Fordham's position. I just know that I hope it can be worked out so they can remain part of the PL.

[carney2]

I'm basing this on information from a knowledgeable poster on the Lafayette board, but it appears highly unlikely that a definitive, binding vote of any kind can be held today (Thursday, 3/26) as posted (by a supposedly equally knowledgeable poster) on the Fordham board. Something of this magnitude would have to run through the Board of Trustees (at Lafayette) and it hasn't. Apparently the earliest that a real "vote" could occur would be much closer to the June "deadline." Could we be talking about a "straw poll," an early, non-binding expression of opinion, or merely a preliminary discussion here?

Like a previous poster, I am unclear as to the requirements and formalities involved.

[ngineer]

I'm basing this on information from a knowledgeable poster on the Lafayette board, but it appears highly unlikely that a definitive, binding vote of any kind can be held today (Thursday, 3/26) as posted (by a supposedly equally knowledgeable poster) on the Fordham board. Something of this magnitude would have to run through the Board of Trustees (at Lafayette) and it hasn't. Apparently the earliest that a real "vote" could occur would be much closer to the June "deadline." Could we be talking about a "straw poll," an early, non-binding expression of opinion, or merely a preliminary discussion here?

Like a previous poster, I am unclear as to the requirements and formalities involved.


I agree. I think this repport of a vote, in a formal and final sense, is premature. Especially in light of the the report that FU was giving the PL until June to make a decision. I believe most Presidents aren't going to vote with exploring the issue with their respective BOD's and ADs. Too soon, IMO.

[Fordham]

I agree. I think this repport of a vote, in a formal and final sense, is premature. Especially in light of the the report that FU was giving the PL until June to make a decision. I believe most Presidents aren't going to vote with exploring the issue with their respective BOD's and ADs. Too soon, IMO.
FWIW, I was not told that we gave any ' deadline'. Rather, we simply said that we're going
scholarship in '10 and that's it.

[DFW HOYA]

FWIW, I was not told that we gave any ' deadline'. Rather, we simply said that we're going
scholarship in '10 and that's it.

When does Fordham's associate membership come up for renewal? Under one scenario, the league could choose not to bring it to a vote and Fordham just cycles off.

[Go...gate]

I certainly want Fordham to remain with the brotherhood and want the PL to do right by them. They have been a member of our conference for twenty years and cannot and will not be easily replaced.

[carney2]

If there is a vote, will we know how the members voted. My guess is FU, Colgate & Lehigh Yes: HC, Bisons, GTown & Pards No.

If Army & Navy can vote, Yes.

My opinion is that about 100 years after we get our first ever details on how a Pope is chosen we will then get meaningful information from the super secret CIA-lite Patriot League.

I can't take too much issue with your view as to how a vote would go. My only question might be why you seem to have Lehigh's President Alice so solidly in the "yes" column.

I can only speak - and with muddled uncertainty - to the Lafayette situation. I have gone both ways on this. On the "yes" side, there is the argument that $30-$35 million was spent on stadium renovations. This would seem to hint at a strong commitment to the football program. Also on the "yes" side is the argument that perhaps the Patriot League cannot survive - it almost certainly can't grow - without football scholarships. On the "no" side is money. The argument has been made here over and over again by people with no information beyond their own "logic" that if you are funding 55 or so equivalencies, a switch to roughly the same number of scholarships would not involve additional expense. This may or may not be true and should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Consider the following case for Lafayette:

1. It has been stated with some authority on the Lafayette board that the College has been budgeting, but not spending, some serious dollars ($700,000-$800,000) for women's athletic programs. It is implied, if not actually stated, that, somehow, budgeting the money is sufficient for Title IX compliance in the face of need-based equivalencies, but that the advent of merit based football scholarships would mandate the actual expenditure of these monies to remain in compliance. (I have no specific knowledge that this is true, so I am begging you not to shoot the messenger.) If so, we are talking serious additional costs. (Is this the truth and the whole truth, so help me God? I have no idea, and you've got to admit there are some "holes" in the argument. As I said however, it is being put forth by knowledgeable people and with some implication that there is inside information behind it.)

2. Some have said: OK, even if we buy this scenario as "truth," one "money game" at an FBS school will bail us out, so what's the big deal?

3. The "big deal" is that now, instead of a "money game" providing found money, a great financial leap forward, it is a necessity to merely run in place. Not only do you get no additional funds in the bank (vs. the pre-scholarship days) you absolutely need one of these games every year to survive. For any number of reasons that may not always be possible. In the years where you can't schedule a big-pay FBS game you have a real problem.

4. You are now forced to take the football program into FBS arenas on a regular basis. Failure to see this as seriously upping the ante is to have the blinders on. You have increased the football profile and, like it or not, moved it further from the realm of "student activity" and student athlete. I realize that this is a football forum and that most of you do not in any way see this as a bad thing, but you need to realize that colleges and universities are not in business to field brand name athletic teams. There is a very large and diversified community associated with each school, and influential segments of those communities could not care less about the football program. These segments might be willing to turn a blind eye to incremental changes on the athletic side of academic life, but there is no way they don't see this as a huge shift in how the institution does business.

Cutting to the chase, I have two points:

1. I do not have the confidence that I once did that a Lafayette vote will be "yes." There may be more here than we know or than is obvious.

2. Those of you who trumpet that there is not and cannot be any additional cost for football scholarships may know not of what you speak. Get some concrete information and recognize that one size does not fit all. Each of the 7 (or is it 10?) schools involved has its own problems and circumstances. If you don't know what they are, then you are just shouting into the wind.

[Go...gate]

My opinion is that about 100 years after we get our first ever details on how a Pope is chosen we will then get meaningful information from the super secret CIA-lite Patriot League.

I can't take too much issue with your view as to how a vote would go. My only question might be why you seem to have Lehigh's President Alice so solidly in the "yes" column.

I can only speak - and with muddled uncertainty - to the Lafayette situation. I have gone both ways on this. On the "yes" side, there is the argument that $30-$35 million was spent on stadium renovations. This would seem to hint at a strong commitment to the football program. Also on the "yes" side is the argument that perhaps the Patriot League cannot survive - it almost certainly can't grow - without football scholarships. On the "no" side is money. The argument has been made here over and over again by people with no information beyond their own "logic" that if you are funding 55 or so equivalencies, a switch to roughly the same number of scholarships would not involve additional expense. This may or may not be true and should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Consider the following case for Lafayette:

1. It has been stated with some authority on the Lafayette board that the College has been budgeting, but not spending, some serious dollars ($700,000-$800,000) for women's athletic programs. It is implied, if not actually stated, that, somehow, budgeting the money is sufficient for Title IX compliance, but that the advent of football scholarships would mandate the actual expenditure of these monies to remain in compliance. (I have no specific knowledge that this is true, so I am begging you not to shoot the messenger.) If so, we are talking serious additional costs. (Is this the truth and the whole truth, so help me God? I have no idea, and you've got to admit there are some "holes" in the argument. As I said however, it is being put forth by knowledgeable people and with some implication that there is inside information behind it.)

2. Some have said: OK, even if we buy this scenario as "truth," one "money game" at an FBS school will bail us out, so what's the big deal?

3. The "big deal" is that now, instead of a "money game" providing found money, a great financial leap forward, it is a necessity to merely run in place. Not only do you get no additional funds in the bank (vs. the pre-scholarship days) you absolutely need one of these games every year to survive. For any number of reasons that may not always be possible. In the years where you can't schedule a big-pay FBS game you have a real problem.

4. You are now forced to take the football program into FBS arenas on a regular basis. Failure to see this as seriously upping the ante is to have the blinders on. You have increased the football profile and, like it or not, moved it further from the realm of "student activity" and student athlete. I realize that this is a football forum and that most of you do not in any way see this as a bad thing, but you need to realize that colleges and universities are not in business to field brand name athletic teams. There is a very large and diversified community associated with each school, and influential segments of those communities could not care less about the football program. These segments might be willing to turn a blind eye to incremental changes on the athletic side of academic life, but there is no way they don't see this as a huge shift in how the institution does business.

