I am not sure that I have ever understood all there is to know about this but perhaps some of you much smarter than me can opine. I fully understand the need for equality and quite frankly I enjoy watching women compete in many of the sports, sometimes more than the equivalent sport for men. However, as so often happens good intentions are poorly thought out and implemented, and I wonder if that is not the case in spades for this legislation. Football in most athletic departments contributes most of the team earned revenue for the athletic budget and there is no revenue generator in women athletics that comes close. In basketball most men’s programs will create enough revenue to offset a much higher percentage of expense than women’s’ basketball. Women’s volleyball at a school like Texas may cover their expenses but what other sport can so the same? I'm sure that a cost vs. revenue analysis would never be allowed for consideration and I am ok with that. As I understand it there are two missions with Title IX, one as to the financial contributions and one as to the level of participation. So how do you compensate for football in the latter of these objectives? I can only assume that one way to do it is to get rid of some men’s sports. No men’s soccer, wrestling, etc. Did that not happen with the implementation of Title IX, and can that accelerate? Would it not be better to exclude football and then do a level set? I know the objectives are not currently being met in total, but can the continued attempt to meet them create unfairness? I have known a lot of good high school soccer players whose career was short lived due to limited college programs and scholarships for their sport.