Finally - a journalist uses the Office of Postsecondary Education's Equity in Athletics figures for their intended purpose instead of creating wild misconceptions about athletic department finances! My thoughts on Title IX aren't that far off from the consensus. Some of the opposition does boil down to basic sexism. There is a serious problem if public money is being used to subsidize men at the expense of women, even if men are increasingly underrepresented in higher education. At the same time, regulations like Title IX create unfunded mandates that are directly taking dollars away from academics across the country as schools are forced to subsidize athletic departments via subsidies from their general funds. The goals of fiscal soundness and gender equity are directly contradictory, and would probably be wise if everyone collectively acknowledged that major college sports serve as unpaid developmental leagues for the NFL and NBA. At the same time USF deserves a special degree of resentment for this treachery. The Rutgers athletic department is not financially self-sufficient, which has led to a great deal of scrutiny. One reason Rutgers has to take a subsidy is because they have an organizational commitment to compliance without cutting any corners academically or behaviorally. There's a direct causal relationship between those factors and resource expenditures. Athletic depatments get criticized for spending money, and they are criticized even more for not having all of their ducks in a row. USF and many SEC programs have not played by the same set of rules for a long time. Naturally that doesn't exactly sound fair from the Rutgers perspective. Rutgers has to take the public relations hit from cutting sports, while these guys skate through without the slightest care in the world.