Cutting to the chase, I have two points:

1. I do not have the confidence that I once did that a Lafayette vote will be "yes." There may be more here than we know or than is obvious.

2. Those of you who trumpet that there is not and cannot be any additional cost for football scholarships may know not of what you speak. Get some concrete information and recognize that one size does not fit all. Each of the 7 (or is it 10?) schools involved has its own problems and circumstances. If you don't know what they are, then you are just shouting into the wind.

Some new and very compelling information here, Carney. Your point about the place of the football program in the university's overall mission is also well taken.

[Fordham]

Cutting to the chase, I have two points:

1. I do not have the confidence that I once did that a Lafayette vote will be "yes." There may be more here than we know or than is obvious.

2. Those of you who trumpet that there is not and cannot be any additional cost for football scholarships may know not of what you speak. Get some concrete information and recognize that one size does not fit all. Each of the 7 (or is it 10?) schools involved has its own problems and circumstances. If you don't know what they are, then you are just shouting into the wind.

Great point about how increasing the competitiveness of the program may not fit with the overall goals of the university. No doubt that's a valid discussion or reason for saying 'no' imo.

As a 'trumpeteer', though, I have to say that the budgeting issue you speak of makes no sense. Equivalency $ are the same as scholarship $. More than anything, spending dollars on equivalencies instead of scholarships has not been some grand loophole that PL institutions have found around Title IX.

[ngineer]

I am finding it extremely frustrating to keep agreeing with you Carney, but I do, again. You hit the nail on the head. With so much going on in the economy, reduced endowments and all departments being told to 'CUT' their budgets, NOW, any move that would in anyway risk increased financial pressure will not be made. There is a lot of detail we do not know.

As for Alice, I, too, am not confident she's on board. In fact, considering her background at MIT, she mabe passively disposed the otherway, but willing to be swayed by the BOT/Alums and tradition 'stuff' IF Lafayette, Colgate and Bucknell would be willing to go down the same path.

Lehigh has also undertaken a huge capital program with the STEPS building that is currently under construction, and by all accounts not paid for, yet! This is not typical Lehigh which, in the past, never commenced construction of a m ajor project unless already virtually paid for.(STEPS is an acronym for Science, Technology,Environment,..I forget the last two, but it's a $65 million 'green building' that will be a "one of its kind" structure in the US and dedicated to scientific/environ/studies etc.)

The best I see is some kind of compromise to buy time for the next two years while the economy recovers.

[Go...gate]

I am finding it extremely frustrating to keep agreeing with you Carney, but I do, again. You hit the nail on the head. With so much going on in the economy, reduced endowments and all departments being told to 'CUT' their budgets, NOW, any move that would in anyway risk increased financial pressure will not be made. There is a lot of detail we do not know.

As for Alice, I, too, am not confident she's on board. In fact, considering her background at MIT, she mabe passively disposed the otherway, but willing to be swayed by the BOT/Alums and tradition 'stuff' IF Lafayette, Colgate and Bucknell would be willing to go down the same path.

Lehigh has also undertaken a huge capital program with the STEPS building that is currently under construction, and by all accounts not paid for, yet! This is not typical Lehigh which, in the past, never commenced construction of a m ajor project unless already virtually paid for.(STEPS is an acronym for Science, Technology,Environment,..I forget the last two, but it's a $65 million 'green building' that will be a "one of its kind" structure in the US and dedicated to scientific/environ/studies etc.)

The best I see is some kind of compromise to buy time for the next two years while the economy recovers.

Can anyone see the PL going to 40 scholarships, as the NEC is presently doing? Arguably, would 40 scholarships be less expensive to our institutions than the present 47-55 equivalencies which we now give? If so, there is your cost-cutting. Trouble is our programs will not make much progress and may slip back further in such a situation.

[carney2]

Can anyone see the PL going to 40 scholarships, as the NEC is presently doing? Arguably, would 40 scholarships be less expensive to our institutions than the present 47-55 equivalencies which we now give? If so, there is your cost-cutting. Trouble is our programs will not make much progress and may slip back further in such a situation.

If "yes," the writing is on the wall. An FBS "money game" will be a necessity for some schools to make this happen. Someone needs to enlighten me here, but with equivalencies, something around 58 is required to make the game a "counter" for an FBS team. If the same number holds for scholarships, then you can bet the maximum number allowed will be that number or higher.

[Fordham]

If "yes," the writing is on the wall. An FBS "money game" will be a necessity for some schools to make this happen. Someone needs to enlighten me here, but with equivalencies, something around 58 is required to make the game a "counter" for an FBS team. If the same number holds for scholarships, then you can bet the maximum number allowed will be that number or higher.

Do equivalencies count as much as scholarships when it comes to being a 'counter' for FBS games?

[ngineer]

Do equivalencies count as much as scholarships when it comes to being a 'counter' for FBS games?

That is my understanding, otherwise they wouldn't be called 'equivalencies'.

[carney2]

Equivalency $ are the same as scholarship $.

Not true. I have what I believe is a compelling, if not conclusive, argument that there is a very real cost to switching from equivalencies to scholarships, but it is, unfortunately, lengthy and complex. I don't have time to go into it at the moment. I will get to it soon, however.

I just wanted to go on record as challenging your statement as an accepted "fact" based on incontrovertible logic that cannot be denied. It is not.

[MplsBison]

Maybe not for the PFL and IL...but how can you say that for the PL?


The NCAA has a strict definition for what an equivalency is. In fact, even scholarship programs are categorized by the NCAA based on the number of equivalencies they give. Something like, if the player is receiving X dollars that are otherwise not available to a non-football playing student, then based on the cost of tuition, fees, books and room/board at that school Y, then those X dollars translate into Z equivalencies (with a maximum value of 1). That could be a PL athletic department giving money to a football player whose parents are poor, or a MVFC athletic department giving money to a football player because he's a good football player.


Therefore..I'm forced to conclude that if a PL school gives 58 equivalcies to football players based on their parent's financial situation, per the NCAA definition of how the value of an equivalency is calculated, then that same PL school could award 58 equivalcies to football players as grants-in-aid based on football merit at the exact same cost.


Perhaps your argument is for an increase recruiting budget? But that seems small compared to the cost of equivalencies.

[carney2]

Maybe not for the PFL and IL...but how can you say that for the PL?


The NCAA has a strict definition for what an equivalency is. In fact, even scholarship programs are categorized by the NCAA based on the number of equivalencies they give. Something like, if the player is receiving X dollars that are otherwise not available to a non-football playing student, then based on the cost of tuition, fees, books and room/board at that school Y, then those X dollars translate into Z equivalencies (with a maximum value of 1). That could be a PL athletic department giving money to a football player whose parents are poor, or a MVFC athletic department giving money to a football player because he's a good football player.


Therefore..I'm forced to conclude that if a PL school gives 58 equivalcies to football players based on their parent's financial situation, per the NCAA definition of how the value of an equivalency is calculated, then that same PL school could award 58 equivalcies to football players as grants-in-aid based on football merit at the exact same cost.


Perhaps your argument is for an increase recruiting budget? But that seems small compared to the cost of equivalencies.

There ya go, using that blind and incontrovertible logic again. If I buy a loaf of bread and have a choice of cash, check or credit card for payment, it all comes out the same, right? Maybe yes. Maybe no. By the way, the recruiting budget has nothing to do with it. As I said, lengthy and complex. Don't guess. Oh yeah, when I post it (maybe this evening) I am begging you (that is a plural "you") to read it at least twice before grabbing your (still all inclusive and plural) keyboard. I sometimes get the feeling that reading comprehension is not our most frequently used skill at this site.

[MplsBison]

I look forward to reading it (though my response will probably have to wait until tomorrow if you post it later tonight).


