Title IX Advocates Focus On Representation, Ignore Resource Allocation
College Athletics, Women's Sports April 27th. 2011, 12:50pm
In her NYT article, Katie Thomas calls out colleges for “undermining gender equity.” Schools, such as the University of South Florida, are fudging participation numbers by inventing participants, counting male practice players in female sports as women and counting female track athletes as participants in multiple sports. The article addresses how they are doing this, but the salient question is why?
South Florida is fudging numbers. Is this “fraud” intending to “flout the law and cheat women” or is it an attempt to keep as many sports afloat as possible within a finite budget given unreasonable parameters? Athletics, like any other university activity, are constrained by resources available. Athletes in different sports don’t use an equal amount of resources.
One sport targeted in the article is football. South Florida added a large number of male athletes for football. America’s big bastion of masculinity is portrayed, uncritically, as an “elephant” and a “monster.” The article’s implication is football hogs a vast majority of university attention and resources. That is false.
Major conference football programs made an average $15.8 million profit in 2010. The average women’s basketball team in a major conference loses $2 million per year. The average university makes $186,000 for each of its 85 scholarship football players. The average university loses $159,000 for each of its 13 scholarship women’s basketball players. Which sport uses a disproportionate amount of resources? Schools don’t “cut” football because it would prevent them paying for other sports.
South Florida threw off its proportional representation by adding football. But, adding football moved men’s and women’s sports to Division I and then to major conference play in the Big East. Presumably, the increased exposure of the football and men’s basketball programs will make them profitable as an alumni fan network grows. This will allow them to pay for themselves entirely while subsidizing non-revenue men’s and women’s sports. Should South Florida cease the “fraud” and drop football or add other sports it can’t afford to even the numbers?
It costs South Florida $125,000 total to field 98 scholarship players in men’s football and basketball. That’s how much South Florida spends fielding two of its 13 women’s basketball players. South Florida is committing a grave injustice against women’s sports?
Athletics should resemble every other activity in the university sitting. Computer engineering departments have a disproportionate number of male students, just as art history departments have a disproportionate number of female students. Neither is undermining gender equity. A female student, if she wishes, faces no tangible barrier to studying Computer Engineering.
Title IX was passed in 1972, when many elite universities were just beginning to admit women. The social climate has changed the last 40 years, so has the economic one for universities. The statute should be amended to address the status quo. It should focus, not on theoretical notions of equity and aggregate numbers, but tangible, fair treatment to students. This means ensuring women’s sports flourish and meet demand. It also means budgeting rationally and preserving as many possible opportunities for all students.
University budgets are becoming progressively constrained. With budget cuts they will lose more federal and state funding. Many schools are already placing an undue burden on students to subsidize bloated athletic departments. Continuing the present path may present proportional opportunities for men and women in the future, but there will be far fewer of them.
[Photo via Getty]

- Roundup: Spurs Sweep Clippers, Billboard Music Award Winners & World Cup Qualifying is Rapidly Approaching
- LeBron and Wade (with Help From Udonis Haslem) Beat Pacers in Game 4, 101-93
- Here’s a Great Photo of Dave Cameron, Barack Obama and Angela Merkel Watching the Champions League Final
- Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl Ring Sold For $230,401
- Kings-Coyotes Begins A Busy Day At Staples Center, Which Ends With Clippers-Spurs Tonight . . . Maybe

- squawkbox on Roundup: Spurs Sweep Clippers, Billboard Music Award Winners & World Cup Qualifying is Rapidly Approaching
- payaso on Roundup: Spurs Sweep Clippers, Billboard Music Award Winners & World Cup Qualifying is Rapidly Approaching
- reggie_dunlap on Roundup: Spurs Sweep Clippers, Billboard Music Award Winners & World Cup Qualifying is Rapidly Approaching
- scripty on Roundup: Spurs Sweep Clippers, Billboard Music Award Winners & World Cup Qualifying is Rapidly Approaching
- cleet on Roundup: Spurs Sweep Clippers, Billboard Music Award Winners & World Cup Qualifying is Rapidly Approaching
98 Responses to “Title IX Advocates Focus On Representation, Ignore Resource Allocation”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.


















