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.