But I just don't see how you can conclude that 58 equivalencies are not in fact 58 equivalencies. The NCAA calculates the same way for both: it's dollars given to football players that aren't available to non-football playing students, regardless how you decide to award them.


And the plurl would be "you guys", "you all" or ,if you like to have sex with your cousin, "y'all".

[carney2]

And the plurl would be "you guys", "you all" or ,if you like to have sex with your cousin, "y'all".

Or, if you are from Western Pennsylvania, the proper plural of "you" would be "yunz." In Eastern Pennsylvania we are more efficient and have eliminated the "n," so proper etiquette dictates a "yas."

[UAalum72]

or certain neighborhoods where the proper form is 'youse guys'

[carney2]

or certain neighborhoods where the proper form is 'youse guys'

Two words where one will do. No wonder the Dodgers moved out.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

There ya go, using that blind and incontrovertible logic again. If I buy a loaf of bread and have a choice of cash, check or credit card for payment, it all comes out the same, right?

If scholarships are a loaf of bread, here's my understanding is of how it works:

Delaware's prospective football player has a loaf of bread. It costs $3. Delaware pays it. The cost of the loaf of bread for Delaware, as reported to the NCAA, is $3, and counts as one loaf of bread in terms of "loaf of bread" limits.

***

Lafayette's prospective football player has a loaf of bread. It costs $4. Lafayette then had the prospective football player go to the financial aid office. From there, the aid office tells his family (and the athletic program) that they have determined that he can pay for $1 of that loaf, $1.50 of that will be paid for by the university, and $1.50 will come from a work study job that has at the library.

The cost of the loaf of bread for Lafayette is $1.50 as reported to the NCAA, and counts 3/4 of one loaf of bread in terms of "loaf of bread" limits (since the player is paying for $1, or 1/4 of the total cost, for the loaf of bread). The work-study counts against the loaf of bread limits, but not the cost - that's my understanding.

***

Some students will come into the athletic aid office at Lafayette, and they will be told that the financial aid office has said that the portion of the loaf that they would have had to pay will now instead be a "grant". In other words, $2.50 is paid for by the university, and $1.50 is paid for by work study.

In that case, the cost of the loaf of bread for Lafayette is $2.50 as reported to the NCAA, and counts as 1 loaf of bread in terms of "loaf of bread limits".

***

This is how it works as far as I understand it.

[Lehigh74]

If scholarships are a loaf of bread, here's my understanding is of how it works:

Delaware's prospective football player has a loaf of bread. It costs $3. Delaware pays it. The cost of the loaf of bread for Delaware, as reported to the NCAA, is $3, and counts as one loaf of bread in terms of "loaf of bread" limits.

***

Lafayette's prospective football player has a loaf of bread. It costs $4. Lafayette then had the prospective football player go to the financial aid office. From there, the aid office tells his family (and the athletic program) that they have determined that he can pay for $1 of that loaf, $1.50 of that will be paid for by the university, and $1.50 will come from a work study job that has at the library.

The cost of the loaf of bread for Lafayette is $1.50 as reported to the NCAA, and counts 3/4 of one loaf of bread in terms of "loaf of bread" limits (since the player is paying for $1, or 1/4 of the total cost, for the loaf of bread). The work-study counts against the loaf of bread limits, but not the cost - that's my understanding.

***

Some students will come into the athletic aid office at Lafayette, and they will be told that the financial aid office has said that the portion of the loaf that they would have had to pay will now instead be a "grant". In other words, $2.50 is paid for by the university, and $1.50 is paid for by work study.

In that case, the cost of the loaf of bread for Lafayette is $2.50 as reported to the NCAA, and counts as 1 loaf of bread in terms of "loaf of bread limits".

***

This is how it works as far as I understand it.

Does it make a difference if it is Whole Wheat or Rye?

[MplsBison]

For each of the 85 or fewer players who receives money that is not available to regular students, you take the money he gets and divide it by the cost for him to attend the school and add those ratios up. The sum may not be greater than 63 for FCS or 85 for FBS.


Scholarship schools award money based on how good of a football player you are.

PL schools award money based on how much money your parents make.


But the NCAA doesn't care...it's all money that regular students don't have access to.

[flea]

If scholarships are a loaf of bread, here's my understanding is of how it works:

Delaware's prospective football player has a loaf of bread. It costs $3. Delaware pays it. The cost of the loaf of bread for Delaware, as reported to the NCAA, is $3, and counts as one loaf of bread in terms of "loaf of bread" limits.

***

Lafayette's prospective football player has a loaf of bread. It costs $4. Lafayette then had the prospective football player go to the financial aid office. From there, the aid office tells his family (and the athletic program) that they have determined that he can pay for $1 of that loaf, $1.50 of that will be paid for by the university, and $1.50 will come from a work study job that has at the library.

The cost of the loaf of bread for Lafayette is $1.50 as reported to the NCAA, and counts 3/4 of one loaf of bread in terms of "loaf of bread" limits (since the player is paying for $1, or 1/4 of the total cost, for the loaf of bread). The work-study counts against the loaf of bread limits, but not the cost - that's my understanding.

***

Some students will come into the athletic aid office at Lafayette, and they will be told that the financial aid office has said that the portion of the loaf that they would have had to pay will now instead be a "grant". In other words, $2.50 is paid for by the university, and $1.50 is paid for by work study.

In that case, the cost of the loaf of bread for Lafayette is $2.50 as reported to the NCAA, and counts as 1 loaf of bread in terms of "loaf of bread limits".

***

This is how it works as far as I understand it.


Anyone else fancy a sandwich>??

[Seawolf97]

If scholarships are a loaf of bread, here's my understanding is of how it works:

Delaware's prospective football player has a loaf of bread. It costs $3. Delaware pays it. The cost of the loaf of bread for Delaware, as reported to the NCAA, is $3, and counts as one loaf of bread in terms of "loaf of bread" limits.

***

Lafayette's prospective football player has a loaf of bread. It costs $4. Lafayette then had the prospective football player go to the financial aid office. From there, the aid office tells his family (and the athletic program) that they have determined that he can pay for $1 of that loaf, $1.50 of that will be paid for by the university, and $1.50 will come from a work study job that has at the library.

The cost of the loaf of bread for Lafayette is $1.50 as reported to the NCAA, and counts 3/4 of one loaf of bread in terms of "loaf of bread" limits (since the player is paying for $1, or 1/4 of the total cost, for the loaf of bread). The work-study counts against the loaf of bread limits, but not the cost - that's my understanding.

***

Some students will come into the athletic aid office at Lafayette, and they will be told that the financial aid office has said that the portion of the loaf that they would have had to pay will now instead be a "grant". In other words, $2.50 is paid for by the university, and $1.50 is paid for by work study.

In that case, the cost of the loaf of bread for Lafayette is $2.50 as reported to the NCAA, and counts as 1 loaf of bread in terms of "loaf of bread limits".

***

This is how it works as far as I understand it.

No wonder you need that high AI !:D

[Go...gate]

If scholarships are a loaf of bread, here's my understanding is of how it works:

Delaware's prospective football player has a loaf of bread. It costs $3. Delaware pays it. The cost of the loaf of bread for Delaware, as reported to the NCAA, is $3, and counts as one loaf of bread in terms of "loaf of bread" limits.

***

Lafayette's prospective football player has a loaf of bread. It costs $4. Lafayette then had the prospective football player go to the financial aid office. From there, the aid office tells his family (and the athletic program) that they have determined that he can pay for $1 of that loaf, $1.50 of that will be paid for by the university, and $1.50 will come from a work study job that has at the library.

The cost of the loaf of bread for Lafayette is $1.50 as reported to the NCAA, and counts 3/4 of one loaf of bread in terms of "loaf of bread" limits (since the player is paying for $1, or 1/4 of the total cost, for the loaf of bread). The work-study counts against the loaf of bread limits, but not the cost - that's my understanding.

