Title IX

http://news.yahoo.com/sports-civil-disabled-us-says-050851263--politics.html

No nice things. [zl]

After Brian's Mailbag post on the front page, and some debate in the comments about the nature of Title IX's influence in equal funding for coach's salaries, I went all the way through the database here from the Michigan Athletic Department. On top of this, I took a look at the law itself, and have concluded that coaches salaries do not have to be equivalent, both through reading the law and through anecdotal evidence as told by UM's salaries.

aaamichfan inspired a different look at this in addition: factoring out RR and Beilein. In that case the figures change to:

Edited again to factor out all FB/MBB and Men's Hockey assistants, as well as Red. As positive numbers were advantage men previously, negative numbers are advantage women.

I'm not trying to make a political or value judgement based on this. Certainly, on the top end at least, the men's sports salaries are justified based on revenue generated and salary levels at comparable institutions. This data is from the RR era and I did not include S&C coaches in the figures. I excluded S&C because a) it's hard to determine what sport they are attached to based on the salary database and b) I didn't think S&C coaches count towards the "equity" parts of Title IX, unless Michigan was employing undergrad assistants or something for women's sports, which obviously they are not.

One other note, it was impossible to tell who two of the coaches were. This could affect the data in either direction, but the salaries were both on the low end, and there were only two. So, at most a ~$50,000 swing, though it is very possible both were S&C coaches and therefore wouldn't have been included anyway.

Edited to fix whatever happened with the table, my apologies. Edited again to add the second table.