https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2025/stephen-f-austin-title-ix-lawsuit-sports-cuts-1234858818/

Kind of expected something to happen.

I think we've all known that the university for years was looking to add women's sports to help balance the scholarships for Title IX purposes. Cutting women's programs does not seem to make much sense in the long run even if there's always a financial benefit from cutting costs in the near term.

nacluth said:

---

I think we've all known that the university for years was looking to add women's sports to help balance the scholarships for Title IX purposes. Cutting women's programs does not seem to make much sense in the long run even if there's always a financial benefit from cutting costs in the near term.

---

It feels like NIL and all that has changed every one's calculus. I think schools are going to be granted some latitude while adjusting to the new era of college athletics.

Agree Ljacks&Longnecks

After the court ruling on athletes getting NIL money directly from schools, and NCAA increasing squad sizes and scholarships for each team, it's inevitable that 98% of current DI institutions don't have the budgets to sustain this. They have to cut expenses, which means cutting sports. No one likes it but that's what the Power 5 Guys have finally forced on everyone. SFA & for that matter schools in the SLC can no longer compete. Probably will have to cut additional sports because of this lawsuit. Then it's a question how badly do you need to be a DI institution. SFA will not be the only school in the UT System having these discussions, A&M System also. Can't remember but don't you only have to have 4 Mens & 4 Women's sports to play DII? Gets easier to afford for sure. I hate to think it but it could be the new reality.

I'm sure SFA has plans to add some replacement programs for the ones lost, but I do agree that what happened to these athletes who came to SFA with the dream of being a D1 athlete only for it to be taken from them is awful.

As far as compliance is concerned, Men's Tennis, a swim team, and possibly gymnastics would be some affordable teams SFA could add to replace men's golf, bowling, and beach volleyball. SFA already has the an Olympic size pool which is used for the scuba diving class, tennis facilities, and WRJ or Shelton Gym could easily be used for gymnastics.

SFASawmillGuy said:

---

I'm sure SFA has plans to add some replacement programs for the ones lost, but I do agree that what happened to these athletes who came to SFA with the dream of being a D1 athlete only for it to be taken from them is awful.

As far as compliance is concerned, Men's Tennis, a swim team, and possibly gymnastics would be some affordable teams SFA could add to replace men's golf, bowling, and beach volleyball. SFA already has the an Olympic size pool which is used for the scuba diving class, tennis facilities, and WRJ or Shelton Gym could easily be used for gymnastics.

---

Personally I'm of the opinion that the Southland should sponsor every sport out there.

Every institution in our league is trying to grow enrollment. 30 kids on the Lacrosse team is 30 students you may not have had otherwise. There are like 10 Lacrosse scholarships, so you have 20 paying students. That will likely cover the cost of the coaches and travel in a bus league like ours.

So SFA roughly breaks even on those sports when you look at the cost to the athletic department and the gain to the university in terms of paying students.

However, I don't believe SFA will be adding any teams. From my understanding, the House settlement changes the game completely on scholarships and participation.

Whereas before, baseball was allocated 11.4 scholarships, you can now have anywhere between 0 and 35, meaning you can give scholarships to the whole roster if you want. Or to none of the roster. And that's the case for every single sport that used to have a scholarship limit. Softball, swim, track, volleyball, bowling etc.

So I'd expect schools like SFA to just reallocate those scholarships to the other women's teams and that would potentially put them in compliance(no one knows with certainty yet bc this hasn't been litigated in this new landscape yet).

So women's soccer might have 15 scholarships players instead of 10 now, etc. And that could give SFA an advantage over say McNeese, who if they did the same move might put the extra scholarships in softball, etc etc.

But bc of when SFA cut sports, we're going to be on the bleeding edge of the lawsuits that end up deciding what exactly those new regulations look like. Maybe the AD wins. Maybe the Ladyjacks win.

I really really wish we'd went with an "every sport" approach though. We could have added a good chunk of enrollment, and been ahead of UT and A&M when it comes to adding some sports like gymnastics(Texas is the best gymnastics area in the world), men's soccer, and M&W wrestling etc.

TallTexan said:

---

SFASawmillGuy said:

---

I'm sure SFA has plans to add some replacement programs for the ones lost, but I do agree that what happened to these athletes who came to SFA with the dream of being a D1 athlete only for it to be taken from them is awful.

