This is just one example of hundreds around the country that show a men's program getting cut, not because of lack of interest of funding, but simply because there was not a women's sport to balance out the participation requirements. .
When confronted with an anecdotal example like this, proponents of Title IX cite football as the villain and not the legislation. Football, they say, takes too much of the "men's " allowed budget and scholarships." That is why I propose that first step in correcting the problems with Title IX is to take football out of the equation entirely. I would do this for a number of reasons, first football does not cost money for most high school and college teams it makes money. Without football most schools would be unable to finance both men's and women's sports, thus making the argument of money and participation moot because there would be no other sports to participate in. By eliminating football from monetary aspect all other sports balance each other out. It is only fair to spend an equal amount of money and a men's and women's basketball, or soccer team. .
Also, football is a unique sport in the fact that it requires a lot of players to be played at a high level. Unlike the professionals, colleges and high schools cannot go get another player if someone on the team goes down with an injury. They are stuck with the players on their roster for the duration of the season. So it would be nearly impossible, for colleges, to cut the number of scholarships and maintain the level of play that the public as been accustomed to. The next issue that must be addressed is the percentage rule. Title IX says the percentage of women playing athletics must be equal to the percentage of women on campus. This is perhaps the most mind boggling portion of the amendment. It fails to take in to account that statistically more males want to play athletics than females, or the fact that more men choose to walk to teams more than women.