Ben, there is a flaw in your arguments. It involves the assumptions behind why sports exist in the first place. > Back in the early 1900's, sports were a male only domain and > female had little to no interest in getting involved. > Probably true - cultural values were such that an athletic woman was a kind of outcast. <snip> > And it is a FACT that there will always be more male athletes than female > athletes until society changes. That is not sexism, that is truth. > Sorry - that's an assumption, not a fact. I tend to think the assumption is correct, but its hardly a fact. <snip> > It's pathetic that since UNO started its hockey team, it's had to add not > 1, > not 2, but 3 women's sports for title ix reasons. For every 8,314 fans > that > goto a hockey game, maybe 100 or so will attend each of those sports, if > that. > So what? Sports in college, at least in theory, are not for revenue nor for fan interest. They are there to provide an educational experience for the athletes! Whether this is a valuable educational experience or not has never been adequately evaluated - it is likely impossible to actually do a study which would answer that question anyway. But don't condemn women's sports or Title IX on the basis of lack of fan interest or revenue in the created sports. <snip> > Well gee, life ain't fair. > It sure isn't. Just ask the female athlete. Now, can we discuss hockey a little bit? Tom Rowe HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to [log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.