April 27th, 2011 at 12:53 PM
pshaw. chicks. put on an apron and move it into the kitchen.
/nods at cleet
April 27th, 2011 at 12:54 PM
Excellent. Really well done post.
April 27th, 2011 at 12:55 PM
I got to Title IX in the title of this post and knew it was time for lunch.
April 27th, 2011 at 12:55 PM
Major conference football programs made an average $15.8 million profit in 2010.
they must not have gone to the bowl games they got selected for, because those things are a horrid financial drain.
April 27th, 2011 at 12:56 PM
This viewpoint is nothing new. I wrote this same thing for a paper my junior year in high school. Sure, I didn’t do the same amount of research, and I used more run-on sentences, but I think it’s a commonly held belief that Title IX is outdated. Unfortunately, it’s one of those things that looks really bad if you come out against it, so people leave it alone.
April 27th, 2011 at 12:56 PM
I got to Title IX in the title of this post and knew it was time for lunch.
shhh. Me no read-y, read-y, because me no care-y, care-y.
April 27th, 2011 at 12:56 PM
Track and Cross Country are two seperate sports according the NCAA, so I don’t know how that is “fudging” numbers.
April 27th, 2011 at 12:57 PM
Pay the players!!!!!!!
April 27th, 2011 at 12:57 PM
rabble rabble rabble…pay the players….loud noises…playoffs.
April 27th, 2011 at 12:58 PM
only part i didn’t fully agree with. good read.
April 27th, 2011 at 12:58 PM
Where’s the post of Cleveland’s Albino Rhino taking home the Madden cover?
April 27th, 2011 at 12:59 PM
I’m confused by your myriad of arguments against the NCAA. If you stuck with one message it might help. One day bowls are evil, and playoffs are the answer. The next day we need to pay players, but schools are broke and paying their coaches too much. Now its because they have to support women’s sports. Either way Title IX has its faults, you are correct, but it serves a purpose.
April 27th, 2011 at 12:59 PM
This is the key sentence here. As Bear said Title IX is dated but when they held a review panel to try to amend it in the early 2000s, the feminists went ape shit. This has led to the use of male practice players and the scrambling of coaches and administators to find female practice players and the laying of scholarships at the feet of “athletes” who don’t really deserve them.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:00 PM
GET OUT…is it official?
April 27th, 2011 at 1:01 PM
Really? Well at least the Brownies will have one thing to cheer about this year.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:01 PM
+ 1 AC Slater tank top.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:01 PM
Where’s the post of Cleveland’s Albino Rhino taking home the Madden cover?
did you guys see where Marcus Cannon has some wacko kind of lymphoma, and he may not get drafted now, despite being good enough to start almost immediately at guard in the NFL? And that they wouldn’t have found it unless he got subjected to the million billion scans they give prospects?
April 27th, 2011 at 1:01 PM
Where’s the post of Cleveland’s Albino Rhino taking home the Madden cover?
He officially win? I’m afraid a Madden curse + Cleveland already being cursed could potentially = Successful Cleveland. Terrifying.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:02 PM
GET OUT…is it official?
did you really think it would be Mike Vick?
April 27th, 2011 at 1:02 PM
must’ve been a sausage party in the art history dept at UNT.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:03 PM
Nah, But, I think he runs over the the competition like an “Avalanch”
/Heyooo!
//see what i did there?
///new nickname!
April 27th, 2011 at 1:03 PM
This would have been relevant to mention in the post.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:03 PM
Horse – nobody argues the female sports serve a purpose. but at what cost?
April 27th, 2011 at 1:04 PM
na…just that my two art history classes were pretty 50/50ish.
i loved art history. shit was interesting as fuck until the 20th century, that is.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:04 PM
There’s no way Vick wins. People will vote for Hillis out of spite for Vick.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:05 PM
interesting how split the comments are here: “Really well done” and “good read” and then people who want to crack jokes but ignore to actually read the NYT story and see what’s happening.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:06 PM
Just to be clear…this is a net positive situation.
