Attorneys Issue Response to Accusations in Lawsuit Filed by Former UMD Women's Coaches

Ahead of a scheduled pre-trial conference Monday, attorneys for the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota have issued a response to a lawsuit filed by former UMD coaches Shannon Miller, Jen Banford, and Annette Wiles. The lawsuit alleges discrimination by UMD based on gender, sexual orientation, national origin, and age, allegations strongly denied by the defendant.

I have obtained a copy of the response, which was filed Wednesday. The 11-page document answers allegations levied by Miller, Banford, and Wiles.

Specifically, the response to the lawsuit addresses claims made by Miller regarding scholarship money allocated to the men's and women's hockey programs.

According to the statement of case: "Indeed, the total women’s hockey scholarship funding has historically exceeded that of the men’s hockey team. For instance, in 2014–15, total scholarships of $460,785 were awarded for women’s hockey, versus $408,754 for men’s hockey, even though the men’s team had more players."

The statement goes on to refute Miller's allegation of discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation by noting the female who was hired to take over the UMD women's program (Maura Crowell) identifies as gay.

It also addresses claims by Miller that the school's treatment of men's coach Scott Sandelin is evidence of discrimination towards her. The statement says Sandelin's contract doesn't expire until 2017, and notes his 6-2 record in three recent appearances in the NCAA Tournament. Over that same time span, Miller's teams went 0-1 in the NCAA Tournament. It also notes that Sandelin's base salary was $265,000, not "in excess of $300,000" as claimed in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also brings up the contract extension given to football coach Curt Wiese as support of discrimination allegations. The school refutes that, noting Wiese's salary was a fraction of Miller's, and his teams had performed consistently at a high level.

From the statement of case: "Wiese’s pay of $85,000 was approximately 40% of Miller’s, and—unlike Miller—he was not the highest paid coach in his sport’s level of intercollegiate athletics (i.e., NCAA Division II football).  He was not even the highest-paid football coach in UMD’s conference (the Northern Sun Intercollegiate Conference (NSIC)).  Rather, Wiese’s pay ranked 8th out of 16 in the conference. Yet, since Wiese’s arrival (as offensive coordinator, then promoted to head coach in 2012) at UMD in February 2008, the football team has gone 86-10 (for an .895 winning percentage—a figure unmatched by any Division II football program), and the team captured two NCAA Division II national championships (2008 and 2010) along with six NSIC titles (2008–12 and 2014) while producing two perfect 15-0 seasons."

Regarding Banford, the statement of case accuses her of hiding a significant fact from her January 2015 disclosure to ESPNw and other media outlets that she was being non-renewed as UMD's softball coach and director of women's hockey operations.

Again, taken from the statement: "A few days after (Assistant Athletic Director Jay) Finnerty emailed Banford the non-renewal letter regarding the hybrid position, on or about December 16, 2014, Associate Athletic Director and Senior Woman Administrator Karen Stromme met with the softball team and told them that Banford would be their softball coach for the coming season.  Finnerty then spoke to Banford on or about December 17, 2014, and told her that it would be an approximately 60-day process to provide her the new appointment as head softball coach.  Berlo also spoke with Banford on or about December 18, 2014, and communicated that the University fully intended to retain her and that they were working through the details. 

"About one month later, on January 15, 2015, Banford inquired of Finnerty by email as to the status of the new appointment.  Finnerty advised her in person that same day that the appointment was still in process.  Also that same day, Finnerty facilitated the electronic scheduling of a January 20, 2015 meeting with Berlo and Banford to explain where they were in the process.  Banford accepted the meeting appointment.  Two days later, on January 17, 2015, Banford electronically declined the previously-accepted January 20th meeting and apparently reported to the media that her contract as head softball coach had been non-renewed.  Banford supplied the media only with the letter of non-renewal of the hybrid Head Softball Coach/Director of Women’s Hockey position and neglected to supply the media with Finnerty’s cover email.  Thus, on Sunday, January 18, 2015, ESPNw reported that Banford said that she received notice that her Head Softball Coach position would not be renewed.  The online version of the story provided a link to the non-renewal letter, but not the cover email, which Banford chose to hide from the press."

The response also notes that UMD's softball team played its greatest number of home games in the last five years, as the teams that shared Malosky Stadium -- football, track and field, and soccer -- made accommodations for each other, as well as for softball. It also denies Banford's allegations that equipment for players was "held hostage" by the school.

Wiles, you might remember, resigned from UMD after the 2014-15 season, alleging a hostile work environment. The school denies such an environment existed, and the response notes a conversation Wiles had with two other coaches in the spring of 2015 where she admitted she didn't experience a hostile work environment and said UMD was a "great place to work."

