Does Oklahoma State Follow the Lead of OU and AD Joe Castiglione? We Find Out Friday

I believe that there are going to many (many) who will find out that "revenue sharing" with the athletes means just that, and that it DOES NOT MEAN, football keeps most of the money because that is a major source of revenue for the athletic department.

That whole freaking premise seems to fly in the face of every Title IX ruling that has been levied. The women, and athletes of other non-rev sports are entitled to an equivalent OPPORTUNITY, and we all know that splitting the money in that manner will never ever be interpreted as equal opportunity, not in a million years.

Thanks for the info and view. I agree 100% wrestling must be included. Hopefully, Weiberg will be able to get this done tomorrow. My confidence is <50% in the BOR for doing what is needed for long term athletic sustainability. I will say a few prayers tonight for Saint "Pete" Frank Eaton to pray for us too. GO POKES!!!

At the end of the day, the money (revenue generated) has to be paid back with revenue sharing. The percentages should mirror the revenue generated. So getting butts in the seats, donors involved, and most importantly success is what will sustain a program. Winning is the formula because that's what puts people in the seats and generates excitement for each program. WE CAN NOT AFFORD another clunker in football in the next several years. One other thing, I know it's fashionable to rag on our BOR but their main job is to pay the bills. I'd say the debt ratio of our two major universities, tells me which board has accomplished that at a higher level.

Not "fashonable", but well deserved.

RodeoPoke said:

---

I believe that there are going to many (many) who will find out that "revenue sharing" with the athletes means just that, and that it DOES NOT MEAN, football keeps most of the money because that is a major source of revenue for the athletic department.

That whole freaking premise seems to fly in the face of every Title IX ruling that has been levied. The women, and athletes of other non-rev sports are entitled to an equivalent OPPORTUNITY, and we all know that splitting the money in that manner will never ever be interpreted as equal opportunity, not in a million years.

---

Uh, it's called "REVENUE sharing" for a reason. Further, the athletes entire argument that they deserve a "share" of revenue is based on the concept that if the schools are receiving money from the efforts of the athletes, then the athletes deserve a share. Please explain to the masses which ladies program generates "revenue" that then should be shared with the athletes. Title IX arguments won't be successful in leveling the revenue sharing playing field.

This is the genesis of how schools will start paring down their sports offerings to fit budgets as they go forward.

I see a day coming when Div1 schools won't have to offer a set number of athletic programs to maintain their status.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

RodeoPoke said:

---

I believe that there are going to many (many) who will find out that "revenue sharing" with the athletes means just that, and that it DOES NOT MEAN, football keeps most of the money because that is a major source of revenue for the athletic department.

That whole freaking premise seems to fly in the face of every Title IX ruling that has been levied. The women, and athletes of other non-rev sports are entitled to an equivalent OPPORTUNITY, and we all know that splitting the money in that manner will never ever be interpreted as equal opportunity, not in a million years.

---

Uh, it's called "REVENUE sharing" for a reason. Further, the athletes entire argument that they deserve a "share" of revenue is based on the concept that if the schools are receiving money from the efforts of the athletes, then the athletes deserve a share. Please explain to the masses which ladies program generates "revenue" that then should be shared with the athletes. Title IX arguments won't be successful in leveling the revenue sharing playing field.

---

you don't need to get snippy... it's not necessary.

You can post all of the "concepts" that you want, but none of them comply with Title IX.

Title IX does not care or specify where the money comes from, only that there is equal opportunity. The football program must continue to provide most of the revenue to support the other sports, because that is the essence of Title IX as its been implement in athletics.

BTW - you seem to be talking in percentages, and we all know that Football has way, way, way more athletes than most of the other sports combined. If we ever lose Equestrian as a sanctioned sport, OSU will be in a world of hurt to add and fund that many additional women's programs (that don't generate a profit).

there is a very long way to go before this stuff is settled.... and I never ever not once said anything about "leveling the revenue sharing playing field", as you are describing it. The Ladies programs do generate revenue, but not necessarily profits.

Ohiopoke said:

---

This is the genesis of how schools will start paring down their sports offerings to fit budgets as they go forward.

I see a day coming when Div1 schools won't have to offer a set number of athletic programs to maintain their status.

---

that day already came and went when Title IX was litigated years ago.

Many teams dropped programs then, including Football, to "maintain their status".

Some cut baseball, wrestling and other men's sports.

