Marquette and football

[GGGG]

I think we generally agree on all this...my only point to be a bit clearer is that while the BCS can solely focus on football...and ignore the NCAA...the federal government entrusts the NCAA to enforce Title IX...football and the Olympic sports must be equal on male/female...BCS or no BCS.

The federal government doesn't entrust the NCAA to enforce Title IX.  The Department of Justice enforces Title IX.  The NCAA has nothing to do with it.

Furthermore, I don't think you can say that the BCS schools are "ignoring the NCAA."  They are members of the NCAA...the NCAA regulates their eligibility, etc....  The NCAA hasn't overseen television contracts since they lost a lawsuit a couple decades ago.  The NCAA has never controlled conference membership.  Honestly from a legal perspective, nothing has changed.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Marquette helmet of 1960





I would recommend reading any number of articles about the Pioneer League schools and Title IX.  Because they are non-scholarship, it doesn't impact them in terms of having to add scholarship programs for women.  Also some non Pioneer league schools, like Duquense...see article attached.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=20060603&id=TvVRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OnIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6519,1054019

It's one of the issues the Patriot League is having to engage in now that they are going to scholarships in 2013, they have Title IX issues to deal with, but the Pioneer League does not.  Dayton, Butler, San Diego...all articles on the web about their non-scholarship programs and how that allows them to stay in compliance with Title IX.

Campbell, Marist, Mercer, Jacksonville all came to the same conclusions in the last few years and opted for non-scholarship football.

http://jacksonville.com/sports/college/2011-08-20/story/qampa-ju-president-kerry-romesburg-miami-situation-sad-thing

Is any of this going to happen at MU....unlikely.  Fun to dream about.  I've been to a few USD games and two Dayton football games.  Had a good time.  One of the Dayton games I attended had about 7,500 fans.  I think it holds around 10K. 

[SoCalEagle]

Another, I'm not against offering football, even if it is lower level to start.  I do, however, recognize what an enormous uphill battle it would be.

When I was at IU and KU, we sucked at football (actually KU we weren't bad), but it was still an event, a source of pride, etc.  I work with a few folks that were at USD when Harbaugh was the coach down there and it had the campus electrified.

Is it worth doing?  Probably not. Too many obstacles, enormous resources, etc.  However, it could be done and I don't buy into the notion that it can't.  Nor do I buy into the notion that having lower level football is a bad thing. 

I'll equate a high school story to you...yes, I know it's high school and a big difference, but allow me.  When I played football at my Catholic high school we were a tiny school of 550 kids and one of the lowest divisions in California high school football.   About 10 years ago the school decided to "go for it".  We have an enrollment today of 530 but tonight play Mater Dei, one of the best programs in the country and ranked 10th in the nation in the semi-finals of the highest division in the state.  Last we my alma mater beat the defending state champion to get to this game.  My little school, currently ranked 13th in the nation by MaxPreps....the game is on national television.  The winner will likely play St. John Boscho next Saturday at Angels Stadium for the Pac 5 championsip...St. John Boscho is currently ranked #1 in the nation.    The talent on the field tonight will be pretty sick.  My school put out one DII player when I was there.  Now we regularly put guys out to UCLA, USC, Florida State, Stanford, Notre Dame, Arizona, Colorado, etc...that little school of 530 (coed by the way, only 250 boys go to the school).  We have several guys in the NFL.  We hired the right coach 14 years ago, put money into it, upgraded the facilities and changed the culture and did it at a TINY little school in the biggest state in the country.  Not an easy feat.  Go Seraphs!

High school isn't college, but my point was that with the right people and resources you can do some pretty amazing things.  No one on the planet 15 years ago would have thought Boise State would be a nationally ranked football program finishing in the top 10 multiple years.  No one would have thought UCONN would play in a New Year's Eve bowl, or UAB would produce players like Roddy White in the NFL.   

You just never know.  I would love to see lower level football started and see where it goes.  I think starting out with the idea of a DI in 5 years would be nuts and a waste of money.

So who won the big game on Friday night?  The suspense is killing me. 