The statement of case goes on to detail the friendship between Wiles and UMD Assistant Athletic Director Abbey Strong. It says Wiles severed that friendship in October 2014 after she incurred charges of over $1,000 for wear and tear on a leased Toyota vehicle that was provided to her free of charge. The contract said Wiles would responsible for wear and tear charges and mileage overages, but she wanted Strong to find money in the department's budget to pay for them. When Strong struggled to do that, "Wiles became hostile toward Strong -- not the other way around," the statement says.

"Coaches throughout the Athletic Department were treated similarly with respect to leased vehicles: each coach who received a leased vehicle rather than a monthly stipend signed a lease with Toyota obliging the coach to pay wear-and-tear charges, mileage overage charges, and the like."

The statement also says Wiles -- like Banford and Miller -- are alleging gender discrimination when UMD hired a woman (Mandy Pearson) for the position of women's basketball head coach.

The final page of the statement of case addresses unequal pay accusations.

"Plaintiffs’ allegation that they received unequal pay for equal work is meritless. Compensation for each employee depends on job performance, duties and responsibilities, and market conditions.  An employee’s gender and sexual orientation were not considered in determining compensation."

More to come as the case continues.

Wisconsin School Uses Loophole, Sues To Make Football Playoffs

We've discussed this before, but high school football is a bit different in Wisconsin than it is in Minnesota. In Minnesota, the high school football playoffs include everybody, with the exception of the bottom teams in sections that have more than eight teams (there aren't many).

In Wisconsin, teams have to finish .500 or better in league play to qualify for the state football playoffs. Upon completion of the season, the WIAA puts together a list of qualifying teams, which totals 224 schools (32 teams in each of seven divisions). Teams are placed in divisions based on their overall enrollment, then grouped in pods of eight teams each. The top four teams in each pod are seeded, with first-round matchups drawn up to minimize travel as much as possible.

This year, the process in Wisconsin was questioned as seriously as it's been in any year since it was implemented.

Messmer/Shorewood is a Milwaukee-area co-operative. Its players and supporters have dubbed it "Messwood." Thanks to the involvement of a lawyer, this whole situation is a mess.

The program left its conference, the Woodland, without approval from the WIAA in 2007. Such a move carries a four-year ban from postseason participation, as noted in WIAA bylaws. As a result, 2011 was to be Messmer/Shorewood's last year of playoff ineligibility.

The team posted a 4-2 record in the Midwest Classic North Conference, the league it left the Woodland to join. Such a record would normally be enough to gain playoff eligibility, but because Messmer/Shorewood was in its last year of the four-year ban, the WIAA chose to exclude the team from the playoffs.

However, Messmer/Shorewood argued that the rule's placement in the bylaws makes it look like it only applies to schools that leave a conference to become an independent, not schools that leave one conference to join another. As a result, Messmer/Shorewood sued the WIAA for playoff inclusion.

And won.

I'm not going to lie. There's a part of me that says "Good ... this will teach the WIAA to have sloppily-written bylaws." There's no excuse for an organization that oversees the number of athletes, coaches, and schools the WIAA does to have a rule that is this badly written.

However, I hate the message this sends. Messmer/Shorewood was fully aware of the punishment they faced for leaving the Woodland Conference. They decided to go anyway, feeling that the move was in the best interests of the program. The fact that they were able to turn things around and put together a competitive program in the new league validates that decision. But they did it knowing full well that they were facing a four-year postseason ban.

When they put together a nice season in the fourth year of that four-year ban, they looked at the rule, saw an opportunity, and sued.

Never mind that they agreed to the ban when they switched leagues. Never mind that they understood the intent of the rule and were just fine living by that rule. Never mind that the WIAA had to take a team out of the playoffs that thought they had made it, in order to include Messmer/Shorewood.

When opportunity knocks, sue. That's what we do in this country, I guess.

Easy to accept, but harder to understand, and even harder to like.

Sign of the Times in Media

Couldn't help but notice this gem of a story about sports media. Turns out The Washington Post has subtly changed the name of the blog that covers the NFL team based out of their fair city.

Here's the skinny from Dan Steinberg of the Post, who notes that the team asked the newspaper to rename its blog, which was called "R******s Insider" (sorry, but we don't want to get in trouble here). The paper now calls its blog "Football Insider," which should incense officials in the National Football League.

After all, you're stretching the brand and potentially damaging the NFL name.

For such a crappy football organization to spend time worrying about something like this is kind of funny.

Steinberg unloaded in his blog post about the move.

