Reply to IWLCA Open Zoom Call

Forum Index » Lacrosse

Reply to "IWLCA Open Zoom Call"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I don't think you understand how Title IX works, and it seems like you are unfamiliar with the recruiting process and its history.

The men's and women's recruiting calendars have been different for years.  It's hardly a Title IX violation to have separate calendars, and opportunities are measured by dollars and slots, not months in which PSAs have to vie against other *female* PSAs for the same dollars and slots.

Having to wait until next summer sucks in a lot of ways for '22s, but it will likely save them some money - and it has nothing to do with Title IX.[/quote]

I dont think you are a real attorney or at least not a very dynamic one.  A good lawyer could absolutely make a case out of this, the legal argument is there and this move, if approved by the NCAA, opens the door to make a case for applying Title IX to the application of recruiting rules and opportunites.   This is precisely what litigators do - think outside the box - its how laws are shaped and changed by cases.  I hope some dynamic, young hungry litigator (maybe an ex-college lax player) takes this on.

If I were on the NCAA board I would certainly hesitate to rubberstamp this request from the IWLCA because it could defieitely lead to an extension of the application of Title IX. [/quote]

It still seems like you have little understanding of Title IX.   The law only requires equal opportunity, which is measured in scholarship dollars (if applicable) and roster slots.   It does not, and never has, applied to an equal number of days/months being recruited.  As I have pointed out, the recruiting calendar in lacrosse has been different for men and women for years, and it has never been a problem.  Simply put, Title IX focuses on producing a roughly equal outcome, not a duplicate process.  That clever lawyer you imagine would find it impossible to prove harm on the basis of gender.  In fact, because the recruiting period is simply a competition *within* a gender cohort (X women competing for Y roster spots), the only harmed parties would be mommies and daddies who can't brag that School A called their daughter on September 1.

Of course, there is always a chance I am wrong.  If you really believe this is a winnable case, you can certainly put your money where your keyboard is and hire a "dynamic" attorney to argue this case for you.  This town is filled with out of the box thinkers who would be happy to facilitate a parting between you and your money.

If you go that route, please promise to keep us updated on the progress of your case![/quote]

Its sad that you cannot see the holes in your own argument, there are several.   Making recruiting opportunites more equitable thru rule application goes directly to the purpose of Title IX.  I am an attorney too, with more than a little experince on equality issues.  Its also sad that you are trying to make some type of obnoxious statement to hurt the people affected by this proposed move like the one above about "bragging" parents.  This is about the girls who have been working hard for years and love the game and want to have the opportunity to play it at the highest level.  Your true colors show through in this post; cleary you are arguing for the sake of scoring points againnst people you don't like.  That is pathetic.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics