Victory in Defeat
understanding the Quinnipiac verdict
Judge Stefan Underhill decided that Quinnipiac University could not count the Women's Competitive Cheer team for the university's Title IX (T9) numbers in 2009-2010. The numerous headlines are simple but, the true meaning is easily lost. The judge did not say competitive cheer at QU is not a sport, he said QU could not count it for T9 purposes in the 09-10 season. He applied the strictest requirements of the T9 law to QU's team and found that they did not meet a few key and essential qualities defined by the Dept. of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR), which determines whether an activity can be considered a sport for T9 purposes.
The layman's concept for understanding the various tests and standards applied to determine if competitive cheer is a sport is deeply centered on if the quality of the athletic opportunities provided are consistent with the quality of the opportunities provided in other varsity sports at QU and other teams of the same sport or different sports at other universities. The key test for QU to pass was not only if they provided the tangible components like roster spots, equipment, services, support, scholarships and other well-known benefits, but also, if the experience of being a part of a varsity team is a similar experience to other teams in the same sport and different sports, at QU and at other institutions.
For example, the quality of the experience is not the same for a varsity athlete if they aren't ranked or if they aren't measured the same way all season along with all their opponents. Competitive cheer does not have a ranking system in place. In effect, the athletes have no way to know how they truly compare to other teams and ultimately to experience the satisfaction or disappointment that results from knowing their team's rankings. How can a team qualify for the post season if there are no qualitative rankings or comparisons. While this quality of being a varsity athlete doesn't seem like that big of a deal, it is one of the examples of how the 'experience' of being a varsity athlete on QU's competitive cheer team significantly differs from the experience of being a varsity athlete on other sport teams at QU or other schools. The member's of the 2010 Alabama football national championship team had a significantly different experience knowing they were ranked #1 through the season. This would not be an experience QU competitive cheer members could have experienced since there is no ranking in their sport like in all other varsity sports.
This is precisely the root of the test of whether the quality of the athletic opportunities provided is on par with other varsity athletes. This is the main philosophy that identified competitive cheer's shortcomings and ultimately led to the inability to count competitive cheer as a sport for the 2009-2010 season.
Specifically, Underhill noted 3 critical points, each with sub issues, that led to his conclusion. see OCR criteria (click here)
--1. The lack of off-campus recruiting for the 2009-2010 season.
--2. The regular season lacked standard rules of play, established by the governing body, between the various competitions the team attended. There also were no rules regarding what types of opponents (sideline, club, all star) teams could compete against.
--3. The post season championship lacked a regular season based qualifying system and didn't have the same rules as the regular season. The post season championship was not controlled by the sport's governing body (NCSTA). The post season championship also required use of sideline cheer skills vs competitive cheer skills (ie 45 crowd response cheer, poms, signs, megaphones).
To read more in depthly about the specific tests and OCR guidelines the judge used, see Underhills complete decision, OCR Letter 2008 pg 50-71. This is the meat of the process the judge went through. click here for full decision
These three key points were significant factors when addressed in detail that convinced the judge that QU did not meet the core philosophy of T9 due to the fact that the quality of the opportunity was not the same as those experienced in other varsity sports. At face value, this might have seemed like a defeat for competitive cheer, but in actuality it is a clear victory when you read further through Judge Underhill's decision.
"I have little doubt that at some point in the near future – once competitive cheer is better organized and defined, and surely in the event that the NCAA recognizes the activity as an emerging sport – competitive cheer will be acknowledged as a bona fide sporting activity by academic institutions, the public, and the law," says Underhill.
The National Competitive Stunts and Tumbling Association(NCSTA) and it's member programs now have a clear blueprint drafted on trial tested paper that identifies the shortcomings of the current collegiate model and nearly walks the NCSTA by hand towards the necessary policy implementations and other solutions needed to bring the sport into compliance with T9. In the past, the OCR has been very vague and allusive with schools sponsoring varsity competitive cheer programs in offering definitive guidance on how to make their competitive cheer programs T9 compliant. However, the trial put the OCR's current guidelines on very public display and essentially, the judge was the card dealer calling all players to show their hands. Consequently, it will be much clearer for the institutions to address any conflicts the OCR might have with competitive cheer meeting T9 guidelines. Previously, you couldn't conform to standards you don't know. Tip the dealer.... I mean judge a few big chips, now we know!
While nearly every headline will emphasize a defeat for competitive cheer, now you know the smaller battle lost leads to the greater war won! Competitive cheer on the collegiate level, under the NCSTA model is just a year or so away from being a T9 sport. Even more of note, this entire arguement is a moot point if 4 more schools sponsor varsity teams. Then the NCSTA will have the minimum number of varsity programs needed to gain NCAA Emerging sport status (10 teams). Upon that status, the sport is automatically granted Title IX status! A year and a half ago there were only two. Now there are six.
The coach of the Women's Competitive Cheer Team here at Ohio State University was a founding member of the NCSTA and coach Delaney is a strong advocate and supporter of developing competitive cheer into a collegiate sport. The direct purpose and benefit of this evolution is to take a developing sport that is tremendously popular amongst the nation's (and the world's) young women and girls and structure it to meet the demand as a credible sport which will offer opportunities for women to compete for their scholastic teams and collegiate institutions.
"The QU case put floodlights on the path for the NCSTA and supporters of competitive cheer as a sport to more clearly navigate towards achieving NCAA Emerging Sport status. The OCR's lack of clarity in helping the existing varsity programs define that path in the past has also recieved the warmth of the bright lights. I am more confident in this small defeat that a larger and more amazing victory has been illuminated and will be a bright spot in the future of women's athletics." Joey Delaney, head coach Ohio State Women's Competitive Cheer