/not that he has lymphoma, but that is was caught and treatable
April 27th, 2011 at 1:06 PM
Good stuff, Duffman. I want to throw in some knowledge about USF but it would be completely superfluous and doesn’t even interest me
April 27th, 2011 at 1:07 PM
Who is it hurting exactly? What is it costing you? If you abolish Title IX what incentive do athletic departments have to keep women’s sports around? If you move to a bottom line culture those sports won’t survive.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:07 PM
the delicious irony of bashing football in the NYT piece is that without football, what happens to those women’s programs?
April 27th, 2011 at 1:07 PM
Horse – nobody argues the female sports serve a purpose. but at what cost?
the current one? Some amount that bookkeepers move around and put in the losses column?
April 27th, 2011 at 1:07 PM
We’re not even talking about cost though. The issue is finding females to fill a quota so the athletic departments can fund and fill the sports that make money and/or have a high demand.
People say Title Ix may be dated but it is the law. As I was reading the NYT article a pop-up appeared on the margin that had the headline “Many Americans agree with Title but don’t know what it is”. Now some schools are using parameters within the rules to try to counter-balance the outdated policy and they are catching flack for it?
April 27th, 2011 at 1:08 PM
actually, there’s nothing interesting about that at all.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:08 PM
I don’t think you understand how non-profits work…if you think of an athletic department as one entity you have certain revenue streams that help support other branches of said entity
April 27th, 2011 at 1:09 PM
if he doesnt get drafted then he doesnt get their insurance. i hope he has a way to pay for it or finds a good job that will give him insurance
April 27th, 2011 at 1:10 PM
i loved art history. shit was interesting as fuck until the 20th century, that is.
Really? I can see that 20th century stuff can be quite maddening but it’s still interesting to me. Besides, my favorite artists are 20th century guys. Jean DuBuffet in particular. I’ve been copying him for a good 13 years now
April 27th, 2011 at 1:10 PM
they go away. or they are no longer subsidized by football, but are instead subsidized by taxpayers.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:10 PM
I just read Duffy’s post too.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:10 PM
Well, female athletes use athletics as a way to help pay for college. None of them have the option of playing in the NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL as a job after college. I think the scholarship part is what keeps Title IX intact. Cut the sport, but come up with a way to keep the scholarships?
April 27th, 2011 at 1:11 PM
actually, there’s nothing interesting about that at all.
That made me laugh and snort out loud at my desk. thanks, Miz
April 27th, 2011 at 1:11 PM
your thoughts on alternative options?
April 27th, 2011 at 1:12 PM
Well, female athletes use athletics as a way to help pay for college. None of them have the option of playing in the NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL as a job after college.
Basketball players can go play pro. I know this for a fact because my gf’s sister plays pro ball. Obvious can of worms dangerously close to being opened but still, it’s the truth
April 27th, 2011 at 1:13 PM
miz, can you find schools where your tax money is going to pay for women’s softball at State U?
i wonder how those taxpayers feel. think they are aware?
April 27th, 2011 at 1:14 PM
I’m more bothered by the NBA propping up the WNBA than I am with Title IX
April 27th, 2011 at 1:15 PM
i wonder how those taxpayers feel. think they are aware?
To be fair, I think most taxpayers have some odd idea that tax money just goes out into the world and makes somebody rich. They get up in arms about “their money” being used to pay for useless shit likes roads and public works
April 27th, 2011 at 1:15 PM
I’m more bothered by the NBA propping up the WNBA than I am with Title IX
Dammit Butters, I left that can closed on purpose
April 27th, 2011 at 1:17 PM
As I’ve said countless times. Rework Title IX. Football needs to be treated as an entirely different entity. There is no women’s sport that has as big a roster. Come up with a systematic regulation system for schools to prove they are complying with female athletic interest at the school. Right now, the only way to do it is through the proportionality. Each DI athletic department is required to have an SWA (Senior Women’s Administrator) who is already supposed to be on top of this issue. Use her/him to monitor, comply, and report with the regulations which should be a demonstrated committment to sponsoring and funding women’s sports. Right now all you are asking athletic departments is to chase a number, which again is why you have people like cheese tits write an article complaining about a tennis team using 3 girls to practice even though they will never be good enough to compete (boo frickin hoo).
