1. Effect of Title IX on Male and Female Athletics

3. NCAA data

7. General Accounting Office Study on NCAA & NAIA men’s teams 1981-19821998-99Difference # of men’s teams9,1139,14936 teams Courtesy of Women’s Sports Foundation

8. General Accounting Office Study on NCAA & NAIA men’s teams 1981-19821998-1999Difference # of men’s teams9,1139,149+36 teams # of male student athletes220,178231,86611,688 (+5%) GAO 1999

9. NCAA all divisions Men’s teams dropped and added 1988-2002 # Added teams 1,938 # Dropped teams 1,877 Net gain + 61 teams NCAA 2003 data

10. Men’s teams dropped and added 1988-2002 Division III # Added1002 # Dropped790 Net gain+ 212 teams Division II # Added 494 # Dropped 471 Net gain: +23 teams Division I # Added 442 # Dropped616 Net Loss -174 teams NCAA 2003 data

11. Summary: Losses/gains in NCAA men’s teams Division III +212 teams Division II +23 teams Division I-AAA-31 teams Division I-AA-38 teams Division I-A -109 teams NCAA 2003 data

12. * Wrestling-99 Tennis-53 * Rifle-33 * Gymnastics-32 * Fencing-23 Swimming/diving-22 * Lost teams in all 3 divisions NCAA men’s teams (all divisions): greatest number lost 1988-2002 NCAA 2003 data

15. Daniel L. Fulks, 2001

17. Comparison of Gender Equity Survey (92) and EADA (97, 02) Division IA 199219972002 MaleFemaleMaleFemaleMaleFemale Participation71%29%66%34%56%44% Scholarships72%28%66%34%59%41% Op. Budget80%20%79%21%71%29% Recruiting84%16%75%25%70%30% Female undergraduate population in Division IA: 52% From the Chronicle of Higher Education

19. Daniel L. Fulks, 2001

20. NCAA Gender equity report Travel, equipment, uniforms DivisionMenWomen I-A6733 I-AA6139 I-AAA5446 All D-I6436 II5842 III5842 NCAA Gender Equity report 2001-02

21. Percent difference between female undergrads and female athletes (Big Ten, Pac 10, Big XII) Institution% undergrad % athleteDifference Michigan50.4751.771.30 Purdue41.6342.100.47 Texas A&M48.7748.45-0.32 Oklahoma St.48.1747.00-1.17 Michigan St.53.7252.41-1.31 Minnesota52.0450.66-1.38 Kansas St.47.4946.06-1.43 Penn St.47.0745.62-1.45 Iowa St.44.6643.18-1.48 USC49.8147.89-1.92 Wisconsin53.2751.03-2.24 Washington51.2948.80-2.49 Illinois47.0043.07-3.93 Northwestern52.4748.34-4.13 Kansas52.1347.98-4.15 Colorado47.0042.06-4.94 UCLA55.0049.86-5.14 Texas50.9645.80-5.16 Texas Tech46.3440.95-5.39 Arizona52.6846.93-5.75 Indiana52.9146.73-6.18 California53.0245.84-7.18 Missouri52.2443.73-8.51 Oklahoma49.1840.29-8.89 Iowa54.6144.67-9.94 Oregon State46.1235.32-10.80 Arizona St.52.1540.57-11.58 Nebraska47.0834.66-12.42 Oregon53.3940.30-13.09 Baylor57.7940.10-17.69 2001-02

22. June 2003 Poll By Wall Street Journal and NBC News (from Chronicle of Higher Education, January 2003) ApproveDisapprove 1.Approve/Disapprove of Title IX68%20% 2.“Cutting back on men’s athletics to ensure equivalent athletic opportunities for women”66%27% 3.Attitudes toward changing Title IX: 20% Strengthen the law 50%No changes to law 21%Weaken the law i.e. 7 of 10 adults familiar with the law want Title IX strengthened or left alone. Title IX “does not require colleges to give the same amount of money to men’s and women’s sports programs or to have equal numbers of male and female athletes; it does require colleges to provide equitable resources and opportunities in a non-discriminatory manner.”

23. The Bottom Line NCAA Division I-A EADA Data 1999-2000 MENWOMEN Participation5743 Scholarships5941 Operating budget7030 Recruiting budget7030 Female and college participation High school: 2.9 million or 42 percent College: 153,601 or 42 percent

24. Gender Equity “Gender equity is an atmosphere and a reality where fair distribution of overall athletic opportunity and resources are proportionate to women and men and where no student-athlete, coach or athletic administrator is discriminated against in any way in the athletic program on the basis of gender.” “That is to say, an athletic program is gender equitable when the men’s sports program would be pleased to accept for its own the overall participation, opportunities and resources currently allocated to the women’s program and vice versa.” NCAA Gender Equity Task Force