[warriorchick]

Chicos,

I thought this thread was about "big-time" football. Pioneer League is one baby step above club football.  What would be the point?

[GGGG]

Chicos,

I thought this thread was about "big-time" football. Pioneer League is one baby step above club football.  What would be the point?

Exactly.  I have never understood why schools like Butler bother with non-scholarship football.  At least, FCS level can bring championships and some glory.  A school like Butler doesn't compete for anything noteworthy and are actually worse than the highest levels of D3 football.

[Tugg Speedman]

Chicos,

I thought this thread was about "big-time" football. Pioneer League is one baby step above club football.  What would be the point?

+1

I don't see the point either

[warriorchick]

Exactly.  I have never understood why schools like Butler bother with non-scholarship football.  At least, FCS level can bring championships and some glory.  A school like Butler doesn't compete for anything noteworthy and are actually worse than the highest levels of D3 football.

I was fortunate enough to get a personal tour of Butler last year from the VP of Academic Affairs (a Marquette alum and a personal friend). From what I gathered from him, the football team is basically a great excuse for students to get together on a Saturday afternoon.  I don't think they even charge admission.  We would be better off promoting our club football team better rather than go through the machinations of putting together a "real" team.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So who won the big game on Friday night?  The suspense is killing me.  

Mater Dei.  They're in the top 10 nationally for a reason.  Fun game.  Our boys trailed 7-0 in the 4th quarter in a great defensive battle.  Gave up two TD's in the final quarter.  Game was played in the fog for the entire first half...crazy.  You could hardly see a thing.  Cool to have Brent Musberger talk about the contest during last night's Notre Dame - USC game.





Our little school of 530 in the Pac 5 semis in their very first year, the highest level of football in the state of California.  Hopefully a sign of things to come in the future.  


Doubt we'll ever be like Mater Dei with all their money, 2000+ students, etc, or even Oaks Christian (Clay Matthews fame, Wayne Gretzky's kids and Will Smith's kids...LOTS of $$$), but with a Sophomore QB that already has offers from Miami, UCLA, and Arizona State, who knows.  Fun times ahead I hope.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos,

I thought this thread was about "big-time" football. Pioneer League is one baby step above club football.  What would be the point?

I thought it was about football and Marquette.  I would solicit many opinions from the schools that play Pioneer League football and ask whether it is worth it.  By the way, it is not one step above club football, let along a baby step.  The Pioneer League has done extremely well against DII scholarship programs in the last decade, in some cases knocking off schools with 63 scholarships to their zero.

[warriorchick]

I thought it was about football and Marquette.  I would solicit many opinions from the schools that play Pioneer League football and ask whether it is worth it.  By the way, it is not one step above club football, let along a baby step.  The Pioneer League has done extremely well against DII scholarship programs in the last decade, in some cases knocking off schools with 63 scholarships to their zero.

Again, what would the Pioneer League do for us that a well-promoted club team wouldn't?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Exactly.  I have never understood why schools like Butler bother with non-scholarship football.  At least, FCS level can bring championships and some glory.  A school like Butler doesn't compete for anything noteworthy and are actually worse than the highest levels of D3 football.

As just stated, that's not true at all.  They beat DII schools and DIII schools.  They have a championship to play for.  The winner of the Pioneer Football League receives an automatic bid to the FCS football championships starting in 2013. They join the Big Sky, Southern, Southland, MEAC, NEC, CAA, Big South, MVFC, OVC, Patriot Leagues in the FCS with automatic qualifiers.

So they are competing for national championships and that is noteworthy, and they are better than

http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2012-08-23/pioneer-football-league-gains-automatic-bid-2013-postseason

Prior to that, they were eligible to receive At-Large bids. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Again, what would the Pioneer League do for us that a well-promoted club team wouldn't?

Compete for NCAA national championship.  Add males to the campus...tuition paying males to help with gender equity ratios, bring football back to campus for the first time in 50 years, etc, etc.

For the same reason why Georgetown, Butler, Dayton, Drake, Davidson, Morehead State, San Diego, Valpo, Mercer, Jacksonville, etc all have teams and why other schools are adding them now.