April 27th, 2011 at 1:17 PM
my wife played hs soccer, so i am pro-title9
April 27th, 2011 at 1:17 PM
i should’ve been more specific…i like the early 20th century. not a fan of post-pollock. but it doesn’t help things that raphael is my favorite artist and im a fan of the classics.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:17 PM
changingback to baseball name after brief hockey name
/moderation
April 27th, 2011 at 1:18 PM
How about at every single community college. None of those schools make money in Athletics, yet I have zero problem with my tax payer money going to support them. It gives kids a chance to succeed at something. That’s the same thing with women’s sports.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:18 PM
A truly wonderful SI article on Mr. Datsyuk.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:18 PM
also, stark…i had no idea you were an artist.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:19 PM
I am more upset that my taxes help subsidize a student’s communications degree.
Even Lubchenko know that’s phony major.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:19 PM
actually, yes. I have the spreadsheet that was used by CNN in that money.cnn.com article he linked above. if you can give me a list of every women’s softball program, I’ll gladly cross reference it against the spreadsheet and tell you exactly which athletic departments aren’t profitable but are supporting women’s softball.
and, no, I don’t think plenty of taxpayers are aware because plenty of them are stupid muthafuckas. everytime the University of Tennessee gets it’s budget cut by the state (every year seemingly), people rant and rave about tax dollars going to pay for the football team.
the football team pays for the football team. in fact, the UT athletic department made a $4 million+ profit in the 2009-2010 year AFTER donating $10 million back to the university to support academics.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:20 PM
also, stark…i had no idea you were an artist.
I paint, I’ve been in shows, but I couldn’t support myself for a week on the amount of money it’s earned me in my life.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:21 PM
What is art? Are we art? Is art art?
April 27th, 2011 at 1:21 PM
Absolutely none of this women’s article reflected any sort of economic reality. Stunning, really. She comes off sounding like the Lady Dean from the movie “PCU”.
Good post, Duffy…..far more thoughtful than the NYT piece.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:21 PM
1) hilarious
2) in Tennessee, Peyton Manning subsidizes the communications degrees
April 27th, 2011 at 1:21 PM
There are three prongs to be in compliance with Title IX. Proportionality is one of the three. Schools with football will never be in compliance via proportionality, but there are two other prongs. One of which is a simple one in that you have to be offering what your student body is interested in participating in and often times that can be satisfied by a simple physical education class. That’s a basic explanation, but you get the gist.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:22 PM
+ 1 Lisa Turtle brain teaser
April 27th, 2011 at 1:22 PM
Really there are probably a ton of sports in both programs you can cut to save money. There are very few schools making money on lacrosse, field hockey, cross country, track, swimming, gymnastics and even soccer (unfortunately).
April 27th, 2011 at 1:22 PM
Thank God they didn’t go to a BCS bowl that year.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:22 PM
that’s me and music brah.
/high five
April 27th, 2011 at 1:23 PM
What do you call a guy with no arms and legs hanging on a wall?
April 27th, 2011 at 1:25 PM
TBL: Would you be happy with a scenario whereby college football players get paid, if it meant the elimination of all female sports, since none generate a profit?
April 27th, 2011 at 1:26 PM
i had a professor in college ask “what is art” on the first day of class and left it as an open ended question throughout the year. he didn’t tell anyone it was open ended and he expected us to answer it. he was a dick b/c he never accepted any answer, always rebuffing with some answer in the form of a question.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:26 PM
I’m a Horse Says:
you need to stop commenting because, every time you do, this pops into my head.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:27 PM
Art
What do you call a man with no arms and no legs on the grill?
