Lobbyists carried this position to Congress for the American Football Coaches Association. Editorialist George Will described Title IX as an affirmative-action program that "is having the perverse effect of destroying opportunities for men." And when Boston University announced it was dropping its football team after the last game of the 1997 season, a Boston Globe article pointed to increased spending on women's programs as a culprit.
These are the claims, but what are the facts? A Women's Sports Foundation survey of 637 colleges and universities with NCAA-affiliated athletics programs asked respondents to list those men's and women's sports programs on their campuses that were added or eliminated between 1978 and 1996.
The data analysis unearthed several patterns. To begin with, to think simply in terms of "women's sports programs being added" and "men's sports programs being eliminated" obscures the historical realities. Throughout the 18-year period, some women's sports programs were added while others were dropped; likewise, some men's sports programs were added while others were eliminated.
The survey also indicated that across all divisions, many more women's sports programs were added than men's sports programs during the period. While 2,239 new women's sports programs were created, 581 were eliminated. Hence, women netted a total of 1,658 additional sports programs, or an average gain of 92 sports programs per year between 1978 and 1996.
With regard to men, a total of 927 new sports programs were added while 853 sports programs were eliminated, producing a net gain of 74 sports programs across all divisions between 1978 and 1996.
Moreover, net losses for men's sports programs occurred only in Divisions I-A and I-AA, where a total of 90 men's sports programs were added and 242 were dropped, producing a net loss of 152 sports programs. In the other divisions, men registered a net gain of 226 new sports programs during the time period.
The net number of men's sports programs in Divisions I-AAA, II and III actually increased. Indeed, men's nonrevenue sports programs netted losses only in Divisions I-A and I-AA, institutions with the largest athletics budgets.
Why might this be so?
Budgetary practices in Divisions I-A and I-AA may be responsible for the decrease of athletics opportunities for "lesser status" men's teams. An NCAA report (1997) found that the increases in men's budgets between 1992 and 1997 were greater than the entire cost of women's programs.
In Division I-A, while women's programs gained $400,230 in spending on recruitment, scholarships and head coaching salaries, allocation for the men's programs increased by $1.37 million. Moreover, 63 percent, or $872,000, of the $1.37 million went to football.
Rather than blaming women athletes for program cuts that occurred in Divisions I-A and I-AA, therefore, it seems more likely that the cutbacks in men's nonrevenue sports and the shortchanging of women's sports may be related to overspending in other areas of the men's operating budget.
The politics of gender equity in sports are sometimes twisted by the assertion that Title IX is a "feminist issue." This just isn't true.
First, Title IX was passed by Congress, not the National Organization for Women. It was written and lobbied for by men and women from both sides of the political aisle. It wasn't until the mid-1990s that women's rights organizations ostensibly "discovered" the struggle for gender equity in athletics. The recent attempts to label the Title IX struggle a feminist issue by some opponents of gender equity in sports evoke media stereotypes of feminists and feminism. The ploy is designed to trip-wire many girls who have been conditioned by antifeminist media to associate the word "feminism" with man-hatred, controversy, extremism and public ridicule. This rhetorical device is divisive, misogynistic, antifeminist and historically irresponsible, as well as politically inaccurate.
We have choices before us. We can throw stones at women and feminists or we can tackle the complicated politics and economics surrounding gender equity in sports. Men involved with nonrevenue sports can join women athletes in order to seek full disclosure of the spending practices in the elite men's athletics programs. College and university presidents can walk the patriarchal path being taken on many college and university campuses -- maintaining old-boy networks and reward systems that ooze with crony capitalism and a high tolerance for red ink -- or they can ask tough business questions in the face of changing fiscal and educational realities.
And finally, administrators and sports advocates can seriously try to meet the athletics needs of the true majority of the student body -- women and lesser-status men students -- and not just the comparative handful of elite male athletes at the top of the existing sports hierarchy.
Don Sabo is a professor of sociology at D'Youville College.
Comment -- Colubine coach's act should be remembered
BY DAVID ADELMAN
DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY
As a person who has been fortunate enough to be involved in college basketball for 10 years, the last five as a Division I assistant basketball coach, I have often wondered about the thousands of great high-school coaches who will never receive the opportunity to coach at the collegiate level. I am very proud to be part of the coaching profession, and I often wonder why others decide to coach.
I believe that many coaches choose this profession because they enjoy the relationships they build with the student-athletes in their program. The influence a coach can play in the lives of their student-athletes is something that should be cherished and not forgotten through the highs and lows of competition. I have never been reminded more of how important being a role model is for young athletes than I was by the recent tragedy at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, in which a popular girls' basketball coach was killed.
Articles consistently recounted the courage of the coach, who was shot twice and killed while attempting to save the lives of others. I have never met coach Dave Sanders, but I feel connected to him.
I am uncertain of how many coaches have taken notice of this incident. Right now, my conversations with other college and high-school coaches deal mostly with scheduling, recruiting or basketball camps, but the tragedy in Colorado should not affect only high-school coaches, teachers and students. Coaches and educators at all levels need to look at this horrible act of violence more deeply and take it more personally.
At this moment, high schools across the nation are reacting with measures to increase safety, but what about colleges and universities? The two gunmen in Colorado supposedly were driven to these shootings, at least in part, by their hatred of athletes. The papers have discussed the threat of more school "outcasts" who may be looking for a way to vent their frustrations.