***

Some students will come into the athletic aid office at Lafayette, and they will be told that the financial aid office has said that the portion of the loaf that they would have had to pay will now instead be a "grant". In other words, $2.50 is paid for by the university, and $1.50 is paid for by work study.

In that case, the cost of the loaf of bread for Lafayette is $2.50 as reported to the NCAA, and counts as 1 loaf of bread in terms of "loaf of bread limits".

***

This is how it works as far as I understand it.

We also need to understand that the Ivy League is now doing much more of what is in the boldened portion due to the change in their own policies.

[Go...gate]

Does it make a difference if it is Whole Wheat or Rye?

Rye for me! What's in the fridge to put between the slices? :)

[ngineer]

Rye for me! What's in the fridge to put between the slices? :)


...only Femovich baloney....

[colorless raider]

"baloney" is right. Weak from the "git-go" Too bad the Ivies didn't hire her.

[carney2]

As a 'trumpeteer', though, I have to say that the budgeting issue you speak of makes no sense. Equivalency $ are the same as scholarship $. More than anything, spending dollars on equivalencies instead of scholarships has not been some grand loophole that PL institutions have found around Title IX.

As I said in my original comments, I am merely the messenger, relaying information that I felt was more than hearsay and smoke blowing from the Lafayette board. The fact that you, or anyone, view it with a jaundiced eye is not surprising.

You say that “equivalency $ are the same as scholarship $.” Are you certain? I’m not, and I doubt if your information on this is much better than mine – and, on a scale of 1 to 10, mine is somewhere below 1.0. What if (and I choose those two words intentionally) the “grand loophole” is simply the difference between need based aid and merit aid (scholarships)? Consider (and I again enumerate my points for my own undefined anal retentive reasons):

1. I was recently struck by the fact that Holy Cross approved athletic scholarships for men’s ice hockey, women’s field hockey, and men’s and women’s soccer. It is not that the ‘saders are offering athletic grants in these, or any, sports that caught my attention. I don’t have enough information about the Holy Cross situation to determine whether this is remarkable or not. It is the one-to-one gender equity of the announcement that struck me. There is an almost perfect Title IX symmetry here: pretty much one female scholarship for each male scholarship.

On the other hand you have Patriot League football with its 55 equivalencies. (I use 55 somewhat arbitrarily here, recognizing that it varies from school to school, with some having more – but not many more – and some having less – and maybe in one or two cases, considerably less. The key is that the number is large in every case.) Where are the equal and offsetting women’s equivalencies? Does Fordham have a fully rostered women’s pillaging team? How about the Lady Raider Mahjong Masters of Colgate? And how is the Bucknell women’s bear baiting team faring this season? You get my point. They do not exist. How can that be? Where is the gender equity? How is it that Holy Cross apparently bent over backwards to create an almost perfect Title IX symmetry when granting athletic scholarships but, like its sister (brother?) institutions in the Patriot League, seemingly ignores it for football? Could the answer lie in need based aid vs. merit aid?

2. A few years ago the AD at Wake Forest was interviewed (sorry, I can’t find the citation at the moment) and he stated that there are a number of tests that are applied when measuring gender equity at an institution. No single test is conclusive either way. Rather, it is the weight of the entirety and the circumstances that control. ADs, however, are like bureaucrats in any organization. They like certainty. The most certain way to approach this issue is to make the numbers equal. In other words, to do exactly what Holy Cross did when anointing 4 new scholarship sports. Given that “fact,” we are forced to ask how the generally faint hearted and subservient ADs at the 7 Patriot League football playing institutions banded together to ignore this problem and its most obvious solution (equal numbers) in the realm of football. Could the answer lie in need based aid vs. merit aid?

3. So, exactly how does the Patriot League get away with this apparent flaunting of the rules? In the first place you need to recognize that the NCAA grants special allowances or dispensations or whatever you want to call them for football. Perhaps it’s because there are so many bodies involved. Perhaps it’s because of football’s revered position as the original big time, high visibility college sport. Perhaps it’s because of the incredible amounts of money involved. (Do ya think?!!) These allowances cover all levels of college football, not just the Patriot League, and not just FCS, and generally involve equipment, insurance and other direct costs. These “allowances” however, do not adequately explain the gender discrepancies that we see at Patriot League institutions. Could the answer lie in need based aid vs. merit aid?

I have already pointed out that, according to the Wake Forest AD, no single test or circumstance is used to determine compliance with Title IX guidelines. A simple body count of male vs. female athletes may or may not be determining. In the end it comes down to answering the question as to whether female athletes are getting equal opportunities and equal resources. Is it possible (my way of saying that I don’t know for sure, but those who buy the “equivalency $ are the same as scholarship $” position simply because it is logical, should admit that there is some logic in the following argument as well) that equivalencies, based as they are on need based financial aid, contain a built in Title IX defense? After submitting the FAFSA a prospective student-athlete is informed what his/her “Family Contribution should be. In a pure need based system, the institution will find ways (grants, loans, work-study) to make up the difference. We all know that it doesn’t work quite this way, but Patriot League schools pride themselves on sticking as closely as possible to this simple model. A school with, let’s say a $45,000 price tag would therefore find some combination of aid totaling $30,000 for an athlete whose Family Contribution has been set at $15,000 by the Federal Student Aid folks. It doesn’t matter if it’s a male athlete, a female athlete, or some 130 lb. uncoordinated chemistry major lab geek – all the same. Is this a factor in determining whether a school is in Title IX compliance? I think it could be.

(Some of you are already grabbing your keyboards to state that it is ridiculous to think that merely having need based aid places a school in Title IX compliance. I ask you to READ! NO SINGLE TEST OR FACTOR BUY ITSELF DETERMINES TITLE IX COMPLIANCE. In my scenario NEED BASED AID WOULD BE BUT ONE OF THE FACTORS CONSIDERED IN THE GENDER EQUITY EQUATION.)

4. And now to the main event. Is it possible (that phrase again) that replacing need based aid with merit aid for 55/58/63 male athletes causes a Title IX issue? I think so. To think otherwise is naive at a minimum and blindly partisan at the extreme. In the first place, a built in Title IX defense has been removed from the equation. In the second place, 55/58/63 male athletes are now receiving aid without regard to their economic circumstance and, possibly, with a lower regard for their academic capabilities. There is no group of females receiving these benefits. I don’t see how the precarious balance of Title IX compliance is not affected. And the “fix” will cost money. There is absolutely no way that doesn’t happen. The amount involved and the specific solutions will vary from school to school, but you can bet that the “equal number of scholarship bodies” approach used by Holy Cross when it recently announced 4 new scholarship sports will not be a big part of the solution. In an earlier post on this thread I detailed that the solution at Lafayette may cost ¾ of a million. Who knows. But you can bet there is a very real cost involved for each of these schools. You can tell yourself that nothing's changed. You can tell the football forever crowd on this board that nothing's changed. That case becomes very weak when you are forced to present it to the NCAA.

[MplsBison]

The PL schools give money to football players that regular students and female athletes can't get. That's just a fact.


Therefore, the amount of money given to football players has to be balanced out in some way with money awarded only to female athletes.

That has to be happening now in order for the PL schools to be title IX compliant now.



Therefore, simply changing the way that the PL schools choose to award those same 55 equivalencies will not have any affect on their current title IX status and it won't cost the school any more money. At most, they're just shifting around dollars that the football players get. IE, you might see a 2nd string contributor who is from a rich family get more money and a 3rd string non-contributor from a poor family get less.


That's my feeling on this.

[DFW HOYA]

As explained earlier, it depends on how a school issues financial aid.

Example: If a PL school is offering a $10,000 buyout (grant) and the school is picking up $30,000 in general financial aid, only the $10,000 goes against the athletic department for Title IX purposes. Convert that aid to an athletic scholarship and now $40,000 is athletics-based, presumably to be matched by Title IX.

[MplsBison]

As explained earlier, it depends on how a school issues financial aid.

