Ben, there is a flaw in your arguments.  It involves the assumptions behind
why sports exist in the first place.
 
> Back in the early 1900's, sports were a male only domain and
> female had little to no interest in getting involved.
>
Probably true - cultural values were such that an athletic woman was a kind
of outcast.
 
<snip>
 
> And it is a FACT that there will always be more male athletes than female
> athletes until society changes. That is not sexism, that is truth.
>
Sorry - that's an assumption, not a fact.  I tend to think the assumption is
correct, but its hardly a fact.
 
<snip>
 
> It's pathetic that since UNO started its hockey team, it's had to add not
> 1,
> not 2, but 3 women's sports for title ix reasons. For every 8,314 fans
> that
> goto a hockey game, maybe 100 or so will attend each of those sports, if
> that.
>
So what?  Sports in college, at least in theory, are not for revenue nor for
fan interest.  They are there to provide an educational experience for the
athletes!  Whether this is a valuable educational experience or not has
never been adequately evaluated - it is likely impossible to actually do a
study which would answer that question anyway.  But don't condemn women's
sports or Title IX on the basis of lack of fan interest or revenue in the
created sports.
 
 
<snip>
 
> Well gee, life ain't fair.
>
It sure isn't.  Just ask the female athlete.
 
Now, can we discuss hockey a little bit?
 
Tom Rowe
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.