As far as compliance is concerned, Men's Tennis, a swim team, and possibly gymnastics would be some affordable teams SFA could add to replace men's golf, bowling, and beach volleyball. SFA already has the an Olympic size pool which is used for the scuba diving class, tennis facilities, and WRJ or Shelton Gym could easily be used for gymnastics.

---

Personally I'm of the opinion that the Southland should sponsor every sport out there.

Every institution in our league is trying to grow enrollment. 30 kids on the Lacrosse team is 30 students you may not have had otherwise. There are like 10 Lacrosse scholarships, so you have 20 paying students. That will likely cover the cost of the coaches and travel in a bus league like ours.

So SFA roughly breaks even on those sports when you look at the cost to the athletic department and the gain to the university in terms of paying students.

However, I don't believe SFA will be adding any teams. From my understanding, the House settlement changes the game completely on scholarships and participation.

Whereas before, baseball was allocated 11.4 scholarships, you can now have anywhere between 0 and 35, meaning you can give scholarships to the whole roster if you want. Or to none of the roster. And that's the case for every single sport that used to have a scholarship limit. Softball, swim, track, volleyball, bowling etc.

So I'd expect schools like SFA to just reallocate those scholarships to the other women's teams and that would potentially put them in compliance(no one knows with certainty yet bc this hasn't been litigated in this new landscape yet).

So women's soccer might have 15 scholarships players instead of 10 now, etc. And that could give SFA an advantage over say McNeese, who if they did the same move might put the extra scholarships in softball, etc etc.

But bc of when SFA cut sports, we're going to be on the bleeding edge of the lawsuits that end up deciding what exactly those new regulations look like. Maybe the AD wins. Maybe the Ladyjacks win.

I really really wish we'd went with an "every sport" approach though. We could have added a good chunk of enrollment, and been ahead of UT and A&M when it comes to adding some sports like gymnastics(Texas is the best gymnastics area in the world), men's soccer, and M&W wrestling etc.

---

I agree. I think we need to play into more our strengths as a university if we did add new sports. Find ones that actually would keep cost down and also be successful.

But we chose to honor those cut scholarships through graduation so why are they bringing the lawsuit? I could definitely understand if we just kicked them to the curb!

"SFA will honor all scholarships at their existing levels to student-athletes who choose to stay at the university to finish their academic work and graduate. Student-athletes who wish to transfer to another institution to continue their athletic careers will have the full support and services of the SFA athletics administration to assist them in the transfer portal process."

I know it's unfortunate that these cuts were made but they still get a free education! Not sure there is a bright pro future for these sports it seems.

The top earning Pro Bowler for women has made $87000 this year...just saying!

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. Title IX states "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance[.]" All federal agencies that provide grants of financial assistance are required to enforce Title IX's nondiscrimination mandate. ED gives grants of financial assistance to schools and colleges and to certain other entities, including vocational rehabilitation programs and libraries.

Examples of the types of discrimination that are covered under Title IX include but are not limited to: sex-based harassment; sexual violence; pregnancy discrimination; the failure to provide equal athletic opportunity; sex-based discrimination in a school's science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) courses and programs; discriminatory application of dress code policies and/or enforcement; and retaliation.

Failure to provide equal athletic opportunity.

Has nothing to do with what "pro sports" women may go on to participate in.....means you can't have 10 or 12 men's sports and only 3 or 4 women's sports at Universities.

Ljacks&Longnecks said:

---

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. Title IX states "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance[.]" All federal agencies that provide grants of financial assistance are required to enforce Title IX's nondiscrimination mandate. ED gives grants of financial assistance to schools and colleges and to certain other entities, including vocational rehabilitation programs and libraries.

Examples of the types of discrimination that are covered under Title IX include but are not limited to: sex-based harassment; sexual violence; pregnancy discrimination; the failure to provide equal athletic opportunity; sex-based discrimination in a school's science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) courses and programs; discriminatory application of dress code policies and/or enforcement; and retaliation.

Failure to provide equal athletic opportunity.

Has nothing to do with what "pro sports" women may go on to participate in.....means you can't have 10 or 12 men's sports and only 3 or 4 women's sports at Universities.

---

I understand Title IX as I work in a college setting but it seems that SFA would have thought about all aspects of these cancellations especially as it relates to Title IX.

We currently have 10 women's sports listed and only 6 men's. With the cuts it takes it to 7 and 5?

Thanks for the tutorial though!

jboy93 said:

---

Ljacks&Longnecks said:

---

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. Title IX states "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance[.]" All federal agencies that provide grants of financial assistance are required to enforce Title IX's nondiscrimination mandate. ED gives grants of financial assistance to schools and colleges and to certain other entities, including vocational rehabilitation programs and libraries.