Example: If a PL school is offering a $10,000 buyout (grant) and the school is picking up $30,000 in general financial aid, only the $10,000 goes against the athletic department for Title IX purposes. Convert that aid to an athletic scholarship and now $40,000 is athletics-based, presumably to be matched by Title IX.


If the AD was only picking up $10k of a total $40k aid package, then the corresponding athletic scholarship would be a $10k scholarship, a partial ride.

An athlete can receive both a partial ride scholarship and general aid from the school that is available to all students.


And in both scenarios, only $10k is counted by the NCAA as aid that is not available to regular students.

[carney2]

The PL schools give money to football players that regular students and female athletes can't get. That's just a fact.

Not a "fact." "Need based" aid means exactly that. I'm sure that there's some tweaking going on, but theoretically a starting linebacker is getting the exact same financial package as a dweeb philosophy major who cannot distinguish offsides from off color.


Therefore, the amount of money given to football players has to be balanced out in some way with money awarded only to female athletes.

That has to be happening now in order for the PL schools to be title IX compliant now.

1. Reread what I wrote.

2. Read my original long post in this thread. In it I reported that Lafayette has been budgeting, but not spending somewhere between $700,000 and $800,000 on women's athletics. It is also implied that switching to football scholarships would almost certainly require that these monies be spent. You can, like our good friend Fordham, state that this just cannot be. All I know is that it is from a reputable source and supposedly based on solid information. Many have said "not possible." On the day that the President of the College placed a diploma in my hands I knew that those two words do not belong together - ever.


Therefore, simply changing the way that the PL schools choose to award those same 55 equivalencies will not have any affect on their current title IX status and it won't cost the school any more money. At most, they're just shifting around dollars that the football players get. IE, you might see a 2nd string contributor who is from a rich family get more money and a 3rd string non-contributor from a poor family get less.

We agree to disagree.

[MplsBison]

Not a "fact." "Need based" aid means exactly that. I'm sure that there's some tweaking going on, but theoretically a starting linebacker is getting the exact same financial package as a dweeb philosophy major who cannot distinguish offsides from off color.



1. Reread what I wrote.

2. Read my original long post in this thread. In it I reported that Lafayette has been budgeting, but not spending somewhere between $700,000 and $800,000 on women's athletics. It is also implied that switching to football scholarships would almost certainly require that these monies be spent. You can, like our good friend Fordham, state that this just cannot be. All I know is that it is from a reputable source and supposedly based on solid information. Many have said "not possible." On the day that the President of the College placed a diploma in my hands I knew that those two words do not belong together - ever.



We agree to disagree.


Of course it's not true that the starting linebacker is getting the same as a regular student.

If that were true they would have zero equivalencies, and we know that's not true.


Therefore, the AD is giving the player money that is not available to regular students.



I have no comment on budgeting $800k other than that would be 40 full ride scholarships they could offer over what money they're giving to athletes now. Perhaps they're planning on upgrading scholarships across the board?

[carney2]

The PL schools give money to football players that regular students and female athletes can't get. That's just a fact.

Not a "fact." "Need based" aid means exactly that. I'm sure that there's some tweaking going on, but theoretically a starting linebacker is getting the exact same financial package as a dweeb philosophy major who cannot distinguish offsides from off color.


Therefore, the amount of money given to football players has to be balanced out in some way with money awarded only to female athletes.

That has to be happening now in order for the PL schools to be title IX compliant now.

1. Re read what I wrote.

2. Read my original long post in this thread. In it I reported that Lafayette has been budgeting, but not spending somewhere between $700,000 and $800,000 on women's athletics. It is also implied that switching to football scholarships would almost certainly require that these monies be spent. You can, like our good friend Fordham, state that this just cannot be. All I know is that it is from a reputable source and supposedly based on solid information. Many have said "not possible." On the day that the President of the College placed a diploma in my hands I knew that those two words do not belong together - ever.


Therefore, simply changing the way that the PL schools choose to award those same 55 equivalencies will not have any affect on their current title IX status and it won't cost the school any more money. At most, they're just shifting around dollars that the football players get. IE, you might see a 2nd string contributor who is from a rich family get more money and a 3rd string non-contributor from a poor family get less.

We agree to disagree.

[MplsBison]

Of course it's not true that the starting linebacker is getting the same as a regular student.

If that were true they would have zero equivalencies, and we know that's not true.


Therefore, the AD is giving the player money that is not available to regular students.



I have no comment on budgeting $800k other than that would be 40 full ride scholarships they could offer over what money they're giving to athletes now. Perhaps they're planning on upgrading scholarships across the board?

[carney2]

Of course it's not true that the starting linebacker is getting the same as a regular student.

If that were true they would have zero equivalencies, and we know that's not true.


Therefore, the AD is giving the player money that is not available to regular students.

Exactly how do we "know that's not true?" If a football player qualifies for $25,000 in need based, not athletic, financial aid at a school that costs $50,000 and receives exactly $25,000 in aid, then he has 50% of an equivalency. If a geeky history major qualifies for $25,000 of aid and he receives it, he does not have any portion of an equivalency because he is not a football player. That's the way it works. Methinks that you do not have the correct definition of an "equivalency" in mind. It is not a disguised football scholarship. It is not some sort of football slush fund. The AD is NOT giving the player money that is not available to regular students. In fact, the AD - or more appropriately the football coach in this situation - has no (zero, nada) direct control of the dispensation of aid. All awards are made by the same financial aid officers who determined the appropriate award for the aforementioned geeky history major. It is simply need based financial aid doled out to football players and then arithmetically translated into athletic grants for purposes of comparison within the league, rating non-scholarship teams for games with BCS schools so that the BCS schools do not "under-schedule," and who knows what else. There is some tweaking going on, of course. Football players may, for instance, receive less aid in the form of work-study than other students because they are judged to have less time available. A highly desirable recruit may get a higher percentage of grants vs. loans than the average student, particularly if the coach has a relationship with the financial aid people. And, of course, there are rumors now and again of bidding wars for a particularly desirable recruit. One more time though - EQUIVALENCIES ARE NOT FREE MONEY FOR FOOTBALL PLAYERS. You have need based financial aid as practiced in the Patriot League and very few other places in D-1, and you have merit aid, better known as athletic scholarships. It's that simple. It's that complex.

Why, for God's sake, do you think it's so difficult to recruit in the Patriot League?!!!

[Fordham]

As I said in my original comments, I am merely the messenger, relaying information that I felt was more than hearsay and smoke blowing from the Lafayette board. The fact that you, or anyone, view it with a jaundiced eye is not surprising.

You say that “equivalency $ are the same as scholarship $.” Are you certain? I’m not, and I doubt if your information on this is much better than mine – and, on a scale of 1 to 10, mine is somewhere below 1.0. What if (and I choose those two words intentionally) the “grand loophole” is simply the difference between need based aid and merit aid (scholarships)? Consider (and I again enumerate my points for my own undefined anal retentive reasons):

1. I was recently struck by the fact that Holy Cross approved athletic scholarships for men’s ice hockey, women’s field hockey, and men’s and women’s soccer. It is not that the ‘saders are offering athletic grants in these, or any, sports that caught my attention. I don’t have enough information about the Holy Cross situation to determine whether this is remarkable or not. It is the one-to-one gender equity of the announcement that struck me. There is an almost perfect Title IX symmetry here: pretty much one female scholarship for each male scholarship.

On the other hand you have Patriot League football with its 55 equivalencies. (I use 55 somewhat arbitrarily here, recognizing that it varies from school to school, with some having more – but not many more – and some having less – and maybe in one or two cases, considerably less. The key is that the number is large in every case.) Where are the equal and offsetting women’s equivalencies? Does Fordham have a fully rostered women’s pillaging team? How about the Lady Raider Mahjong Masters of Colgate? And how is the Bucknell women’s bear baiting team faring this season? You get my point. They do not exist. How can that be? Where is the gender equity? How is it that Holy Cross apparently bent over backwards to create an almost perfect Title IX symmetry when granting athletic scholarships but, like its sister (brother?) institutions in the Patriot League, seemingly ignores it for football? Could the answer lie in need based aid vs. merit aid?

