The Gender-Equity Q&A is intended to help athletics administrators understand institutional gender-equity and Title IX-related issues. Answers for the Q&A are provided by Christine Grant, associate professor at the University of Iowa, and Janet Judge, attorney with Verrill & Dana LLP.

Q What are the advantages and disadvantages to "roster management"?

A Unfortunately, there currently appears to be a negative connotation when the term "roster management" is used. However, it should be stressed that roster management has been used for decades because it has not been possible in most instances to allow all who wish to participate in intercollegiate athletics to do so; hence, the reason for tryouts.

Today, roster management most often refers to setting caps on the number of young men who can participate in each varsity sport. In some institutions, roster management may also set minimum numbers for each varsity team in the women's program.

The benefits of using a program like this is that money saved from the elimination of some spots on men's teams can be used to fund more opportunities for women. Because men traditionally have enjoyed a much higher percentage of participation slots than their percentage of the undergraduate population, the transfer of opportunities would boost the number available to women without eliminating any men's sports.

Additionally, the practice of adding spots to current women's teams increases women's opportunities without adding a brand-new women's sports team, which carries the challenge of securing money for salaries for a new staff, operating budget and sometimes new facilities. However, if additional slots are allocated to larger teams such as rowing, more funds also must be transferred to support more assistant coaches, support personnel and team expenses (travel costs, pregame meals, equipment, uniforms, etc.).

The negatives of roster management include the fact that, overall, some opportunities are lost for men. It also is possible that so many roster spots are eliminated that a team may be rendered non-competitive. A way to solve this problem would be to use the divisional team average of roster spots as a method to reasonably and fairly cap men's teams.

The opposite problem could occur in women's teams. Roster-management minimums for women's teams may be so high that there are too many people on a team for it to be a meaningful experience for all. Using the divisional average could be a way to reasonably and fairly construct roster management numbers for women's teams as well.

In summary, if maximums for men and minimums for women are truly fair, this practice can assist administrators in predicting more accurately future expenditures in each sport, while simultaneously permitting a more equitable distribution of the financial resources between men and women. Additionally, such a practice is infinitely preferable to the elimination of men's teams, which seems to be the expedient route taken by some Division I-A institutions at which escalating salaries and other rising costs are causing severe budget problems.

For additional gender-equity resources, including newly created video segments featuring Christine Grant and Janet Judge, visit www. ncaa.org/gender_equity.