Get ready for the next round of cuts to occur.

I recall Title 9 legislation as it occured while I was working on my bachelor's degree. It was fair and made sense and has worked well to provided balanced educational opportunities for all student athletes.

However, I recently read that the Department of Education has recended its Title 9 rules as they pertain to NIL compensation. This was easy to see coming as the Federal Government is not willing to set revenue or earnings metrics in a capitalist society or economy.

Compensation in a free market economy should be based on fair market value, and not a person's gender, as it should be.

With this said, I believe that alot of us were wondering how Title 9 was going to play out in this new world of NIL.

RodeoPoke said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

RodeoPoke said:

---

I believe that there are going to many (many) who will find out that "revenue sharing" with the athletes means just that, and that it DOES NOT MEAN, football keeps most of the money because that is a major source of revenue for the athletic department.

That whole freaking premise seems to fly in the face of every Title IX ruling that has been levied. The women, and athletes of other non-rev sports are entitled to an equivalent OPPORTUNITY, and we all know that splitting the money in that manner will never ever be interpreted as equal opportunity, not in a million years.

---

Uh, it's called "REVENUE sharing" for a reason. Further, the athletes entire argument that they deserve a "share" of revenue is based on the concept that if the schools are receiving money from the efforts of the athletes, then the athletes deserve a share. Please explain to the masses which ladies program generates "revenue" that then should be shared with the athletes. Title IX arguments won't be successful in leveling the revenue sharing playing field.

---

you don't need to get snippy... it's not necessary.

You can post all of the "concepts" that you want, but none of them comply with Title IX.

Title IX does not care or specify where the money comes from, only that there is equal opportunity. The football program must continue to provide most of the revenue to support the other sports, because that is the essence of Title IX as its been implement in athletics.

BTW - you seem to be talking in percentages, and we all know that Football has way, way, way more athletes than most of the other sports combined. If we ever lose Equestrian as a sanctioned sport, OSU will be in a world of hurt to add and fund that many additional women's programs (that don't generate a profit).

there is a very long way to go before this stuff is settled.... and I never ever not once said anything about "leveling the revenue sharing playing field", as you are describing it. The Ladies programs do generate revenue, but not necessarily profits.

---

Let's advance your argument that Title IX will ultimately require schools pay female athletes, by some measure, the same as male athletes.

There's really only two ways to approach the equality you believe Titlle IX will require.:
Either (1) every program, male and female will receive the same share of revenue, or (2) every athlete, male and female receives the same share of revenue.

Regarding #1 above, that would have the women's golf team receiving the same amount as the football team. Yeah, that ain't happening as the football team generates revenue, whereas the women's golf team just incurs expenses.

Regarding #2 above, that would have the QB of the football team team getting the same amount as the #10 woman on the golf team. How could that ever make sense? The QB that's generating revenue gets the same as the women's golfer that could never in a million years generate any revenue?

Female athletes may argue under some other legal principle they deserve a larger share of revenue, but Title IX will not be the basis.

Title IX applies to academic opportunities in athletics. It doesn't apply to revenue sharing or pay, if it did the WNBA idiots would be making more money than they do and want to claim they should.

The only real tie in would be if you saw schools shedding women's sports. In fact I could see a point where more women's athletes would need to be added so more sports to balance out the number of football players.

And, thankfully Weiberg didn't follow the short sighted "lead" of the dunce down south.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Let's advance your argument that Title IX will ultimately require schools pay female athletes, by some measure, the same as male athletes.

There's really only two ways to approach the equality you believe Titlle IX will require.:
Either (1) every program, male and female will receive the same share of revenue, or (2) every athlete, male and female receives the same share of revenue.

Regarding #1 above, that would have the women's golf team receiving the same amount as the football team. Yeah, that ain't happening as the football team generates revenue, whereas the women's golf team just incurs expenses.

Regarding #2 above, that would have the QB of the football team team getting the same amount as the #10 woman on the golf team. How could that ever make sense? The QB that's generating revenue gets the same as the women's golfer that could never in a million years generate any revenue?

Female athletes may argue under some other legal principle they deserve a larger share of revenue, but Title IX will not be the basis.

---

I'm not going to read that nonsense, the first paragraph is not what I said at all, and you've morphed it into some other discussion.

Your points #1 and #2 are not even close to what I said, nor to what Title IX is.

I suggest we postpone this discussion until after the expected lawsuits are settled.

