At 9:49 PM 8/8/95, Ryan R Bowman wrote:
>As for losing programs, the NCAA could be gaining Division 1 programs if
>it lightened up a bit.  North Dakota State had enough money to go
>division 1 but turned it down saying that they didn't want to deal with
>any more gender equity bs.
 
Actually, concerns about the gender equity issue should be directed towards
the US government, and specifically, I believe, the ruling (Supreme Court?)
that Title IX is applicable to collegiate athletics.  I am not a Title IX
expert, but I believe it provides for equal opportunities in higher
education for men and women - a good thing, although the side effect of the
ruling is that it makes it more difficult for schools to add or maintain
some men's sports when those schools have for years had an imbalance in
athletic opportunities for men and women.
 
What we see with schools scrambling to comply with Title IX is not a result
of anything the NCAA did.  Rather, the schools are trying to avoid a
federal lawsuit that would have Title IX as its basis.
 
A plus is that we will likely see women's hockey continue to grow and be
accorded varsity status at many schools.  It is too bad that men's hockey
has its growth hindered, but this is a situation faced by many other sports
as well.
 
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.