After watching hours of the Title IX stories on ESPN recently, I was left with the frustration that, once again, it appears that nobody wants to discuss the legitimate issues.

For example, was it ever mentioned -- by anybody -- that in all sports in which both men and women have teams, that the women have the most scholarships?

Nor did anybody point out that gender equity and racial equity are on a collision course, something that I wrote about in The NCAA News several years ago. When the NCAA elected to provide scholarships for women in "emerging sports'' in the early 1990s, it drastically lowered the percentage of black athletes. Why? Because in most of those sports, black females rarely participate in high school. Most black females can be found playing basketball or participating in track and field. A good number bowl. Some, but not many, earn grants in volleyball.

But my survey, using the NCAA's graduation-rates manuals, showed that of the significant increase in women athletes, well over 2,000, the vast majority -- more than 92 percent -- were white.

When the NCAA reduced the number of scholarships in men's basketball from 15 to 13 -- a reduction of more than 600 players -- it affected minorities even more, since more than 60 percent of Division I players are black.

Activists who choose to blame football for its excesses that eventually impact Title IX in various ways would prefer to see the number of scholarships reduced, from 85 to perhaps 65. If that occurred in Division I-A, that would mean another reduction in black athletes, since well over 50 percent in football are minorities, and that number has been growing. It would mean that in Division I-A only, there would be a reduction in black athletes of more than 1,200 annually.

I happen to really enjoy women's sports. Obviously, they deserve all the scholarships they can get. But I also agree with those critics who insist that Title IX is fine, but its interpretation is flawed. Anybody who says proportionality isn't a quota system isn't being honest.

Yes, football spends an enormous amount of money, and budgets are growing rapidly. It is the law of supply and demand, and recently the demand for new facilities and huge financial packages for coaches that has grasped at least the six power conferences by the throat. Now the $1 million (and up) salaries for a staff of football assistants is common, whereas it didn't exist just a few years ago.

I was distressed to hear the point made by Nancy Hogshead during the Title IX forum that women didn't want to be walk-ons because they wanted to play. Men want to play, too, and they are willing to try and earn a chance by starting as walk-ons. Capping the size of squads in the name of proportionality strikes me as a very bad idea.

There is another issue that nobody mentioned -- international athletes. In the past four years, the Duke University women's team has won two NCAA golf championships and finished second once. This year's champs included young women from Thailand, Brazil, Sweden, Switzerland and Spain. There was one American -- Leigh Anne Hardin of Indiana.

International athletes absolutely dominate in the LPGA. As I write this, five of the top 10 money winners and 13 of the top 20 are international athletes, led by Sweden's Annika Sorenstam, who played college golf at the University of Arizona. Mexico's Lorena Ochoa, who also played at Arizona, is likely to be the next pro superstar.

Does Duke coach Dan Brooks have a preference for international athletes? Nope. He's looking for the best players he can find. The imports also are invariably dedicated students. Duke's lone senior, Candy Hanneman, not only was the NCAA player of the year in 2001, but she also was an Academic All-American.

It is my view that schools are not cutting men's teams in order to maintain football. Many of the reductions have come at colleges that either don't have football at all or who play below Division I-A.

Title IX is a law that has greatly enhanced women's opportunities to play in college. Nobody can deny that, but it needs to be constantly studied. Gender equity should mean fairness, nothing more.

Do male coaches make more money? Sure they do. But has anybody studied the numbers that do not involve Division I-A football and basketball? I would expect relatively small differences in all other sports, if they exist at all.

The hypocrisy of Title IX is the failure to be honest about what is really happening.

Bill Brill formerly was the sports editor of the Roanoke Times from 1960 to 1991 and is a member of the U.S. Basketball Writers Hall of Fame.