Examples of the types of discrimination that are covered under Title IX include but are not limited to: sex-based harassment; sexual violence; pregnancy discrimination; the failure to provide equal athletic opportunity; sex-based discrimination in a school's science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) courses and programs; discriminatory application of dress code policies and/or enforcement; and retaliation.

Failure to provide equal athletic opportunity.

Has nothing to do with what "pro sports" women may go on to participate in.....means you can't have 10 or 12 men's sports and only 3 or 4 women's sports at Universities.

---

I understand Title IX as I work in a college setting but it seems that SFA would have thought about all aspects of these cancellations especially as it relates to Title IX.

We currently have 10 women's sports listed and only 6 men's. With the cuts it takes it to 7 and 5?

Thanks for the tutorial though!

---

Highly likely that UT System legal team looked at this before they pulled the trigger. The moves seem rational given the chaos in college athletics. I'm no lawyer but it seems like logic should prevail here.

Someone commented previously that if enrollment and general institutional trajectory changes for the positive, bringing back a low cost sport may be looked at.

SCH890 said:

---

TallTexan said:

---

SFASawmillGuy said:

---

I'm sure SFA has plans to add some replacement programs for the ones lost, but I do agree that what happened to these athletes who came to SFA with the dream of being a D1 athlete only for it to be taken from them is awful.

As far as compliance is concerned, Men's Tennis, a swim team, and possibly gymnastics would be some affordable teams SFA could add to replace men's golf, bowling, and beach volleyball. SFA already has the an Olympic size pool which is used for the scuba diving class, tennis facilities, and WRJ or Shelton Gym could easily be used for gymnastics.

---

Personally I'm of the opinion that the Southland should sponsor every sport out there.

Every institution in our league is trying to grow enrollment. 30 kids on the Lacrosse team is 30 students you may not have had otherwise. There are like 10 Lacrosse scholarships, so you have 20 paying students. That will likely cover the cost of the coaches and travel in a bus league like ours.

So SFA roughly breaks even on those sports when you look at the cost to the athletic department and the gain to the university in terms of paying students.

However, I don't believe SFA will be adding any teams. From my understanding, the House settlement changes the game completely on scholarships and participation.

Whereas before, baseball was allocated 11.4 scholarships, you can now have anywhere between 0 and 35, meaning you can give scholarships to the whole roster if you want. Or to none of the roster. And that's the case for every single sport that used to have a scholarship limit. Softball, swim, track, volleyball, bowling etc.

So I'd expect schools like SFA to just reallocate those scholarships to the other women's teams and that would potentially put them in compliance(no one knows with certainty yet bc this hasn't been litigated in this new landscape yet).

So women's soccer might have 15 scholarships players instead of 10 now, etc. And that could give SFA an advantage over say McNeese, who if they did the same move might put the extra scholarships in softball, etc etc.

But bc of when SFA cut sports, we're going to be on the bleeding edge of the lawsuits that end up deciding what exactly those new regulations look like. Maybe the AD wins. Maybe the Ladyjacks win.

I really really wish we'd went with an "every sport" approach though. We could have added a good chunk of enrollment, and been ahead of UT and A&M when it comes to adding some sports like gymnastics(Texas is the best gymnastics area in the world), men's soccer, and M&W wrestling etc.

---

I agree. I think we need to play into more our strengths as a university if we did add new sports. Find ones that actually would keep cost down and also be successful.

---

This makes so much sense ! I agree. SFA should consider sponsoring tennis and men's soccer. Cost is not just scholarships. It's equipment / coaching staff #'s / etc.

Sounds like the commitment to baseball is for real. If so , maybe we can start drawing. On campus.

I understand Title IX as I work in a college setting but it seems that SFA would have thought about all aspects of these cancellations especially as it relates to Title IX.

Well, perhaps part of the problem---One would hope that SFA leadership would have considered all aspects of a decision in this regard...................Perhaps they did or perhaps there was immense pressure from somewhere to just cut the budget at any costs. Unlikely that we will be told anything beyond the few lines that were put out about trying to cut the budget with reduced travel etc, but it wasn't enough.

I like baseball. If I lived in NAC I would have season tix to many sports, baseball included and if we had a real dedicated facility I believe we could get to be on par with the rest of the SLC but SFA has treated baseball like the proverbial stepchild for years. Therefore I agree with the post about baseball's budget and how does SFA reconcile baseball remains while others go. A question I expect SFA should have to answer when all the litigation gets started.