The comparison to a club level is quite frankly way out there and just flat wrong.  No other way to put it.  These kids are competing for NCAA national championship, not some club level nonsense.  

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about what PFL football is, the benefits to Title IX, etc based on comments here.  My guess is most posters here really don't understand it and it's all or nothing at the FBS level, which I don't believe is realistic. 

But yes, MU could have football, play for NCAA titles, have it non-scholarship, and not have it impact Title IX as a result.  Some of you may not be interested, others might.  I'm merely pointing out that it can be done, is being done and can have some ancillary benefits as well.

[forgetful]

Chicos the point is not about what the team could play for, but what they could do for the university.  None of the things you list would benefit MU as a whole.

We don't have a problem with gender imbalance, others have pointed this out.

We don't have a problem with national recognition.

We don't have a problem of students being involved in campus sports (basketball more than covers this).

To make the next step towards national prominence as a top tier university is:  

1.  More research dollars.

2.  Larger Endowment.

Adding a crappy football team doesn't help anywhere.

[warriorchick]

Chicos the point is not about what the team could play for, but what they could do for the university.  None of the things you list would benefit MU as a whole.

We don't have a problem with gender imbalance, others have pointed this out.

We don't have a problem with national recognition.

We don't have a problem of students being involved in campus sports (basketball more than covers this).

To make the next step towards national prominence as a top tier university is:  

1.  More research dollars.

2.  Larger Endowment.

Adding a crappy football team doesn't help anywhere.

+1000000

[Dawson Rental]

Mater Dei.  They're in the top 10 nationally for a reason.  Fun game.  Our boys trailed 7-0 in the 4th quarter in a great defensive battle.  Gave up two TD's in the final quarter.  Our little school of 530 in the Pac 5 semis in their very first year, the highest level of football in the state of California.  Hopefully a sign of things to come in the future.  
Doubt we'll ever be like Mater Dei with all their money, 2000+ students, etc, or even Oaks Christian (Clay Matthews fame, Wayne Gretzky's kids and Will Smith's kids...LOTS of $$$), but with a Sophomore QB that already has offers from Miami, UCLA, and Arizona State, who knows.  Fun times ahead I hope.  

What's the current Pac 5 exit fee for a school wanting to change conferences?

[GGGG]

As just stated, that's not true at all.  They beat DII schools and DIII schools.  They have a championship to play for.  The winner of the Pioneer Football League receives an automatic bid to the FCS football championships starting in 2013. They join the Big Sky, Southern, Southland, MEAC, NEC, CAA, Big South, MVFC, OVC, Patriot Leagues in the FCS with automatic qualifiers.

So they are competing for national championships and that is noteworthy, and they are better than

http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2012-08-23/pioneer-football-league-gains-automatic-bid-2013-postseason

Prior to that, they were eligible to receive At-Large bids. 

Cool!  So they are the equivalent of the Patriot League in FCS.  Completely useless.  No thanks.

[GGGG]

Chicos....seriously you are maddening....

1. Marquette doesn't have a glaring need to add "tuition paying males."  It isn't a former women's college. 

2. They would be non-competitive in a division of football that no one cares about.

3. YOU are the one that fails to understand Title IX.  I have pointed this out to your earlier, but scholarships are only one of the tests.  The other is participation slots.  You know how I know this?  Because the school I work for was investigated by the DOJ for this very issue.  Scholarships were not a problem...participation was.  I handled the PR for this on campus, talked to the AD about it at least once a week, and even read the DOJ report.  So Marquette adding football WILL impact Title IX.

Adding non-scholarship football ads NOTHING to MU.  Not one ounce of anything good.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Sorry if I'm maddening, it's what I do.  

Sultan, I assisted on some consulting work to have football added to a university under NCAA jurisdiction (not NAIA). I've been through this process before in the last 6 years.

