I don't think we need national legislation or adminstrative regulations to
run college sports. If a school wants to offer engineering as a major- it
doesn't need permission from Uncle Sam. If 50% of a school i.e. women can't
figure out how to get the athletic department to give them equity then there
is a problem. In a free market- those schools that offer the whole gamut of
womens sports will attract women students? If one likes college hockey- you
won't necessarily attend Penn.
 
In New Jersey our Supreme Court ordered that per pupil spending be equal in
each town. In essence it expected our suburban schools where the taxpayers
opted for higher spending to reduce their spending to the levels of a Newark-
net result is that per pupil spending is now higher in the cities and yet
there is no improvement in academic scores.
 
I find it tedious that football is constantly bashed on this board. College
football is the college game. Football will be the last to go. You would
eliminate every minor sport (including hockey) before they would ever carve
football. Let's get real. Why should anyone object to a 90 player football
team? The idea of college athletics is to encourage participation- not
reduce.
 
Please don't assume because I resent the mindset of Title IX that I am
against women sports- I am a UConn grad and darn proud of our women's b-ball
team (and I would welcome a UConn womens hockey team).  The ideal would be to
create womens opportunities where there is a genuine interest rather than
destroy men's programs. (Football is reality) By the way my sons' school is
one of the few that is in 100% perfect Title IX compliance so I have no axe
to grind.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.