Nancy Hogshead-Makar's editorial in the January 6 NCAA News accuses "60 Minutes" of not objectively presenting both sides of the Title IX legal debate. Yet her editorial presents a more one-sided view of the Title IX issue than the "60 Minutes" report.

Of interest to most university educators, though only briefly touched upon during "60 Minutes" and avoided in Nancy's editorial, is the proposal to achieve equity between men's and women's college athletics opportunities with football taken out of the Title IX equation. During her "60 Minutes" interview, Nancy avoided the essence of this football issue by answering a question with a question: Are there three genders -- men, women and football players? Although Nancy successfully sidestepped this important issue on "60 Minutes," any objective university educator knows that college football has evolved into more than a sport. College football has grown into a university-wide, community-wide and often state-wide marketing tool.

Football is the university centerpiece for homecomings and class reunions . . . for fund-raising, endowments, trademarking and community business partners . . . for national exposure and the resulting increase in student enrollment and community support . . . for marching bands, cheerleaders, school mascots, and university-wide spirit and unity . . . for tailgates and other income opportunities for the surrounding community . . . etc.

Over the last 50 years, college football has evolved into more than a men's sport. I am a strong advocate for the educational value of college athletics. Football teaches these educational lessons at a high level and therefore is a valued program at any university, but commercialization has transformed college football beyond being just another athletics department sports team.

Nancy is correct; there are only two genders. Yet due to these ever-increasing nonathletics forces, NCAA sports have evolved into men's sports, women's sports and football. Since a winning football team equates to increased revenue and national exposure for a university and community, the nonathletics pressures to have a winning football program are tremendous.

Recently, a college football coach, after winning 75 percent of all games over more than a decade, was released. He apparently was released because in the five years of the Bowl Championship Series system, his teams qualified only for $1 million payout bowls and not a $13 million BCS bowl. A college coach in any other sport, female or male, would be praised for developing teams that won 75 percent of their contests and annually generated an extra $1 million in revenue and significant national TV, radio and news-media exposure for the university.

Simply stated, college football does not belong in the athletics Title IX proportionality equation. Nancy's quip about three genders effectively shifted the "60 Minutes" interview away from this important issue but also highlights the hidden agenda. She speaks of the "excesses in college football" knowing that these excesses are driven by nonathletics forces. Nancy represents people who want to ensure that the nonathletics, commercial market forces on football are kept in the athletics proportionality equation to better litigate increases in the athletics funding for women's sports.

Nancy claims there is enough money to add women's sports, without cutting men's sports, if athletics departments will trim the excesses from football. Mathematically, this is a correct statement, but in reality the "excesses" in football are for nonathletics, university and community-wide marketing reasons. Marcia Federbush, in her Title IX article in the January 20 edition of The NCAA News, claims that 82 percent of college football programs operate in the red. This sounds like Enron accounting. Universities and communities reap significant assets and benefits from football, while the athletics departments carry all the liabilities for running a football program. If the economic impact and national exposure generated for the university and surrounding community were credited as assets to the athletics department balance sheet, there's a good chance 100 percent of the college football programs are operating in the black.

If Nancy is truly concerned about the equitable distribution of athletics and educational support and funding, she would acknowledge the nonathletics reality of college football. Acknowledging football for what it has become -- more than an athletics department sports team -- would allow athletics departments to provide equal support and funding between all other men's and women's sports. Unfortunately, like many lawyers, Nancy appears more interested in emotionally charged litigation than in viable solutions to promote athletics opportunities for both women and men. We educators are starting to believe there are three genders -- men, women and lawyers.

The wording of Title IX applies to all university departments, not just athletics departments. Colleges do not restrict the number of male students receiving engineering scholarships to the number of women on engineering scholarships. Colleges do not deny scholarships to women in the School of Dance because there are not equal numbers of men on dance scholarships.

Nancy claims that the schools of engineering and dance are not "gender specific" like athletics and therefore can be "gender-blind" to proportionality. I agree the physiological differences between men and women do not realistically permit men and women to compete head-to-head in college athletics. Since a co-ed athletics department cannot be "gender-blind" like engineering or dance, Nancy's "gender-specific" logic is compelling justification to have both a men's and women's athletics department. Like separate biology and chemistry departments, separate athletics departments would better provide educational opportunities tailored to the specific needs of its respective student-athletes.

As an educator, I am an advocate of taking football out of the Title IX proportionality equation and not for separate athletics departments. But if the lawyers and lobbyists are unwilling to accept the reality that football has evolved into more than a men's sport, let's establish two athletics departments to end this self-defeating, legalistic battle of the sexes. Let university presidents divide equally all state, federal and university athletics funding and give 50 percent shares to each department. Then each department, in this age of athletics self-sufficiency, can set out with equal budget shares and whatever revenue they can generate to best provide educational opportunities within their "gender specific" departments.

With separate athletics departments, Nancy and the people she represents can then focus on blaming the "excesses" in women's basketball, instead of football, when additional women's opportunities are not created. And the lobbyists for men's Olympic sports can blame football, instead of Title IX, when men's programs are cut.

Jeff Heidmous is the deputy director of athletics programs at the U.S. Air Force Academy.