JEH wrote:
Maybe I'm misinformed. I am not an expert in Title IX, but soon plan to know quite a bit about it.
I thought that Title IX forces schools to have the same number of scholoarships for men and women. And, because football has like 80 (or whatever), it results in the girls getting a lot of scholarships across several of the sports. BUT, when schools feel a financial pinch, they don't want to cut football, so they end up cutting smaller guys sports to reduce the number of scholarships/resources allocated to the sports. Is that not how Title IX affects collegiate athletics? If you could elaborate on the wider implications of it (like you started with the Med school thing, but I am having a hard time grasping it fully), I would really appreciate it.
JEH:
There are other proportionality requirements, which few are every met, but it includes resources, salaries, travel budgets, recruitment budgets, etc. But yes of course, there are requirements for scholarships that must reflect the gender enrollment of the school. The choice of athletic offerings however is determined by the school so they have some control - for example, you won't find (don't quote me) a rowing team in Wyoming.
Football is always the sacred cow. If all would agree to put that animal as Banton stated "on a diet", then non-revenue sports would have a chance of survival. That is what makes the whole things bullshit. If OU is in such bad shape and they had the will to save these three sports, then they could cut EVERY sport, male and female, in order to keep these three alive. They do not have the will for anything, they are cutting these sports to purchase more grain to feed their f-cow.
I'm going to write you this weekend! 16x