2. A few years ago the AD at Wake Forest was interviewed (sorry, I can’t find the citation at the moment) and he stated that there are a number of tests that are applied when measuring gender equity at an institution. No single test is conclusive either way. Rather, it is the weight of the entirety and the circumstances that control. ADs, however, are like bureaucrats in any organization. They like certainty. The most certain way to approach this issue is to make the numbers equal. In other words, to do exactly what Holy Cross did when anointing 4 new scholarship sports. Given that “fact,” we are forced to ask how the generally faint hearted and subservient ADs at the 7 Patriot League football playing institutions banded together to ignore this problem and its most obvious solution (equal numbers) in the realm of football. Could the answer lie in need based aid vs. merit aid?

3. So, exactly how does the Patriot League get away with this apparent flaunting of the rules? In the first place you need to recognize that the NCAA grants special allowances or dispensations or whatever you want to call them for football. Perhaps it’s because there are so many bodies involved. Perhaps it’s because of football’s revered position as the original big time, high visibility college sport. Perhaps it’s because of the incredible amounts of money involved. (Do ya think?!!) These allowances cover all levels of college football, not just the Patriot League, and not just FCS, and generally involve equipment, insurance and other direct costs. These “allowances” however, do not adequately explain the gender discrepancies that we see at Patriot League institutions. Could the answer lie in need based aid vs. merit aid?

I have already pointed out that, according to the Wake Forest AD, no single test or circumstance is used to determine compliance with Title IX guidelines. A simple body count of male vs. female athletes may or may not be determining. In the end it comes down to answering the question as to whether female athletes are getting equal opportunities and equal resources. Is it possible (my way of saying that I don’t know for sure, but those who buy the “equivalency $ are the same as scholarship $” position simply because it is logical, should admit that there is some logic in the following argument as well) that equivalencies, based as they are on need based financial aid, contain a built in Title IX defense? After submitting the FAFSA a prospective student-athlete is informed what his/her “Family Contribution should be. In a pure need based system, the institution will find ways (grants, loans, work-study) to make up the difference. We all know that it doesn’t work quite this way, but Patriot League schools pride themselves on sticking as closely as possible to this simple model. A school with, let’s say a $45,000 price tag would therefore find some combination of aid totaling $30,000 for an athlete whose Family Contribution has been set at $15,000 by the Federal Student Aid folks. It doesn’t matter if it’s a male athlete, a female athlete, or some 130 lb. uncoordinated chemistry major lab geek – all the same. Is this a factor in determining whether a school is in Title IX compliance? I think it could be.

(Some of you are already grabbing your keyboards to state that it is ridiculous to think that merely having need based aid places a school in Title IX compliance. I ask you to READ! NO SINGLE TEST OR FACTOR BUY ITSELF DETERMINES TITLE IX COMPLIANCE. In my scenario NEED BASED AID WOULD BE BUT ONE OF THE FACTORS CONSIDERED IN THE GENDER EQUITY EQUATION.)

4. And now to the main event. Is it possible (that phrase again) that replacing need based aid with merit aid for 55/58/63 male athletes causes a Title IX issue? I think so. To think otherwise is naive at a minimum and blindly partisan at the extreme. In the first place, a built in Title IX defense has been removed from the equation. In the second place, 55/58/63 male athletes are now receiving aid without regard to their economic circumstance and, possibly, with a lower regard for their academic capabilities. There is no group of females receiving these benefits. I don’t see how the precarious balance of Title IX compliance is not affected. And the “fix” will cost money. There is absolutely no way that doesn’t happen. The amount involved and the specific solutions will vary from school to school, but you can bet that the “equal number of scholarship bodies” approach used by Holy Cross when it recently announced 4 new scholarship sports will not be a big part of the solution. In an earlier post on this thread I detailed that the solution at Lafayette may cost ¾ of a million. Who knows. But you can bet there is a very real cost involved for each of these schools. You can tell yourself that nothing's changed. You can tell the football forever crowd on this board that nothing's changed. That case becomes very weak when you are forced to present it to the NCAA.

Good stuff, carney. Gracias.

Allow me to post more detail tomorrow but (and I throw the caveat in there that "I am no Title IX expert") your 1 - 4 above deals with Title IX and I'll give you my take on that ... that's based moreso on conversations I had with those at Fordham as well as some documents I'd like to link to but just don't have the time right now to look up. Suffice to say that I remain very skeptical about any Title IX issues (but not only am I open to being wrong, it's also possible that there's some nuance to this that I'll do my best to explain tomorrow ... -ish).

What is confounding me at the moment ... and I honestly just don't know enough about is the ancillary discussion going on in these multiple (xbangx) threads about the difference between the various forms of aid (work study v. grant v. merit aid v. the Leopard 'uncle' slipping a fistfull of $20's into a player's palm ;) ). That may actually end up being the hole in all of this ... but I still remain very skeptical that this whole "get-up" we've been participating in hasn't so much been about academic superiority/Ivy-leech-ship as much as it has been some diabolical scheme to get around Title IX rules.

[MplsBison]

Exactly how do we "know that's not true?" If a football player qualifies for $25,000 in need based, not athletic, financial aid at a school that costs $50,000 and receives exactly $25,000 in aid, then he has 50% of an equivalency. If a geeky history major qualifies for $25,000 of aid and he receives it, he does not have any portion of an equivalency because he is not a football player. That's the way it works. Methinks that you do not have the correct definition of an "equivalency" in mind. It is not a disguised football scholarship. It is not some sort of football slush fund. The AD is NOT giving the player money that is not available to regular students. In fact, the AD - or more appropriately the football coach in this situation - has no (zero, nada) direct control of the dispensation of aid. All awards are made by the same financial aid officers who determined the appropriate award for the aforementioned geeky history major. It is simply need based financial aid doled out to football players and then arithmetically translated into athletic grants for purposes of comparison within the league, rating non-scholarship teams for games with BCS schools so that the BCS schools do not "under-schedule," and who knows what else. There is some tweaking going on, of course. Football players may, for instance, receive less aid in the form of work-study than other students because they are judged to have less time available. A highly desirable recruit may get a higher percentage of grants vs. loans than the average student, particularly if the coach has a relationship with the financial aid people. And, of course, there are rumors now and again of bidding wars for a particularly desirable recruit. One more time though - EQUIVALENCIES ARE NOT FREE MONEY FOR FOOTBALL PLAYERS. You have need based financial aid as practiced in the Patriot League and very few other places in D-1, and you have merit aid, better known as athletic scholarships. It's that simple. It's that complex.

Why, for God's sake, do you think it's so difficult to recruit in the Patriot League?!!!


If what you say above is true, then why do Pioneer and Ivy League football teams have zero equivalencies?

What is different from your process above to what they do?



There has to be something different where the PL football players receive exclusive consideration for aid such that equivalencies are above zero.



The way I see it in your above scenario is like this: given the player's family's financial situation and expected contribution, etc., the player only qualified for that $25k because he was a football player. If he was a regular student, he would not have been given that money. Therefore, as you point out, he would be counted as 0.5 equivalency.

Vs. the PFL, IL, DIII model: the football player is treated exactly like any other student when awarding financial aid, thus zero equivalencies.



So, assuming that is true, all that happens when the switch to scholarships is made is that the player now receives a $25k scholarship and with his family's financial situation such that it is, receives no need-based aid on top of that.

[DFW HOYA]

The way I see it in your above scenario is like this: given the player's family's financial situation and expected contribution, etc., the player only qualified for that $25k because he was a football player. If he was a regular student, he would not have been given that money.

Not true. If he qualified for the $25K, and the school had a need-based forumula, he would receive the $25K, but in a mix of grant, loan, and work study; say, $8,000 grant, $13,000 loan, and $4,000 work study. A Patriot League team provides more grant and less loan money. Ivy and Pioneer teams do not do this.