April 27th, 2011 at 1:27 PM
what do you call a man with no arms and legs in the ocean?
bob
April 27th, 2011 at 1:27 PM
Horse I really like your stuff on here, but proportionality has proven to be the only prong which departments can use to not get in trouble with the NCAA, because it provides a simple number. Recently a federal judge ruled that a school(forget which one) could not used unretured surveys (the prong you talked about in your comment) as a signal for no interest. That basically killed their satisfaction of student-body offering because there were thousands of women not answering the survey because??? Ding, they didn’t care about sports. The third is to demonstrate a history of progressive women’s opportunities but it is so vague there is no way for schools to do it and get cleared. It has become a simple numbers game, that is undeniable and that is why I will continue to bang the drum for its reform.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:30 PM
I had all but forgotten about that amazing horse. So great.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:31 PM
It’s a symbiotic relationship. You can’t have just a football team without having the whole complement of other sports. And you can’t have the other sports without a football team (or good basketball team) to support it. So instead of looking at it sport-by-sport, start by looking at where the department comes out as a whole. Then, from an equity standpoint, ask whether it’s fair that non-revenue teams are just supposed to be glad to be there while the football team gets whatever it wants.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:32 PM
This was Philosophy for me in college. Seriously, fuck philosophy. Every answer is a question.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:33 PM
Frank
April 27th, 2011 at 1:33 PM
This is anecdotal but it drives me nuts. My gf, the one with the afore-mentioned basketball playing sister, will go to the wall arguing that women’s sports deserve the same amount of $$$ as the men’s games. I always respond that the money comes from sponsors that are interested because of viewership. So if you want money going to women’s sports enough to argue for it, you should really watch it when it’s on TV. Her answer is that she doesn’t watch sports so I’m wrong. They deserve the money because they are trying just as hard. My head spins every time. This comes up about once a month or so
April 27th, 2011 at 1:33 PM
Cleet, I hadn’t heard about that ruling. That obviously would have changed my earlier remark. I think though to a certain extent I agree with you, its just this site’s supposition that women’s sports (or Title IX) are the reason why we don’t pay certain athletes drives me crazy. I think that football should probably be exempted from Title IX if as you say proportionality is truly the only way for NCAA schools to be in compliance. However, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t allow for the opportunity for women’s sports to thrive in NCAA schools. Also as I disclaimer, I don’t every watch women’s sports or really have a desire too, I just feel they should be afforded the opportunity.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:33 PM
Bloods, Crypts and the Broncos
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/sports/cbsports-detroit-police-say-broncos-de-hunter-stabbed-20110427,0,5514850.story
April 27th, 2011 at 1:34 PM
This was Philosophy for me in college. Seriously, fuck philosophy. Every answer is a question.
only philosophy class i had, i won The trial of socrates book by answrring a questionf from our homework. haven;t read it yet….26 years and counting
April 27th, 2011 at 1:34 PM
/high five to spencer
April 27th, 2011 at 1:35 PM
i enjoy philosophy and art, i just don’t enjoy people who tell me something is wrong when there’s no one right answer.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:35 PM
I’m guessing around the same time of the month each month?
April 27th, 2011 at 1:36 PM
Woman puts ad on craiglist “Great sexual partner wanted come to my home 555 main st.”
Next day door bell rings, woman opens door.
Man with no arms or legs is on porch, “i’m here for the ad”
Woman-”how is that possible? YOu have no arms or legs”
Man- “How do you think I rang the door bell?”
April 27th, 2011 at 1:36 PM
solution: every football-playing athletic department must also field a lingerie football team.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:38 PM
I’m guessing around the same time of the month each month?
Ha! I am oblivious, it’s entirely possible
April 27th, 2011 at 1:39 PM
solution: every football-playing athletic department must also field a lingerie football team.
Those things don’t make any money. Unless… Lingeries Playoffs, anyone?
April 27th, 2011 at 1:41 PM
so, it would be status quo for women’s sports then, eh?
April 27th, 2011 at 1:42 PM
Come on, you know they’d go BCS-style
April 27th, 2011 at 1:42 PM
Nice post duffy, but as mentioned you have very contradictory stances about how, when, and why colleges should pay for things.
Well she’d have to be good at math, and we all know that aint happening.