Well, that’s cool. Well played, Washington Football Team. I only wish the Washington Nationals, Capitals and Wizards were as forward-thinking about protecting their brands from the scarcy specters of the Nationals Journal, Capitals Insider and Wizards Insider Web logs.

This is not the only shot being fired by sports teams or organizations at the media.

The WIAA happens to be embroiled in their own controversy.

And lawsuit.

The case stems from an agreement between the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association, which represents high schools, and a video production company called American Hi-Fi. The contract gives the company the right to stream high school sports events in Wisconsin over the Internet.

The agreement, however, precludes newspapers and other media organizations around the state from freely streaming the games themselves. To do so, they must first get a license from the WIAA, which charges as much as $1,500 per game for the privilege. A Wisconsin newspaper owned by McLean-based Gannett Co. challenged these restrictions as a violation of its First Amendment rights, prompting the WIAA to go to court last year to seek a declaratory judgment.

A federal district court decided in the WIAA’s favor last year. “Ultimately this is a case about commerce, not the right to a free press,” the court wrote in its decision. “The principal reason the WIAA granted an exclusive license to stream its games over the internet is not to promote discourse, but to create and grow an additional source of revenue.”

That is indeed why the WIAA says its contract with American Hi-Fi is exclusive; by giving the company “exclusive” rights to the games, it increases the value of the rights, much like an NFL or Olympics TV deal. WIAA spokesman Todd Clark says the streaming contract is part of a package of sponsorships that raise about $300,000 a year for the association. “Instead of raising ticket prices so that they’re unaffordable for families,” he said, “we chose to [offset expenses] through these contracts.”

This is a dangerous line for sports organizations to cross. Revenue is important, but so is the media's right to report on the events. The threat of raising ticket prices -- as if that's the only other source of revenue for the WIAA -- is kind of comical. It's not like the games cost much now, and raising ticket prices a couple bucks across the board isn't suddenly going to take a half-full arena and make it less than that. The people that want to go will still go.

Cheerleading on Trial

Women have -- rightfully so -- been fighting for their rights for so many years now. It's actually ridiculous that the "Get in the kitchen" and "Make me a sandwich" crowds have lasted as long as they have.

It's proof that even human beings can be completely insensitive and stupid.

Title IX -- a law not designed for sports -- has helped women come a long way toward gaining equal footing in the athletic world. The law mandates equal opportunity for females, and it has been interpreted -- right or wrong, mind you -- to mean colleges have to even up the competitive opportunities and scholarships based on their overall student population.

Argue all you want about its ups and downs. That's a different subject for a different day. It's for real.

Schools have been looking to figure out how to comply without cutting a ton of men's sports for years. In the meantime, sports like wrestling, swimming, and sometimes hockey and football have gone away to help save money and get a university in compliance.

But what happens when a school wants to cut a women's sport to save money?

They have to find a cheaper women's sport to spend scholarship money on.

This is what happened at Quinnipiac University. The powers-that-be wanted to save a few dollars, so they decided to do away with women's volleyball. They needed a cheaper alternative to replace those scholarships and keep the school in Title IX compliance. Luckily for them, there was -- they thought -- an option.

Cheerleading.

Yes, I said cheerleading.

Volleyball players were incensed. They sued the school, claiming that cheerleading is not a sport.

Now, the case is in court, and a federal judge is charged with deciding if it's a real sport. It's one of the more interesting cases involving sports we've seen in court for some time.

... the university says is a less expensive program that serves more women, the New Haven Register reported.

Five volleyball players and their coach sued the university, alleging that cheerleading is not a real sport and the university improperly counts or exaggerates its number of athletes to get around Title IX requirements.

... Expert witness Jeff Webb, chief executive of Varsity Spirit, testified that making cheerleading a competitive college sport would threaten "classical sideline cheerleading," according to the Associated Press. He added that cheerleading is as much of a sport as chess.

Except I don't remember the last time someone tore an ACL playing chess.

Something being dangerous and athletic doesn't make it a sport. However, where do we draw the line? There are competitive cheerleading championships. Surely, you've seen them on ESPN before. The people on these teams put a lot of time and effort into what they do, and while there isn't any kind of professional equivalent to it for anyone to go in after college, there isn't a professional equivalent for a lot of college sports, but yet we label them as sports.

Sanctioning cheerleading as a college sport could be bad for the cause of women's athletics. Cheerleading involves more people and is cheaper than most any other sport a university can sponsor. If you think there aren't enough women's hockey, volleyball, or softball programs now, wait until Quinnipiac wins this lawsuit, and schools look to drop expensive, money-bleeding non-revenue sports for cheerleading.

The quality and visibility of cheerleading will rise, but is that really a good thing?