Define Equity, Title IX

It's missing the point because the scholastic parts of a university are totally different than the athletic parts. The AD should strive not to take money away from academics, because the academics are the primary purpose of the school. This is where the split occurs, IMO, between rewarding someone who is good in an academic field with university dollars, and rewarding someone who is good at extracirricular activities with university dollars.

And right here is the gist of the argument regarding the lack of actual FAIRNESS between men and women's sports. If you have to lower the standards for women to play, or raise them for men, it isn't a FAIR comparison, and arguments to the contrary are rendered moot. 

Even in the military, there are 2 sets of standards, one for men, and one for women, regardless of the "job" you do while you serve.

If non-revenue generating sports are unsupportable, the university needs to have the option of dropping a program that costs millions, rather than raising tuition for everyone else. In this way, to this layman, at least, it seems title 9 actually screws everyone at the university who is just trying to get an education.

But girls can play baseball.

yes, can we have the segregation/sep but equal comparisons STOP?

 there are actual biological & genetic differences b/t human males and females that necessitates compeditive separation in the context of athletics.

I really doubt that the guys who practice with the women's team are there for the women's benefit, but are rather using the women's team as a sort of development program. 

Ed: I guess I was being too cynical.  My bad. 

And because people have decided "Oh, men are better at sports" they soon reach the conclusion "Well, would women want play sports if they can't do it as well as men."

No, you're creating a link between two things that don't have one.  And all I said there was that men are, in fact, better at sports.  Men are better at almost every sport in existence - that's why we have separate sports in the first place.  That has nothing to do with whether they want to play or not, but if you're also unwilling to accept that men are more interested in sports than women are, then you're too disconnected with reality for this discussion.

And I don't know why you think I'm arguing that women's sports teams should be treated unequally because women are worse at sports.

Maybe not a football exemption, but surely some exception should be made for the fact that if some schools didn't spend money on football there would be no women's fencing team.

The argument I've always made is that every dollar in revenue from ticket sales (and ticket sales only because shenanigans can result from using things like TV money and merchandise) should cancel out a dollar spent for Title IX purposes.  So if the football team costs $10 million and you bring in $5 million in ticket sales, for Title IX accounting purposes you spent $5 million, not $10 million, on a men's sport.  That would go for every sport.

I don't know if Eastern Michigan is getting their dollars worth of exposure, but if they aren't I'm pretty sure that they will cut the football program. If they are taking losses and continuing their football program, its either because they see long-term profitabilty (for instance, if they win some games), or because it is increasing the school's profile.

Looking at Conf USA, only two football programs lost money, only 1 by a significant margin. It isn't only the AQ Conference schools that benefit from their football program.  

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/04/26/how-profitable-is-football-in-conference-usa/