There are three prongs to the Title IX legislation, you have to meet ANY one of the three to be in compliance.  I provided some of the links as to why non-scholarship football works for some schools, specifically links to Jacksonville, Dayton, etc in prior posts.  Georgetown's president is on record a few months ago saying the same thing because now the Patriot League will allow scholarships and G'Town doesn't plan on following suit for many reasons...cost, Title IX, etc.  They may go independent as a result, may join the Pioneer, or choose to stay in the Patriot League and take on scholarship programs..  To be fair and maybe this is where you are going, it isn't going to fix all ills if your school is out of compliance with all three prongs, but absolutely non-scholarship football can have a huge benefit to Title IX.  You're ignoring all those links I provided.  

1) I realize we aren't a former women's college, but neither is G'Town, Butler, San Diego, etc, etc.  We don't have a "glaring need", but I was also there at MU when we had to drop two sports involving men to help get into compliance.  The looks on the faces of the men's wrestling team and what they had to go through, not a pleasant site.

2) How do you know we would be non-competitive, especially over the longhaul?  Why do you say no one cares about it?  They would outdraw EVERY sport at MU sans one...men's basketball.   Avg attendance in the Pioneer league was 3,261..someone cares about it.    Not one of our sports teams other than men's basketball averages that many people.  (MU women's hoops averaged 1,710 as a frame of reference.)

3)  See above, I understand Title IX very well...even been paid for my understanding of it.  

4)  One could argue adding men's and women's Lacrosse adds nothing to MU as well.  Except in that case, we have huge expenditures AND Title IX implications as a result.  We had to add both, a men's and women's team with scholarships, paid coaching staffs, etc, largely because of Title IX.  That has a real, material impact on MU.  I'm not against adding those teams, but that is an example where we've burdened ourselves with a lot of cost and truly did add a sport that if we are lucky will get about 1,000 people to a game on average.  Syracuse averages 4,400 a game and they are at the top of the Lacrosse world.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos the point is not about what the team could play for, but what they could do for the university.  None of the things you list would benefit MU as a whole.

We don't have a problem with gender imbalance, others have pointed this out.

We don't have a problem with national recognition.

We don't have a problem of students being involved in campus sports (basketball more than covers this).

To make the next step towards national prominence as a top tier university is:  

1.  More research dollars.

2.  Larger Endowment.

Adding a crappy football team doesn't help anywhere.

I don't disagree with the endowment and the research dollars.  Those are intertwined, however, and since we aren't a research institution it's hard to get there.  I'm certainly not saying football above those two.  If I had my druthers, I would absolutely want to focus on endowment as the #1 priority.  It is woefully under funded for a national school like ours.  Football would be way down the list.  We'll agree to disagree one whether football doesn't help anywhere.  Any time you can get 3K to 5K alumni down to school on a Saturday is a good thing, especially in the fall.  School pride, etc.  There's a reason why so many schools, many our size, keep football around or haven't abandoned it yet.  If it was such a drag you would have schools getting rid of it at a greater pace than those adding it.  Wish we had it, I know we won't.  It's something that other schools our size have over us.  Some care not, some think it would be great to have it.  To each their own.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Cool!  So they are the equivalent of the Patriot League in FCS.  Completely useless.  No thanks.

I know you are a big UW-madison football fan so I get the rationale when it isn't major college football, but if you ever have a chance I would recommend taking in the Lehigh - Lafayette game, longest played game in the country.  Or the Harvard - Yale game.  Both non-scholarship and outstanding tradition, competition, etc.  

It's very cool and a big deal.  Put it on your bucket list Sultan, you'll enjoy it...I guarantee it.

Most players on non-scholarship football teams TURNED DOWN scholarships at other schools.  For example, at Drake 2/3 of their football team turned down scholarships to play football at other schools because they wanted to attend Drake.  USD, same thing.  Georgetown, very much the same thing.


Many people do care about non-scholarship football programs.  Chuck Noll, 4 time winning Super Bowl coach...university of Dayton alum.  Jon Gruden, Super Bowl winning coach...university of Dayton alum, QB.  

As those two, and many others have said, small time college football allowed them to learn the game and the principles of competition.  

[MerrittsMustache]

Has his "timeout" made us forget that Chicos is insanely starved for attention and will do anything to get people talking to/about him? He's the equivalent of an MUScoop Kardashian.

[forgetful]

Sorry if I'm maddening, it's what I do.  