Either way, it is means-tested. A student (athlete or not) won't get any aid without demonstrated need.

[MplsBison]

Not true. If he qualified for the $25K, and the school had a need-based forumula, he would receive the $25K, but in a mix of grant, loan, and work study; say, $8,000 grant, $13,000 loan, and $4,000 work study. A Patriot League team provides more grant and less loan money. Ivy and Pioneer teams do not do this.

Either way, it is means-tested. A student (athlete or not) won't get any aid without demonstrated need.

The bottom line is that the PL has equivalencies above zero due to the fact that they provide more loans for football players that regular students have access to, apparantly, whereas the PFL and IL have zero equivalencies.

One of the three prongs of Title IX is based off of equivalencies. So using scholarships won't result in any increased costs due to title IX.

[DFW HOYA]

The bottom line is that the PL has equivalencies above zero due to the fact that they provide more loans for football players that regular students have access to, apparantly, whereas the PFL and IL have zero equivalencies.

Not more loans (who would want that)? More grants.

Can't speak for other PL schools, but Georgetown is 100% full need for ALL students. If you qualify for need, you'll get it in some format. (But in football, there's still a lot more loan than grant out there.)

[MplsBison]

Sorry, meant to say grants.

[carney2]

If what you say above is true, then why do Pioneer and Ivy League football teams have zero equivalencies?

What is different from your process above to what they do?



There has to be something different where the PL football players receive exclusive consideration for aid such that equivalencies are above zero.



The way I see it in your above scenario is like this: given the player's family's financial situation and expected contribution, etc., the player only qualified for that $25k because he was a football player. If he was a regular student, he would not have been given that money. Therefore, as you point out, he would be counted as 0.5 equivalency.

Vs. the PFL, IL, DIII model: the football player is treated exactly like any other student when awarding financial aid, thus zero equivalencies.



So, assuming that is true, all that happens when the switch to scholarships is made is that the player now receives a $25k scholarship and with his family's financial situation such that it is, receives no need-based aid on top of that.

I don't have the slightest idea why the Ivys, PFL, et al. do not have equivalencies, or if that is really true at all. Since equivalencies are not real in that "you have an equivalency, young man," but are merely a calculated number that turns means tested, need based financial aid into the equivalent number of football scholarships, it appears obvious (to me) that they really do have them (because the calculation can be made), but, for whatever reason apparently choose either not to publish the data or perhaps even make the calculation. The Ivys are not looking for BCS "money games" and have their own way of doing things, so perhaps it is a needless piece of information for them. Besides, with their new way of doing things ("Everyone attends for free if their family income is less than $XXX,XXX."), it makes for a very difficult, and possibly meaningless, calculation. I have no idea.

And, no, a switch to scholarships does not just mean that the student athlete's aid merely switches titles from "financial aid" to "football scholarship." It would not be inconceivable that the individual's package went from a $25,000 means tested financial aid package to a $50,000 free ride. Means testing would be a thing of the past. His family's financial circumstances would not matter at all, and the "Family Contribution" number resulting from the FAFSA submission would be just so much useless information. Oh yeah, there is the minor detail that he would be receiving something that is not matched by any female athlete on campus, a merit based athletic scholarship.* But then, I've already covered this in excruciating detail.

*My assumption is that every female with a previously existing athletic scholarship is already "matched" by a male in some other sport, as the institution has attempted to create Title IX symmetry.

You seem focused on the idea that an equivalency exists; that it has substance and is backed by real dollars. Not true. It is a calculated number. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[OLPOP]

My understanding is that the loan and work study portions of the aid package are "bought out" by the athletic department, making the entire package an athletic related grant, or an "equivalancy" under NCAA rules.

[MplsBison]

I don't have the slightest idea why the Ivys, PFL, et al. do not have equivalencies, or if that is really true at all. Since equivalencies are not real in that "you have an equivalency, young man," but are merely a calculated number that turns means tested, need based financial aid into the equivalent number of football scholarships, it appears obvious (to me) that they really do have them (because the calculation can be made), but, for whatever reason apparently choose either not to publish the data or perhaps even make the calculation. The Ivys are not looking for BCS "money games" and have their own way of doing things, so perhaps it is a needless piece of information for them. Besides, with their new way of doing things ("Everyone attends for free if their family income is less than $XXX,XXX."), it makes for a very difficult, and possibly meaningless, calculation. I have no idea.

And, no, a switch to scholarships does not just mean that the student athlete's aid merely switches titles from "financial aid" to "football scholarship." It would not be inconceivable that the individual's package went from a $25,000 means tested financial aid package to a $50,000 free ride. Means testing would be a thing of the past. His family's financial circumstances would not matter at all, and the "Family Contribution" number resulting from the FAFSA submission would be just so much useless information. Oh yeah, there is the minor detail that he would be receiving something that is not matched by any female athlete on campus, a merit based athletic scholarship.* But then, I've already covered this in excruciating detail.

*My assumption is that every female with a previously existing athletic scholarship is already "matched" by a male in some other sport, as the institution has attempted to create Title IX symmetry.

You seem focused on the idea that an equivalency exists; that it has substance and is backed by real dollars. Not true. It is a calculated number. Nothing more. Nothing less.


The NCAA actively seeks this calculation every year because the rules are very strict on how many equivalencies you can provide each year. The limit for FCS is no more 63 equivalencies given to no more than 85 players.


This rule applies to all FCS teams, including the IL. So you are wrong when you imply that the Ivy League teams simply decide not to do the calculation. It's not up to them... it's the NCAA that wants it and does it.

The IL and PFL are zero equivalency leagues because they provide the equivalent of zero scholarships to their players. If the IL says that "anyone whose family makes less than X gets in for free", then that aid is available to regular students too. Thus, it's no the equivalent of a scholarship.

The PL is an above zero equivalency league because they provide equivalent of scholarships to their players.


Thus, any PL school should be able to simply change dollars into dollars and actually offer that equivalent scholarship.


Your example of $25k turning into $50k is an apples to oranges comparison. In that case, a 0.5 equivalency becomes a 1.0 equivalency. They just doubled by offering double the money.

[MplsBison]

My understanding is that the loan and work study portions of the aid package are "bought out" by the athletic department, making the entire package an athletic related grant, or an "equivalancy" under NCAA rules.

That makes sense to me.


This is not something that a regular student would have access to.


IE, a player has $25,000 in loan aid but the AD gives him a $25,000 grant instead.


That's no different than offering that player a $25,000 scholarship, at least from the NCAA's and title IX's point of view.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Title IX (this is lifted directly from thw Wikipedia page):


In 1979, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare under Jimmy Carter's administration issued a policy interpretation for Title IX, including what has become known as the "three-prong test" of an institution's compliance.

1. Prong one - Providing athletic opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR
2. Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, OR
3. Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex.

A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs. About 2/3 of the 132 cases before OCR involving this three prong test, have relied on the third prong to show compliance.

...

Critics of the three-prong test contend that it operates as a "quota" in that it places undue emphasis on the first prong (known as the "proportionality" prong) and fails to take into account the sexes' differing levels of interest in participating in athletics, such that this interpretation of Title IX actually operates to discriminate against men. Defenders of the three-prong test counter that the sexes' differing athletic interest levels is merely a product of past discrimination, and that Title IX should be interpreted to maximize female participation in athletics irrespective of any existing disparity in interest.

Okay, so we have the three prongs: "substantially proportionate", "continual expansion", or "full accommodation of the interest" of women's sports.

As carney said:


I have already pointed out that, according to the Wake Forest AD, no single test or circumstance is used to determine compliance with Title IX guidelines. A simple body count of male vs. female athletes may or may not be determining. In the end it comes down to answering the question as to whether female athletes are getting equal opportunities and equal resources.

