Quote:
Originally Posted by fantASTic
Unfortunately, Title IX doesn't necessarily mean the number of sports. It means the number of PARTICIPANTS in sports. And the football team, with a hundred players, skews the numbers significantly. Since there is no women's sport that has THAT many people on the team, schools usually need to cut men's teams to make sure that they don't disobey Title IX.
If football was not counted, it wouldn't be an issue, but it is.
Here's a little article for more info:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=4326021 |
I'm aware of how it works, they shuffled rugby to club sports and then cut two women's sports and two men's sports entirely and about an equal number of male and female athletes. The shuffling was more about Title IX and the others were about money.
And I really have little sympathy for schools who complain about Title IX. I get that football's the money maker, but schools also do fine without it if it's such a "burden." If they'd been funding women's sports in the first place it wouldn't have been an issue. Fielding a women's rugby or even *gasp* football team would honestly solve a lot of their problems and a school that advertised for it might even succeed if they didn't fall into the "make it sexy" trap.
Ultimately college should be about the academics.