/High Fives all around!
April 27th, 2011 at 1:43 PM
Come on, you know they’d go BCS-style
I think Ben Franklin said it best in The Bible: “The game remains the same, only the players change.”
April 27th, 2011 at 1:45 PM
Agree
Completely agree, I just disagree with the method we currently use to achieve it.
I watch and attend a mutlitude of women’s collegiate sports contests throughout the year, so I am not anti-women’s anything (except bangin fat chicks).
April 27th, 2011 at 1:48 PM
Ben Franklin. Legend.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:48 PM
(except bangin fat chicks).
You’ve gotta try it at least a few times in life. Some of them are fun
April 27th, 2011 at 2:00 PM
Is this some new position the kids are doing these days? Probably when a chick from a non-AQ school lets someone from an BCS school go back door.
April 27th, 2011 at 2:09 PM
Exempt football from the numbers and move on from there. The conflict isn’t between women’s sports and men’s sports, it’s between football, and non revenue men’s sports. I know it’s not as sexy of an argument, but it is what it is.
April 27th, 2011 at 2:39 PM
Sure, we’ll get changing the Civil Rights Act to say “does not apply to football.” That way the SEC could go back to being segregated, too.
That may be your fantasy world answer, but it won’t work in the real world.
April 27th, 2011 at 4:45 PM
What’s contradictory?
I think coaches should be paid less. I think that football/men’s basketball scholarships should factor in cost of living expenses, $2500 or $3000 per semester? Almost every program could afford that. I think players whose likenesses are exploited should be compensated – That could be paid by Nike/Adidas or whomever.
I’m not anti-subsidizing women’s sports. But I think there should be an honest discussion about it and schools should have flexibility. Auburn running up $3 million in expenses for program that brought in $64,000 in revenue is absurd.
August 20th, 2011 at 7:16 AM
This is not just South Florida athletic program that is violating Title IX laws against girl, universities across the nation are doing so every day. The situation you are describing is a well organized shell games within unversities to usrup Title IX implementing process by recriuting athletes in one sport and use them in multiple sports. Actually, one sport really never recruits or give scholarships and the money is used, in most cases for footabll. Like most universities football programs they have their own operating budget and the dirctor reports directly to the school president , so its intentional on the part of the school to cut corners or cheat female sports. The above acts,have been held to be illegal recruiting violation and illegal by the NCAA and the U.S. Justice Department under title IX. The other powerful act is when staff and facualty reports violating, activist Judge imposed a new twist by not informing the U.S.Justice Department and limiting the use of title IX by imposing Title VII claims and not title IX when employees report title IX violations. See JESSIE TOMPKINS VS JIMMY BARKER 2011 WEST LAW 3583413 ( __F. SUPP 2D._____),The teacher reported Title IX violations in a federal funded program and the activist court ignored his title IX claims and imposing and forcing the teacher to sue under title VII only for retaliation,bullying, harassment and discrimination. {note: IN THE CASE BELOW THE TEACHER REPORTED THAT FACULTY AND STAFF members WERE USING GANG MEMBERS AND STUDENTS TO DISTRIBUTE DRUGS IN ALTENATIVE SCHOOL.
THE BIG QUESTION NOW IS WHICH STATUTURE CAN THE TEACHER SUE UNDER TITLE VII OR TITLE IX ?
CAN THE BOARD OR ITS BOARD MEMBERS BE HELD IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL OR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES FOR INTENTIONAL ACTS OF DISCRIMINATION ?
See JESSIE TOMPKINS VS JIMMY BARKER 2011 WEST LAW 3583413 ( __F. SUPP 2D._____)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR00UGh1j_k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGWyocWrdBo
http://www.youtube.com/user/jesstompkins#p/u/5/pzZONznI1Mk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86jWNo1RmAc
)
In th 1990′s the NCAA banned a female volleyball coach for life and cited no institutional control on the part of the school and imposed a two (2) sport ban on the entire athletic program of Alabama State University. ( Beasley vs ALabama State University) http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=199813073FSupp2d1304_11149.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006 .