THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, May 22, 1995 TAG: 9505220161
SECTION: SPORTS PAGE: C1 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Column
SOURCE: Bob Molinaro
LENGTH: Medium: 70 lines
Away from the spotlight, a pitched battle is being waged by college football and gender-equity advocates.
A war is going on between the established forces of the old order and impassioned supporters of Title IX, now 23 years old. There is real conflict at work here, though to a tax-paying bystander it seems both sides are overlooking an opportunity for true, lasting progress.
More on that later.
The most recent development from the war front came earlier this month. The forces of football appeared before Congress and asked that their sport be exempted from Title IX requirements.
This takes nerve, of which the Helmet Heads have plenty. What the football lobbyists want is permission to continue reckless spending on oversized programs.
They are motivated by a fear that Title IX will jeopardize their opportunity to offer 95 football scholarships, to take 130 players to a bowl game, to stay in four-star hotels and to pay coaching salaries that dwarf the wages of professors.
The Helmet Heads are hoping to take the offensive before being thrown for more losses. In the real trenches - the courtroom - Title Niners have been unbeatable.
Faced with setbacks, the Helmet Heads whine that Title IX is resulting in reverse discrimination. Whether true or not, it's an indication that football is feeling the pressure, most likely a good thing.
Around the country, a few non-revenue men's sports have been sacrificed to make room in the budget for women's teams. Fifteen colleges over the past year, for instance, have killed men's wrestling in the name of proportionality.
The old order is taking some serious hits. It does not necessarily follow, though, that men's minor sports should ally themselves with rich, elitist football.
Football's ability to pay the bills is unquestioned. Football makes a lot of money. But, clearly, it also spends a lot. Too much.
Imagine the thousands of dollars that would be available to minor sports each year if football teams did not travel by chartered jet.
How much money could be saved if players were not housed in pricy hotels the night before home games? And why haven't Division I football rosters been reduced to reflect the need for fiscal conservatism?
Saving money also is a way of making money. The surplus from leaner football programs could fund women's sports. Athletic directors would not have to ax men's programs.
Football is the most gluttonous of college enterprises. But all intercollegiate sports need to find a way to reduce spending. This is where both sides in this debate seem to be missing the point.
College athletics have grown too large and our economy is stretched too thin to expect schools to be in the business of awarding full scholarships based strictly on athletic prowess.
If there are gross excesses in football, the same is true across the board. In time, almost all scholarships should be need-based. This should apply to revenue and non-revenue sports alike.
Why? Because we, as a society, need to spend our money more wisely.
Advocates of Title IX fight for a righteous cause. Gender equity is the clear sentimental choice over impudent football.
Unfortunately, from one man's position outside the fray, it appears that neither the Helmet Heads nor the Title Niners are willing to nudge college athletics toward the major changes needed for the 21st century. by CNB