In other words, there's no AI-like formula for Title IX compliance: it's "fuzzy". This is not a bad thing. You can demonstrate compliance in a lot of different ways.

****

In the Patriot League, only Lafayette and Lehigh have more males than females in the school; the rest are majority-female. For the football schools (2007 data), Lehigh is 60% male; at the other extreme is Holy Cross (56% female) and Georgetown (55%). The rest, including Lafayette, are a lot closer to 50/50. (Worthy of mention is that Lehigh's male/female ratio has shrunk; in the early 1990s, it was 2/3 men and 1/3 women.)

The ratio is important, since it plays into prong one: the "proportionality test". If a student body is 60% male, then 60% of the "athletic opportunities" should go to men, and 40% of "athletic opportunities" need to go to women, according to that test.

****

But how to measure "athletic opportunities? Each Division I school counts things differently I think is the answer. carney's "source" seems to think that budgeting (but not actually spending) on women's sports is sufficient. I can't say whether that's accurate or not.

I can say two things, however. First, applying the gender ratio to spending (i.e. expenses) on women's sports vs. men's sports would not work for any PL school sponsoring football. Why? The sports expenses of all seven schools easily outstrip the ratios of men to women in the school. Holy Cross is 56% female, but men's sports expenses take up more than 60% of the total gender-allocated sports expenses. (And this doesn't even count expenses "not allocated by gender or sport" - for example, facilities improvements.)

Second, this is also true when you apply it to athletic aid. Just to take Colgate as an example, Colgate's undergraduate population is 49% male. Spending on athletics aid is $4.5 million for men's sports; $3.8 millon for women's sports. Colgate is by no means unique; even Lehigh's athletic aid spending is 63% for men's sports, 37% for the women.

****

I remember going through the Lehigh's EADA compliance review from a few years ago, which basically audits a school's compliance to Title IX among other things. Lehigh passed the report, by all accounts, with flying colors. To me, this implies that "prong one" is never a hard and fast rule and it's deliberately "fuzzy", maybe with a touch of "prong three" applied to it, i.e., not all 40% of the women on Lehigh's campus want to play sports, but (say) 37% might.

One piece I do remember was that one of the suggestions for Lehigh's compliance with Title IX was to increase the salaries of women's coaches relative to men's coaches, especially assistant coaches. This plays into carney's "source"'s claim that there is a spending element to the whole thing.

****

The main conclusion I come to from this is the following: that there would be some Title IX spending increase as a result of a change to football scholarships. How much, I don't know. But since it's not a hard and fast formula, I have to assume that what schools have already creatively done to comply with Title IX will continue to be done (create a co-ed wrestling team, increase the salary of a few women's coaches, make a new weight-lifting center that is not "allocated by gender", etc.)

Some schools will no doubt lobby for more football scholarships for whatever reason. And they'll all find a way to work around Title IX. But IMO it will require some new spending. Probably not as much as alarmists might think - but some for sure.

[MplsBison]

While technically true that there are three prongs in testing compliance...prong three is the vastly preferred method and the only true way to avoid a lawsuit.


Prongs 1 and 2 are more or less interim solutions until a school can get to prong 3.

[carney2]

My mind is irreparably boggled.

[MplsBison]

It actually seems simple to me: is the aid that your athletic department provides to your football players available to regular students?


In the Patriot League's case, where the AD "buys out" loans by offering grants instead, this aid is not available to regular students.


In the Ivy League's case, where the school simply provides a free education to any student whose family makes less than X dollars, this aid is available to regular students.


And in the Pioneer League's case...they're just a bunch of cheap a$$es who don't want to pay for DI football. Thus any aid a football player manages to pry from the school would've been available to any student.



If the aid is not available to regular students, then this aid gets counted by the NCAA for calculating the number of equivalent scholarships offered.

[DFW HOYA]

It actually seems simple to me: is the aid that your athletic department provides to your football players available to regular students?

At Georgetown or the rest of the league? Might be two different answers... xlolx

[DFW HOYA]

Within the Patriot League, you've got one school that funds near the limit, four around 50, one who is 5-10 behind, and one funding at a near-Ivy level.

It's not enough to just "convert" grants to schoalrships because the same imbalances will persist. Put another way, the PL media have already penciled in #7 in the pre-season poll and calling it an equivalency or a scholarship isn't changing that.

[Fordham]

Within the Patriot League, you've got one school that funds near the limit, four around 50, one who is 5-10 behind, and one funding at a near-Ivy level.

It's not enough to just "convert" grants to schoalrships because the same imbalances will persist. Put another way, the PL media have already penciled in #7 in the pre-season poll and calling it an equivalency or a scholarship isn't changing that.

I'm not sure I'm following this. Who claimed that scholarships were the cure for inter-league competitiveness?

[ngineer]

Title IX (this is lifted directly from thw Wikipedia page):



Okay, so we have the three prongs: "substantially proportionate", "continual expansion", or "full accommodation of the interest" of women's sports.

As carney said:



In other words, there's no AI-like formula for Title IX compliance: it's "fuzzy". This is not a bad thing. You can demonstrate compliance in a lot of different ways.

****

In the Patriot League, only Lafayette and Lehigh have more males than females in the school; the rest are majority-female. For the football schools (2007 data), Lehigh is 60% male; at the other extreme is Holy Cross (56% female) and Georgetown (55%). The rest, including Lafayette, are a lot closer to 50/50. (Worthy of mention is that Lehigh's male/female ratio has shrunk; in the early 1990s, it was 2/3 men and 1/3 women.)

The ratio is important, since it plays into prong one: the "proportionality test". If a student body is 60% male, then 60% of the "athletic opportunities" should go to men, and 40% of "athletic opportunities" need to go to women, according to that test.

****

But how to measure "athletic opportunities? Each Division I school counts things differently I think is the answer. carney's "source" seems to think that budgeting (but not actually spending) on women's sports is sufficient. I can't say whether that's accurate or not.

I can say two things, however. First, applying the gender ratio to spending (i.e. expenses) on women's sports vs. men's sports would not work for any PL school sponsoring football. Why? The sports expenses of all seven schools easily outstrip the ratios of men to women in the school. Holy Cross is 56% female, but men's sports expenses take up more than 60% of the total gender-allocated sports expenses. (And this doesn't even count expenses "not allocated by gender or sport" - for example, facilities improvements.)

Second, this is also true when you apply it to athletic aid. Just to take Colgate as an example, Colgate's undergraduate population is 49% male. Spending on athletics aid is $4.5 million for men's sports; $3.8 millon for women's sports. Colgate is by no means unique; even Lehigh's athletic aid spending is 63% for men's sports, 37% for the women.

****

I remember going through the Lehigh's EADA compliance review from a few years ago, which basically audits a school's compliance to Title IX among other things. Lehigh passed the report, by all accounts, with flying colors. To me, this implies that "prong one" is never a hard and fast rule and it's deliberately "fuzzy", maybe with a touch of "prong three" applied to it, i.e., not all 40% of the women on Lehigh's campus want to play sports, but (say) 37% might.

One piece I do remember was that one of the suggestions for Lehigh's compliance with Title IX was to increase the salaries of women's coaches relative to men's coaches, especially assistant coaches. This plays into carney's "source"'s claim that there is a spending element to the whole thing.

****

The main conclusion I come to from this is the following: that there would be some Title IX spending increase as a result of a change to football scholarships. How much, I don't know. But since it's not a hard and fast formula, I have to assume that what schools have already creatively done to comply with Title IX will continue to be done (create a co-ed wrestling team, increase the salary of a few women's coaches, make a new weight-lifting center that is not "allocated by gender", etc.)

Some schools will no doubt lobby for more football scholarships for whatever reason. And they'll all find a way to work around Title IX. But IMO it will require some new spending. Probably not as much as alarmists might think - but some for sure.

Excellent observations in this complex area. As for Lehigh--It is 'worthy of note' that Lehigh and Lafayette pre-1971 were 100% male!--of course, several years before Title IX.xnodx