Sultan, I assisted on some consulting work to have football added to a university under NCAA jurisdiction (not NAIA). I've been through this process before in the last 6 years.

There are three prongs to the Title IX legislation, you have to meet ANY one of the three to be in compliance.  I provided some of the links as to why non-scholarship football works for some schools, specifically links to Jacksonville, Dayton, etc in prior posts.  Georgetown's president is on record a few months ago saying the same thing because now the Patriot League will allow scholarships and G'Town doesn't plan on following suit for many reasons...cost, Title IX, etc.  They may go independent as a result, may join the Pioneer, or choose to stay in the Patriot League and take on scholarship programs..  To be fair and maybe this is where you are going, it isn't going to fix all ills if your school is out of compliance with all three prongs, but absolutely non-scholarship football can have a huge benefit to Title IX.  You're ignoring all those links I provided.  

1) I realize we aren't a former women's college, but neither is G'Town, Butler, San Diego, etc, etc.  We don't have a "glaring need", but I was also there at MU when we had to drop two sports involving men to help get into compliance.  The looks on the faces of the men's wrestling team and what they had to go through, not a pleasant site.

2) How do you know we would be non-competitive, especially over the longhaul?  Why do you say no one cares about it?  They would outdraw EVERY sport at MU sans one...men's basketball.   Avg attendance in the Pioneer league was 3,261..someone cares about it.    Not one of our sports teams other than men's basketball averages that many people.  (MU women's hoops averaged 1,710 as a frame of reference.)

3)  See above, I understand Title IX very well...even been paid for my understanding of it.  

4)  One could argue adding men's and women's Lacrosse adds nothing to MU as well.  Except in that case, we have huge expenditures AND Title IX implications as a result.  We had to add both, a men's and women's team with scholarships, paid coaching staffs, etc, largely because of Title IX.  That has a real, material impact on MU.  I'm not against adding those teams, but that is an example where we've burdened ourselves with a lot of cost and truly did add a sport that if we are lucky will get about 1,000 people to a game on average.  Syracuse averages 4,400 a game and they are at the top of the Lacrosse world.

Being paid for it doesn't mean you know what you are talking about.  In general I would say that most people that pay for advice are paying someone that isn't qualified to provide such advice.

If I understand your arguments on here correctly, then the people you consulted for on Title IX deserve their money back. 

I'll be the first to admit I'm not a title IX expert, but Sultan is absolutely correct that by adding a bunch of football players you need to add an equivalent number of opportunities for women.  That is a lot of sports that would need to be added and supported even if you don't add a single scholarship.

Alternatively, to qualify for one of the three prongs of the first component (all three components need to be satisfied) you could demonstrate a recent expansion or attempts to bring about equal opportunities (Adding a football program nullifies this prong), or that the interests and abilities of the female athletes have been met (this would also be unlikely to be met) so to satisfy the first component you would need to have equal participation of men and women in sports comparable to the student body. 

Which women sports would you like to add to satisfy this prong?  Alternatively, which male sports would you like to get rid of.

For those schools that added football to bring the ratios back in line, they either had to accept a disproportionately large number of male applicants or they were in temporarily in violation of Title IX and rolled the dice.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Being paid for it doesn't mean you know what you are talking about.  In general I would say that most people that pay for advice are paying someone that isn't qualified to provide such advice.

If I understand your arguments on here correctly, then the people you consulted for on Title IX deserve their money back.  

I'll be the first to admit I'm not a title IX expert, but Sultan is absolutely correct that by adding a bunch of football players you need to add an equivalent number of opportunities for women.  That is a lot of sports that would need to be added and supported even if you don't add a single scholarship.

Alternatively, to qualify for one of the three prongs of the first component (all three components need to be satisfied) you could demonstrate a recent expansion or attempts to bring about equal opportunities (Adding a football program nullifies this prong), or that the interests and abilities of the female athletes have been met (this would also be unlikely to be met) so to satisfy the first component you would need to have equal participation of men and women in sports comparable to the student body.  

Which women sports would you like to add to satisfy this prong?  Alternatively, which male sports would you like to get rid of.