BigJack85 said:

---

jboy93 said:

---

Ljacks&Longnecks said:

---

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. Title IX states "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance[.]" All federal agencies that provide grants of financial assistance are required to enforce Title IX's nondiscrimination mandate. ED gives grants of financial assistance to schools and colleges and to certain other entities, including vocational rehabilitation programs and libraries.

Examples of the types of discrimination that are covered under Title IX include but are not limited to: sex-based harassment; sexual violence; pregnancy discrimination; the failure to provide equal athletic opportunity; sex-based discrimination in a school's science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) courses and programs; discriminatory application of dress code policies and/or enforcement; and retaliation.

Failure to provide equal athletic opportunity.

Has nothing to do with what "pro sports" women may go on to participate in.....means you can't have 10 or 12 men's sports and only 3 or 4 women's sports at Universities.

---

I understand Title IX as I work in a college setting but it seems that SFA would have thought about all aspects of these cancellations especially as it relates to Title IX.

We currently have 10 women's sports listed and only 6 men's. With the cuts it takes it to 7 and 5?

Thanks for the tutorial though!

---

Highly likely that UT System legal team looked at this before they pulled the trigger. The moves seem rational given the chaos in college athletics. I'm no lawyer but it seems like logic should prevail here.

Someone commented previously that if enrollment and general institutional trajectory changes for the positive, bringing back a low cost sport may be looked at.

---

The challenge here is that all the House Settlement Stuff is new and has not been litigated.

I'm sure SFA ran it by UT's stable of lawyers, but there exists no precedent under the new system to say what's allowed and what's not. So at best they could probably give an "it depends... Or a this seems defensible" nod.

There's also a thought that Title IX may not be as vigorously defended by Trump's justice department.

Title IX athletic compliance doesn't boil down purely to the number of mens and women's teams, but also scholarships and expenses etc. For example, it'd hardly be fair if you had 1 mens sport and 1 women's sport and the men's sport was football and the women's was golf. So they also try to balance the number of opportunities.

Now SFA could very well argue that "yes we cut the number of women's sports, but we kept the number of scholarships opportunities for women's athletes the same". And that may very well be something a federal judge rules as being within the new House inspired rules.

But we won't really know until cases like this start going to court. One big one to watch for is that House has essentially negotiated a salary cap, the 20 million a uni can give to athletes, without letting athletes collectively bargain. It tries to bind them as a class, without letting them bargain as a class, which is typically a big red flag.

That rule may very well be struck down within the first year or two as lawyers try these different cases.

So we can't really say who's right or who's wrong under the new regulations until the appeals are over.

*Not a lawyer, just been reading a lot of analysis and stories from insiders who are trying to figure these rules out and determine what is and isn't likely to get them sued.

NACOGDOCHES, Texas (KTRE) - In a temporary injunction, a judge ordered the re-instatement of several women's sports at Stephen F. Austin University Friday.

Six female seniors at SFA have filed lawsuit against the school to save the women's sports cut by SFA as a cost-cutting measure. The hearing held Wednesday and Thursday was to determine if SFA would have to temporarily reinstate the sports until the lawsuit is determined.

In a court order, the judge granted a preliminary injunction.

"It is further ORDERED that Defendant Stephen F. Austin State University preserve the women's beach volleyball team, women's bowling team, women's golf team, and all other women's varsity teams at the University while this case is pending."

It's becoming more and more apparent that the "brain trust" at SFA/UT didn't think this through.

Like how on Earth does an army of lawyers not run through every legal possibility to make sure the decision was sound?

Also, in the press release, McBroom said the dropping of the sports was "financial."

But, when questioned at the trial, he said it was because of lack of fan interest, lack of facilities and lack of impact on enrollment.

Our own AD has no idea why he's dumping sports.

Ljacks&Longnecks said:

---

Yes I have become a non fan of our AD. Apparently, dropped the bombshell on these teams with no advance notice. Put out his drivel about it being that although SFA was working on the budget they haven't got it down enough so these sports were hacked. Now in court records the reasoning is different. Not necessarily inaccurate as none of these sports draw a lot of attention--but if that was the reasoning than put it out in a straightforward manner.
Seems more to me that McBroom had an agenda against woman's sports or perhaps individual coaches. Sadly the damage is done and even if SFA keeps the programs "intact" I would suppose that most of the student athletes that were involved have transitioned on to other universities to carry on in their chosen sport.

