For those of you who may have missed it, CNN ran a special on Sunday night in
its "CNN Presents" series on "The Battle of the Sexes," basically a look at
gender equity in college athletics.  Highlighted in this special were the trials
and tribulations of Auburn's women's soccer team, as well as UCLA's problems
with canning its men's gymnastics as well as swimming teams while at the same
time introducing women's soccer and reinstituting its women's gymnastics team.
If UCLA is willing to cut its men's gymnastics team (which, if I recall cor-
rectly, won two NCAA titles, produced 26 all-Americans and a number of Olympians
including Mitch Gaylord and Peter Vidmar) then hockey ain't got a snowball's
chance in hell until the gender equity issue is solved.
 
There is a simple solution to the problem of gender equity that the, for sake
of a better term, "pro"-GE side refuses to see:  exempt college football.  At
UCLA, for instance, even with the success of its volleyball and gymnastics
temas, only 2 of the 21 varsity sports make money.  (It doesn't take a genius
to figure out which two they are.)  While college football may take up a lot
of scholarships (85), it does one thing that no women's sport can do success-
fully: fill the Rose Bowl.  You can't get the golden egg if you cut the goose
's throat in the process.  There are a fair number of schools that would pro-
bably consider dropping college football if the requirement of "scholarships
in proportion to student population (the first criterion in Title IX)" is en-
forced strictly.  If that happens, there isn't going to be money to do anything.
At some schools, however, there are 3 revenue-generating sports (football,
basketball, and either hockey, baseball, or women's basketball).  At those
schools, the money issue isn't as much of a problem.  The Big 10/11 has in-
stituted guidelines where the proportion of scholarships should be 60/40 by
the end of the decade.  This is workable but still has produced some casualties
(Wisconsin's baseball program, though there may have been other issues at work
there as well).
 
For schools right now that are considering a DivisionI hockey program, the
anchor of gender equity will be a huge weight to overcome.  As one who would
like to see college hockey flourish in all areas of the country with as many
DivisionI teams as possible, I only hope that gender equity won't be the "cement
overshoes" of college hockey, which may even drag existing college hockey teams
into oblivion.  I can't take too many more Kent's.
 
G. M. Finniss
Michigan State University
WVU '87, UTenn '92, MSU who the hell knows when?
136 days until faceoff in Anchorage...
125 days until the regular season Prediction Contest...
 
P. S.  BTW, Gary Thorne, 1940 ain't history YET.  The Rangers still have to
       get through Vancouver.   GOOOOOOOOOO  CANUCKS!