For those schools that added football to bring the ratios back in line, they either had to accept a disproportionately large number of male applicants or they were in temporarily in violation of Title IX and rolled the dice.

You are right Forgetful, you are not a Title IX expert.    Let's start with your claim that "all three components need to be satisfied".  Uhm, no they don't. ANY ONE OF THE THREE need to be satisfied, not all three as you claim.

From the law - I used Wiki to keep it simple, but check anywhere you wish..1 of 3, not all 3
HEW's 1979 Policy Interpretation articulated three ways compliance with Title IX can be achieved. This became known as the "three-part test" for compliance. A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs.

   "All such assistance should be available on a substantially proportional basis to the number of male and female participants in the institution's athletic program."
   "Male and female athletes should receive equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities" regarding facilities.
   "The athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated."
   "Institutions must provide both the opportunity for individuals of each sex to participate in intercollegiate competition, and for athletes of each sex to have competitive team schedules which equally reflect their abilities."

Compliance can be assessed in any one of three ways:

   Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollment.
   Demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).
   Accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.



You can add a non-scholarship sport on one side (male) and add another NON-Scholarship sport for women, as an example.  It's all about meeting one of the three prongs.  Well, at least in part.  People get confused and think only the three prongs are the end all be all of Title IX, but that is also incorrect (access to coaches, equipment, facilities, etc, often sit outside that purview but come into play).

The incorrect implication here has been if you add a non-scholarship football team you must add a SCHOLARSHIP women's team(s) to offset it.  That is absolutely, 100% incorrect.  

Many many ways to skin the Title IX cat...that's what consultants are paid for.     Example:  Want to see where the growth of women's crew,NON-Scholarship women's crew, is taking place and why?  I'll give you three guesses why that is happening and the first two don't count.  

[unforgiven]

I was also there at MU when we had to drop two sports involving men to help get into compliance.  The looks on the faces of the men's wrestling team and what they had to go through, not a pleasant site.

I knew Barney Karpfinger. He was a very good man running a fine program. The shut down of his program destroyed him.




Fred McGaver, Marquette Athletic Hall of Fame

[GGGG]

You are right Forgetful, you are not a Title IX expert.     Let's start with your claim that "all three components need to be satisfied".  Uhm, no they don't. ANY ONE OF THE THREE need to be satisfied, not all three as you claim.

From the law - I used Wiki to keep it simple, but check anywhere you wish..1 of 3, not all 3
HEW's 1979 Policy Interpretation articulated three ways compliance with Title IX can be achieved. This became known as the "three-part test" for compliance. A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs.

    "All such assistance should be available on a substantially proportional basis to the number of male and female participants in the institution's athletic program."
    "Male and female athletes should receive equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities" regarding facilities.
    "The athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated."
    "Institutions must provide both the opportunity for individuals of each sex to participate in intercollegiate competition, and for athletes of each sex to have competitive team schedules which equally reflect their abilities."

Compliance can be assessed in any one of three ways:

    Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollment.
    Demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).
    Accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.



You can add a non-scholarship sport on one side (male) and add another NON-Scholarship sport for women, as an example.  It's all about meeting one of the three prongs.  Well, at least in part.  People get confused and think only the three prongs are the end all be all of Title IX, but that is also incorrect (access to coaches, equipment, facilities, etc, often sit outside that purview but come into play).

The incorrect implication here has been if you add a non-scholarship football team you must add a SCHOLARSHIP women's team(s) to offset it.  That is absolutely, 100% incorrect. 

Many many ways to skin the Title IX cat...that's what consultants are paid for.      Example:  Want to see where the growth of women's crew,NON-Scholarship women's crew, is taking place and why?  I'll give you three guesses why that is happening and the first two don't count. 

Hold on...WHAT???

You just changed your story here.  You never once mentioned adding another women's non-scholarship sport.  You simply mentioned that adding football wouldn't cause compliance issues - and now you have added this caveat.  The link you provided states flat-out what I have been saying...that adding football would put our ratios out of whack.

Look, if you want Marquette to have a football team that's fine.  But I think adding a non-scholarship sport for a couple thousand people to watch fails the cost-benefit analysis.