<p>The University of Mary Washington has never had a football team (it started as the women’s division of UVa). S has a t-shirt that says “Mary Washington Football–Undefeated.”</p>
<p>Brandeis has a similar t-shirt.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Football at the D1 level FUNDS other, i.e. non-revenue, sports
[/quotes]
</p>
<p>Very few schools - all D-1A - make a profit on football, and even if those schools pump their revenue into other sports, the mere presence of football adds significant costs to their overall athletic programs. To comply with Title IX, colleges need to constantly be moving toward a goal of gender proportionality in athletic expenditures, teams, scholarships, coaching staffs, etc. Proportionality doesn’t mean 50/50 - it means the proportion that matches the institution’s gender balance, which throughout America averages 57% female. With a roster size of 80-90, numerous scholarships, and huge coaching staffs, the presence of football requires the funding of several additional women’s sports to balance it out, some of which might not have sufficient demand to merit funding other than for Title IX stats. Schools sometimes move toward this balance by a combination of funding (possibly) less-demanded women’s sports while discontinuing (possibly) more-demanded men’s sports. Wrestling as a varsity sport has disappeared all across the country as a football equity casualty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Incorrect. There are 3 tests they are allowed to pass to comply. Only one is proportional to the total student population. Money does not have to match across all sports, coaching gender does not have to match (although the number of coaches for the same sport must match). Number of scholarships don’t have to match where sports don’t match and an overall equity in scholarships can overcome a mismatch in a specific sport.</p>
<p>Please don’t speculate about what has to be done with regards to Title IX until you have read the document.</p>