---

This will be appealed. Like many of these cases. It will drag on.

MasterAxe2 said:

---

It's becoming more and more apparent that the "brain trust" at SFA/UT didn't think this through.

Like how on Earth does an army of lawyers not run through every legal possibility to make sure the decision was sound?

Also, in the press release, McBroom said the dropping of the sports was "financial."

But, when questioned at the trial, he said it was because of lack of fan interest, lack of facilities and lack of impact on enrollment.

Our own AD has no idea why he's dumping sports.

---

I don't think these are mutually exclusive. All sports at SFA run at a substantial deficit. Certain sports (Mens & Women's Basketball, Football, Baseball, Softball, etc) draw significant attendance and attention, and therefore can benefit the university through recruitment. They still run financial losses, but those losses are partially offset by other benefits.

Other sports no one pays much attention to and few if any students ever attend events. Those run losses and don't have much benefit.

The ruling is actually quite dangerous to other sports at SFA because the plaintiffs argued that since SFA's student body is 62% female, then 62% of SFA athletes should be female. And the only way that could possibly happen is for SFA to eliminate football.

NacMan said:

---

MasterAxe2 said:

---

It's becoming more and more apparent that the "brain trust" at SFA/UT didn't think this through.

Like how on Earth does an army of lawyers not run through every legal possibility to make sure the decision was sound?

Also, in the press release, McBroom said the dropping of the sports was "financial."

But, when questioned at the trial, he said it was because of lack of fan interest, lack of facilities and lack of impact on enrollment.

Our own AD has no idea why he's dumping sports.

---

I don't think these are mutually exclusive. All sports at SFA run at a substantial deficit. Certain sports (Mens & Women's Basketball, Football, Baseball, Softball, etc) draw significant attendance and attention, and therefore can benefit the university through recruitment. They still run financial losses, but those losses are partially offset by other benefits.

Other sports no one pays much attention to and few if any students ever attend events. Those run losses and don't have much benefit.

The ruling is actually quite dangerous to other sports at SFA because the plaintiffs argued that since SFA's student body is 62% female, then 62% of SFA athletes should be female. And the only way that could possibly happen is for SFA to eliminate football.

---

These points apply to 80% of FBS and 95% of FCS schools.

Most if not all of FCS schools are regional institutions with large education/interdisciplinary programs that are dominated by women.

https://www.dailysentinel.com/sports/federal-judge-orders-sfa-to-reinstate-women-s-sports-programs-amid-title-ix-lawsuit/article_c5efe1d2-a1d6-54fc-8b1d-c400ad616e36.html

SFAJack_76 said:

---

https://www.dailysentinel.com/sports/federal-judge-orders-sfa-to-reinstate-women-s-sports-programs-amid-title-ix-lawsuit/article_c5efe1d2-a1d6-54fc-8b1d-c400ad616e36.html

---

Pretty in-depth article. Bravo to the Daily Sentinel.

So McBroom tried to dodge and circumvent Title IX by declaring Cheer and Dance sports although no one else, including NCAA classifies them under Sports. This is our AD, leader of our Athletics programs? Pathetic

So now, his poorly thought out and poorly executed moves could put SFA in the position of having to add swimming or some kind of gymnastics to the women's sports field to even out the numbers. Brilliant!.
What more damage will he do during his tenure? This was, as they say, an unforced error, brought upon SFA by his mishandling and fumbling of sports that he could well have left alone.

Think this strategy would have perhaps had a better legal outcome. 1. Cut baseball (11.7 scholarships) , cut beach volleyball) 2. Consider funding a men's tennis team at later date.

Behind closed doors, division 2 is being discussed. Then you won't have to fight the lawsuits.

Jackdad22 said:

---

Behind closed doors, division 2 is being discussed. Then you won't have to fight the lawsuits.

---

No.

Ljacks&Longnecks said:

---

So McBroom tried to dodge and circumvent Title IX by declaring Cheer and Dance sports although no one else, including NCAA classifies them under Sports. This is our AD, leader of our Athletics programs? Pathetic

So now, his poorly thought out and poorly executed moves could put SFA in the position of having to add swimming or some kind of gymnastics to the women's sports field to even out the numbers. Brilliant!.
What more damage will he do during his tenure? This was, as they say, an unforced error, brought upon SFA by his mishandling and fumbling of sports that he could well have left alone.

---

IMO he should lose his job over this.