One thing I'm curious about is that in the case in question,
Brown eliminated two men's sports and two women's sports, so I'm a
little unclear on the inequity involved.  Since they're an Ivy and by
definition don't give out scholarships, it's not a scholarship issue.
Perhaps it was the sizes of the rosters; at any rate the men's sports
cut seemed lower-profile than the women's.
 
        What I wonder is does Title IX make it any more likely that
women's hockey will get enough varisty teams to start playing for a
national championship.  Or does the numbers game mean women's hockey
will be passed over for a sport that's cheaper?
 
        Of course, if the relevant issue is amount of resources, that
may actually help women's hockey for the same seasons.
 
                                        John Whelan, Cornell '91
                                        <[log in to unmask]>
        <http://www.cc.utah.edu/~jtw16960/jshock.html>
 
Cornell Men's Ice Hockey: Back-to-back ECAC and Ivy League Champions
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.