The Good

Since its inception, the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act, formerly known as Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, has done a lot of good. The number of women athletes participating in sports at higher academic institutions during the 2005-2006 academic year was just over 168,500, a far cry from the 30,000 women collegiate athletes in 1972. And while there are still 56,343 more men participating in college athletics than women that year, the gap is closing every year (with the exception of 2005-06 to 2006-07 for some reason). This is a good thing. Women deserve the same opportunities as men on the field of play.

How is it, though, that although there were approximately 56,343 more men participating in college athletics during the 2005-2006 academic year, there were 9,238 women's teams and 8,259 men's teams?

The Bad

Many view Title IX as the evil entity of college athletics, when really, at its core, it's not. The corruption lies in the law's the "three-prong test" of an institution's compliance that in 1979, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare under Jimmy Carter's administration issued a policy interpretation for Title IX. In order to comply with Title IX and institution must do one of the following:

• Substantially proportionate athletic opportunities for male and female athletes
• A history and continuing practice of expanding opportunities for the under-represented sex
• Full and effective accommodation of the interests and abilities of the under-represented sex

Obviously, abiding by the first option meets the criteria for the second two. And really, how can you achieve the second two without meeting the standards of the first? Anyway, the key here is the definition and interpretation of 'substantially proportionate athletic equity.' This can be done in two ways.

The first way is actually the only way with Division III athletics. Let's take my undergraduate alma mater, King's College, for example. The student body at King's College is 51% men and 49% women. Their athletic department follows suit with 10 men's and 9 women's sports. Every Division III institution is structured this way, as is every Division I & II institution that does not sponsor football. Seems simple enough, right? Wrong. This is the way it should be, but isn't, unfortunately.

The second way is to exhibit proportionality by scholarship allocation, not to ratio the amount of sports with the student body. For example, the student body at The University of Kansas is 49% men and 51% women. However, the Jayhawks only sponsor 6 men's athletic teams while sponsoring 10 women's athletic teams, or 37.5% to 62.5%. How do they get away with this? The amount of scholarships given to the athletes in 49% to the men and 51% to the women, with a majority of the men's scholarships going to football. 85 scholarships to be exact. This is far from equity. The male population is severely under served in this case.

The Ugly

A perfect example of this hypocrisy is Arizona State University. Last week, the University announced it will be dropping men's wrestling, swimming and tennis effective immediately (their men's tennis team was a top 20 team, by the way). Prior to this move, the University sponsored 12 women's and 11 men's sports (separating swimming and diving in this case) to support is student body that is comprised of 53% women and 47% men. An almost perfect ratio. Unfortunately, budget cuts needed to be made, and the three men's sports were cut, leaving the University with 12 women's and 8 men's sports. But with the 85 scholarships allocated to the football team, the men now have 152 scholarships and the women 153, meeting the standards of Title IX. Perfect, unless you wrestle, swim, or play tennis, that is. And even if these teams raise the money to support themselves via endowment ($8 million for wrestling and $5 million each for both tennis and swimming), they're not coming back. Doing so would be a Title IX violation, because the percentage of sponsored sports in relation to the student body would still be off, and the men would have more scholarships than the women.

It's very easy to point the finger at women's athletics and blame them for the extinction of men's athletics at the collegiate level. Doing so is nothing more than displaced aggression, however. Women deserve the right to compete as much as the men do, but not at the expense of men's sports. And while the cuts made by Arizona State may have been budget drive, the sports that were chosen to cut was Title IX driven, and that is unfair to everyone involved. There is no reason why an institution with over 40,000 students can't support 22 athletic programs. I hope the student body at Arizona State University enjoys the posh new indoor practice facility for the football team that costs $8.4 million dollars.

The Solution

It's no secret that NCAA college football is a cash cow. Even an unsuccessful football season, paired with booster donations, can potentially fund an entire athletic department. People, however, need to face the facts that the rise of college football in America is the cause of many colleges and universities being forced to drop men's non-revenue sports. Athletic Directors have shown poor leadership need to take responsibility for their actions. Perhaps a change in donor policy in is in order, in which all money donated must be for all of the athletic programs instead of just one particular sport. It's not that hard to figure out, but the question is, do they want to figure it out?

Football Bowl Subdivision teams (I-A) do not need 85 scholarship players and Football Championship Subdivision teams (I-AA) do not need 63 scholarship players, especially when teams are only allowed to travel with 60 players. Actions must be taken so that every Division I institution drops their amount of football scholarships and spreads the wealth in order to better support non-revenue sports. This way, if sports teams do need to be cut, they will on both sides of the field. And, in the end, do you really need more than one punter on scholarship?