NJAggie said:

---

Title IX applies to academic opportunities in athletics. It doesn't apply to revenue sharing or pay,

---

I don't believe that is an accurate statement.

Title IX is clearly about gender discrimination, and it beyond just "an opportunity to be on a team", including the opportunity to to be treated and compensated fairly.

Fresno State Women's Basketball Coach Wins $19.1 Million Jury Award for Discrimination, Retaliation

Johnson-Klein's lawyers, Dan Siegel and Warren Paboojian, argued that Johnson-Klein had been fired in a public, humiliating manner because she advocated for women's rights at a university that had long viewed women as second-class citizens. They painted a complex picture in which Johnson-Klein's players resented her tough discipline, assistant coaches resented her high expectations, and top lieutenant coveted her job, while the university grew concerned as she complained about favoritism toward the men's basketball program. (i.e. Title IX violations)

Fresno State's lawyer Mick Marderosian argued that Johnson-Klein was a ruthless, money- and power-hungry manipulator who mistreated her players', flaunted university policies and had no business being anywhere near a university basketball court.

After two months of trial, the jury of 11 women and 1 man deliberated for just 4 hours before rendering a stunning verdict of 12-0 on all 13 of Johnson-Klein's counts. The large size of the verdict was especially surprising given that Fresno jurors have tended to be conservative.

Then explain your comment that revenue sharing will run afoul of Title IX.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Then explain your comment that revenue sharing will run afoul of Title IX.

---

I already explained it, go back and re-read it, and try to comprehend this time

Then I stand by my position. Nobody will have a leg to stand on if they argue Title IX requires women to revenue share equally with men.

RodeoPoke said:

---

NJAggie said:

---

Title IX applies to academic opportunities in athletics. It doesn't apply to revenue sharing or pay,

---

I don't believe that is an accurate statement.

Title IX is clearly about gender discrimination, and it beyond just "an opportunity to be on a team", including the opportunity to to be treated and compensated fairly.

Fresno State Women's Basketball Coach Wins $19.1 Million Jury Award for Discrimination, Retaliation

Johnson-Klein's lawyers, Dan Siegel and Warren Paboojian, argued that Johnson-Klein had been fired in a public, humiliating manner because she advocated for women's rights at a university that had long viewed women as second-class citizens. They painted a complex picture in which Johnson-Klein's players resented her tough discipline, assistant coaches resented her high expectations, and top lieutenant coveted her job, while the university grew concerned as she complained about favoritism toward the men's basketball program. (i.e. Title IX violations)

Fresno State's lawyer Mick Marderosian argued that Johnson-Klein was a ruthless, money- and power-hungry manipulator who mistreated her players', flaunted university policies and had no business being anywhere near a university basketball court.

After two months of trial, the jury of 11 women and 1 man deliberated for just 4 hours before rendering a stunning verdict of 12-0 on all 13 of Johnson-Klein's counts. The large size of the verdict was especially surprising given that Fresno jurors have tended to be conservative.

---

That suit had nothing to do with Title IX. Her claims were the school violated labor laws when she was fired.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

RodeoPoke said:

---

NJAggie said:

---

Title IX applies to academic opportunities in athletics. It doesn't apply to revenue sharing or pay,

---

I don't believe that is an accurate statement.

Title IX is clearly about gender discrimination, and it beyond just "an opportunity to be on a team", including the opportunity to to be treated and compensated fairly.

Fresno State Women's Basketball Coach Wins $19.1 Million Jury Award for Discrimination, Retaliation

Johnson-Klein's lawyers, Dan Siegel and Warren Paboojian, argued that Johnson-Klein had been fired in a public, humiliating manner because she advocated for women's rights at a university that had long viewed women as second-class citizens. They painted a complex picture in which Johnson-Klein's players resented her tough discipline, assistant coaches resented her high expectations, and top lieutenant coveted her job, while the university grew concerned as she complained about favoritism toward the men's basketball program. (i.e. Title IX violations)

Fresno State's lawyer Mick Marderosian argued that Johnson-Klein was a ruthless, money- and power-hungry manipulator who mistreated her players', flaunted university policies and had no business being anywhere near a university basketball court.

After two months of trial, the jury of 11 women and 1 man deliberated for just 4 hours before rendering a stunning verdict of 12-0 on all 13 of Johnson-Klein's counts. The large size of the verdict was especially surprising given that Fresno jurors have tended to be conservative.

