In your scenario - which is a valid one regarding the outrageous salaries for college football and men's basketball coaches - when the decision comes down to cutting either men's track or women's track, which team in almost all cases ends up on the chopping board? The men's team because of Gender Equity quotas.
Title IX is a good thing. Football and men's basketball are bad things, and Gender Equity has given universities and the NCAA a cowardly method of turning their backs on one issue to pretend they are doing something righteous. P.S. I think this is rehash from last year? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The premise is that "non-revenue" sports are cut because of increases in > "revenue" sports spending. Case in point-- St. John's University. > According to Guidestar - Mike Jarvis was paid 705,000 in 1998 and > 1,171,255 in 2001. I was rather shocked. That is a significant budget > increase in an athletic department. Something would have to be cut in > order to continue at that pace and they made the decision to cut Men's > Track. > > It goes to prove the point that it is not fair just to point the finger at > Title IX for a reduction in men's sports. > > Catherine Sellers