As a basketball coach who is only 10 years removed from high school and who has been part of a school setting my whole life, I believe this is a scary time to be an educator. I believe our duty as coaches is not only to win games but to develop our young athletes as people and prepare them for life after high school or college. It is our job not only to be an authority figure in their lives, but to also be a friend.
I surely do not have the answers to all of these problems, and I am sure that sometime in the near future we will be shocked by the actions of another kid.
It is time for basketball coaches to take notice that our student-athletes are living in a dangerous world. It is time for us to step into the shoes of Dave Sanders and to not pretend that this could not happen to one of us or to a colleague.
I think we need to make coach Sanders a hero. He should not just be a hero to the kids at Columbine High School, but he should be motivation for coaches (professional, college, high school, AAU, junior high school) to help save the lives of future students.
I give a lot of credit to the people who started Coaches vs. Cancer in Jim Valvano's memory. It has been a tremendous success in attempting to raise money and save people from an awful disease. But the kids of today, the kids who we will deal with every day, are also suffering from deadly diseases: hate, anger, resentment and intolerance.
I don't know whether we need metal detectors, more anger counseling, smaller classrooms, school psychologists, stricter gun laws or more extracurricular activities. However, I do know that if coaches will work together on this problem, we can make a difference.
I think it would be a great start if the National Association of Basketball Coaches and other basketball organizations would take the time to honor coach Dave Sanders and help raise money to fund those who might be able to find these answers.
I feel proud knowing that a basketball coach showed the kind of courage we all hope to have in such dire circumstances, and I hope that all coaches will show the courage to donate some time and money to make all our schools a safe place to learn the lessons of life.
David Adelman is an assistant men's basketball coach at Duquesne University.
Opinions
Wood Selig, associate athletics director
University of Virginia
Street & Smith's SportsBusiness Journal
Discussing the temptation to commercialize college sports venues:
"When you talk about the Stanfords, Michigans and Dukes of the world, you've got presidents and a board of visitors to pass things through. They're just not going to stand for that extent of commercialism within their athletics facilities. ... (And as for companies that buy on-field advertising), does it really make that much difference for McDonald's to be seen on a jersey or at center court? Gatorade is a fluid replacement. It's part of the game and belongs on the sidelines. But what if it was Barq's Root Beer? How many defensive ends have you seen on the sidelines chugging down a cup of root beer? It doesn't make sense. The real value is to be part of the game."
Debbie Yow, director of athletics
University of Maryland, College Park
Street & Smith's SportsBusiness Journal
"Most of us athletics directors are thinking kindly about corporate sponsorships out of necessity. If it comes down to finding new revenue streams or cutting back on our programs, most of us would rather find the new streams."
Michael Wadsworth, director of athletics
University of Notre Dame
Street & Smith's SportsBusiness Journal
"The question you have to ask yourself is 'Does this pass the smell test?' To have overt signage in our stadium has never been acceptable. On the other hand, the university has entered into arrangements with different entities. For example, we have an agreement with a company that offers affinity cards (credit cards that use premiums such as T-shirts and caps to encourage students to use the cards). There is no signage attached to these agreements. But these agreements wind up being beneficial to the university, and we hope they benefit the entities as well. For us, commercialization stops at the campus gate."
Minorities in coaching
O. Fitzgerald Hill, assistant football coach
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
Chronicle of Higher Education
Discussing the lack of minority coaches in college football:
"If you look at the numbers, it's easier to be a college president than a head football coach."
Terry Don Phillips, director of athletics
University of Oklahoma
Chronicle of Higher Education
"When we hired (head football coach Bob Simmons), our concern was who was the best candidate. I can honestly say that race was not an issue. We felt he was very qualified, and he had the best opportunity to do well with our program. It's the same thing with the coordinators' positions: The notion is to get the best-qualified individuals, and there are many African-Americans who are very well qualified."
Players leaving early
Bob Molinar, columnist
The Virginian-Pilot
"Until now, Duke was the last big-time hoops school where this sort of thing would happen. Grant Hill stayed all four years. Neither (Elton) Brand nor (William) Avery is a Grant Hill. And now here's (Corey) Maggette getting ready to flee after playing only two minutes in the second half of a title-game loss to Connecticut.
"No other school ever lost three underclassmen to the pros in one season. Once a beacon for the ideal of the student-athlete, Duke has become an example of collegiate chaos.
"The people who care about basketball want to know what can be done before a growing legion of immature, impatient players makes a mockery of intercollegiate athletics. Too late. It has already happened. The genie is out of the bottle. At any rate, reinforcing a school's traditional values is not the job of the coach, who is charged with winning. It is the responsibility of a university president, or somebody else who doesn't make his living by wearing a whistle around his neck.
"But, in fact, many college presidents are as wedded to the bogus concept of the 'student-athlete' as are the most rabid alumni. They may give lip service to the notion that colleges do not exist for the sheltering and coddling of athletes. But full arenas and robust TV ratings say otherwise. ...
"To compete at the top of college hoops today, a coach must be willing to recruit players who wave bye-bye after one or two seasons. Mike Krzyzewski has replaced Brand with Alaskan Carlos Boozer, a kid with 'lottery pick' written all over his rippling muscles. No less than any other school, Duke has become an NBA incubator."
Jim Delany, commissioner
Big Ten Conference
USA Today
"The attractiveness of the NBA to young players is growing. It appears more young players have had more success in the latter part of the 1990s than in the early part of the 1990s. (Duke) is an example of that (attractiveness.)"
The claim often is made that increased opportunities for women in college sports have triggered the demise of many men's sports programs.