---

That suit had nothing to do with Title IX. Her claims were the school violated labor laws when she was fired.

---

she was fired for complaining about inequity with the mens team (including coach's pay).

The CSU defense attorney sat in the offices next to mine, and we shared the same coffee station.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Then I stand by my position. Nobody will have a leg to stand on if they argue Title IX requires women to revenue share equally with men.

---

You really need to actually listen to the other side of the discussion because you are making up stuff that is not true and was never claimed by me.

nobody claimed equal compensation then or now - that's not how Title IX works

Nobody ever said EQUAL COMPENSATION - that is not part of any Title IX discussion, and never has been.

but the way they intend to distribute "department revenue" clearly excludes some sports, especially the non-profit sports

Yormark screwed our Olympic sports by offering them to ESPN+ practically for free if he could get the Football media contract, now here we sit with yahoo's and pundits claiming those sports don't have any "revenue", but they're only going to define revenue as "ticket sales".

RodeoPoke said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Then I stand by my position. Nobody will have a leg to stand on if they argue Title IX requires women to revenue share equally with men.

---

You really need to actually listen to the other side of the discussion because you are making up stuff that is not true and was never claimed by me.

nobody claimed equal compensation then or now - that's not how Title IX works

Nobody ever said EQUAL COMPENSATION - that is not part of any Title IX discussion, and never has been.

but the way they intend to distribute "department revenue" clearly excludes some sports, especially the non-profit sports

Yormark screwed our Olympic sports by offering them to ESPN+ practically for free if he could get the Football media contract, now here we sit with yahoo's and pundits claiming those sports don't have any "revenue", but they're only going to define revenue as "ticket sales".

---

You have no earthly idea what you're even attempting to argue when you combine your comments directly above with your earlier comments detailed below:

"That whole freaking premise seems to fly in the face of every Title IX ruling that has been levied. The women, and athletes of other non-rev sports are entitled to an equivalent OPPORTUNITY, and we all know that splitting the money in that manner will never ever be interpreted as equal opportunity, not in a million years."

Personally, I think you know you're wrong but instead of admitting it, you deflect and obfuscate.

RodeoPoke said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

RodeoPoke said:

---

NJAggie said:

---

Title IX applies to academic opportunities in athletics. It doesn't apply to revenue sharing or pay,

---

I don't believe that is an accurate statement.

Title IX is clearly about gender discrimination, and it beyond just "an opportunity to be on a team", including the opportunity to to be treated and compensated fairly.

Fresno State Women's Basketball Coach Wins $19.1 Million Jury Award for Discrimination, Retaliation

Johnson-Klein's lawyers, Dan Siegel and Warren Paboojian, argued that Johnson-Klein had been fired in a public, humiliating manner because she advocated for women's rights at a university that had long viewed women as second-class citizens. They painted a complex picture in which Johnson-Klein's players resented her tough discipline, assistant coaches resented her high expectations, and top lieutenant coveted her job, while the university grew concerned as she complained about favoritism toward the men's basketball program. (i.e. Title IX violations)

Fresno State's lawyer Mick Marderosian argued that Johnson-Klein was a ruthless, money- and power-hungry manipulator who mistreated her players', flaunted university policies and had no business being anywhere near a university basketball court.

After two months of trial, the jury of 11 women and 1 man deliberated for just 4 hours before rendering a stunning verdict of 12-0 on all 13 of Johnson-Klein's counts. The large size of the verdict was especially surprising given that Fresno jurors have tended to be conservative.

---

That suit had nothing to do with Title IX. Her claims were the school violated labor laws when she was fired.

---

she was fired for complaining about inequity with the mens team (including coach's pay).

The CSU defense attorney sat in the offices next to mine, and we shared the same coffee station.

---

She was fired for complaining about inequity as you say, but her claims against the university had nothing to do with Title IX. Her complaint alledged violation of employment, not Title IX. Duh!

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

RodeoPoke said:

---

she was fired for complaining about inequity with the mens team (including coach's pay).

The CSU defense attorney sat in the offices next to mine, and we shared the same coffee station.

---

She was fired for complaining about inequity as you say, but her claims against the university had nothing to do with Title IX. Her complaint alledged violation of employment, not Title IX. Duh!

---

Okay pal.... forgetting for just one moment which one of us was actually there and actually spoke directly with the attorney.

SMH