Gerald Williams wrote:
 
> I'll take that wager my friend,  Michigan also has this insane booster club
> (called the victors club) which requires a minimum $10,000 to join and has
> tons of members. If we first exclude the money donated by these people to the
> football program, and the $10 Million dollars per year that the football
> program brings in through ticket sales, concessions, etc,  I'd say that out
> of the U-M budget, VERY, VERY little is routed to the football program that
> isn't paid for through the football boosters and football generated money.
>
> I think I made a mistake bringing football up, perhaps we should all return
> to the ice.
 
Congratulations.  You've proved that if we exclude the money spent on the
football program, it doesn't cost very much.  Wow.
 
Exactly how many times does it have to be said: whether the sport generates money
is not relevant to this discussion.  You continue to blame Title IX for a
decision made by the athletic departments.  If you want to take the position that
it should be, great.  But don't forget to mention who has made this definition.
Trying to find a different scapegoat that matches your own political preferences
is shameful.
 
You didn't bring football up; it was probably me.  It's impossible to ignore
football in any discussion of Title IX, because it's the 1,500 lb. gorilla
sitting in the corner skewing all the numbers.  What happens is this:
 
1) Congress passes Title IX, telling athletic departments that they have to
support educational opportunities for women equally with the men.  (Remember,
this is what Title IX actually is about; sports aren't even mentioned.)
 
2) Faced with this, the NCAA continues to define football as an educational
opportunity, rather than as a revenue producing business in order to maintain
that the players aren't employees.
 
3) Athletic departments that do not have the financial resources of a Michigan
(since, for most of them, football *loses* money) still try to maintain a
competitive football team.
 
4) Since these athletic departments have to increase educational opportunities
for women, they won't declare football to be what it is,  they won't cut the
resources they devote to football, and they aren't get any other funding
increases, they have to cut other men's sports.
 
Ergo, we see men's teams dropped.  Why, faced with this chain of events, so many
people decide to blame Title IX rather than tortured logic, dishonest motives and
secretive decision making that takes place in the athletic departments during
steps 2 and 3, is something I can't understand.  I expect it, since I see this
kind of thinking in lots of other places, too, but I can't understand it.
 
J. Michael Neal
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.