PK wrote:Stlhockeyguy02 wrote:I thought it was funding to mens athletics and womens...not simple numbers.
I believe it is just numbers of scholarships in proportion to the percentage of each gender in the general student body. The fact that some sports cost more than others only becomes a factor when you try to add a sport to match up the proportioning and have to find a way to fund it. That is why it has lead to so many men's sports being dropped rather than adding women's sports...it is hard to keep increasing the athletics budget.
Like it or not, the size of the roster for a FB team will depress the number of men's team in order to have proportional numbers of men and women student-athletics. If we want Men Track & Field/CC, Baseball, lacrosse, etc., then FB goes.
The counter is revenue, which FB generates (even if it is not a positive in its own cash flow thanks to coaches salaries, stadium costs, scholarships, etc.) However, the fact that FB delivers revenue is not important in the Title IX equation. Same for Men's BB.
The sad reality is there are and will be fewer men sports and student-athletes due to Title IX. Title IX supporters don't care that the men's opportunities are reduced because equal outcomes, not opportunities, are more important. (sounds communist, doesn't it?)