Opinion ID: 6114506
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Genuine Participation Opportunities

Text: When determining whether participation opportunities are substantially proportionate to enrollment, “OCR’s analysis begins with a determination of the number of participation opportunities afforded to male and female athletes in the intercollegiate athletic program.” 1996 Letter. The student-athletes argue that MSU inflated its number of female athletes by failing to accord certain female athletes genuine participation opportunities, both on the rowing team and on the track-and-field and cross-country teams. The district court rejected this argument. Balow v. Mich. State Univ., No. 1:21-cv-44, 2021 WL 650712, at –7 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 19, 2021). We address each sport in turn. First, the district court did not clearly err in finding that MSU did not inflate its count of women rowers by including “novice” rowers in its count of athletes and having a larger-thanaverage team. Although the number of novice rowers contributes to the large size of the women’s rowing team, novice rowing is “an integral part of the sport,” and Big Ten meets include events that are reserved for only novice rowers. R. 8-3 (Chavers Decl. ¶¶ 3–11) (Page ID #367–69). The rowing coach submitted a declaration stating that novice rowers “are fullfledged members of the MSU rowing team” who “receive the same practice gear and competition gear and participate in the same training and conditioning activities as the rest of the team.” Id. ¶ 5 (Page ID #368). Thus, novice rowers meet the regulatory definition of participant. See 44 Fed. Reg. at 71,415. Second, the district court did not clearly err in finding that MSU did not inflate the number of women’s track-and-field and cross-country athletes. Although some athletes did not participate in any races, Title IX does not require that athletes participate in competitions to be counted. See 44 Fed. Reg. at 71,415; 1996 Letter (“In determining participation opportunities, OCR includes . . . those athletes who practice but may not compete.”); see also Biediger v. No. 21-1183 Balow et al. v. Michigan State Univ. et al. Page 7 Quinnipiac Univ. (“Biediger III”), 691 F.3d 85, 93 (2d Cir. 2012) (“It is not necessary for an athlete to meet minimum criteria of playing time . . . to count as a participant.”); Anders v. Cal. State Univ., Fresno, No. 1:21-cv-179-AWI-BAM, 2021 WL 1564448, at  (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021) (“‘[B]ench warming’ is a fact of life in most sports.”). Against these conclusions, the student-athletes point to cases in which athletes were not accorded genuine participation opportunities. But those cases are different from the current one. In this case, the university did not pressure teams to have larger or smaller rosters than the coach would prefer, see Biediger v. Quinnipiac Univ. (“Biediger I”), 616 F. Supp. 2d 277, 283–84 (D. Conn. 2009), nor are women’s teams larger than average while men’s teams are smaller than average, see Portz v. St. Cloud State Univ. (“Portz II”), 401 F. Supp. 3d 834, 863 (D. Minn. 2019). At MSU, the coach determines the size of the team based on “interest and the Big Ten’s competition requirements.” R. 8-3 (Chavers Decl. ¶ 12) (Page ID #369). A coach’s preference for a larger team does not mean that team members lack genuine participation opportunities. Ultimately, the district court did not clearly err in finding that MSU did not inflate its number of women athletes.