COMMISSION ON OPPORTUNITY IN ATHLETICS Submission by Gary Abbott, Colorado Springs, Colo. Director of Special Projects, USA Wrestling August 27, 2002, Atlanta, Ga. As Director of Special Projects at USA Wrestling, Title IX has been one of my job responsibilities since 1996. I was psyched up about this week, because Title IX is an important issue to me. However, this weekend, my organization went through the process of deciding not to go to the World Championships in Iran because of a threat on our lives. I was supposed to go on that trip. It made me realize that sports is truly about people. It is about life. Title IX, as it is currently enforced, is not about people. It is about reaching a numerical gender quota, a false measurement of opportunity. This weekend has made me even more resolved to fight for what is right, and to fix the problems with Title IX. In the most recent issue of the NCAA News, I authored an article entitled: "Title IX talk needs number-crunch reality." A copy is attached as part of my statement. The first sentence in the article is: PLEASE STOP THE LIE. The lie is the continued statistical information provided by special interest groups that attempt to prove that the number of men athletes in college has increased. This is simply not true. By making this claim, those who wish to continue the system of harsh gender quotas in athletics do not have to face the fact that men's sports opportunities have been slashed. The reason that the numbers are wrong is that they are raw aggregate numbers, which do not reflect the changes by college from one association to another. Since 1982, there have been 262 more programs in the NCAA, while in the same time frame the NAIA lost 187 programs. Colleges have also switched affiliations from the Junior College and Christian College ranks. The raw NCAA stats are misleading, as they reflect increases from colleges that have transferred in. They do not show new opportunity; these schools had existing opportunities coming in. When you understand that, and look at the average number of men athletes on each campus, the statistics clearly indicate that opportunity has been lost. In 1985, there were an average of 253.54 men athletes per NCAA campus. In 2001, there were an average of 199.11 men athletes per campus. Look at each college sports program over time. You will find fewer men athletes and men's teams at each college. Once that is established, then we can begin to work on a solution. Let's be honest. This Commission must seek the truth, and advise the government what to do. Five minutes are not enough time to cover much, so I will leave you with some pointed perspective based upon seven years of study and work on this subject. I AM A PROPONENT OF TITLE IX. THE LAW, AS INTENDED BY CONGRESS, IS OUTSTANDING You will hear people try to call me and others who seek change nasty names like "opponent of Title IX." That is untrue and unfair. I support Title IX completely. My daughter was active in sports and I stand up for her rights to have opportunities. What I oppose is an unfair quota system that takes away opportunities. PROPORTIONALITY IS A QUOTA If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Proportionality is a quota system, which uses student enrollment as the measuring tool to determine whether there is discrimination in athletics by gender. ENROLLMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PARTICIPATION IN SPORTS All that enrollment shows is a proven participation in higher education. It measures the rate that students attend college, nothing more. To evaluate participation in sports, you must look at sports activity by gender, not enrollment rates. PROPORTIONALITY IS NOT A SAFE HARBOR; IT IS VERY UNSAFE FOR MEN The 1996 policy interpretation, issued by the Department of Education, called proportionality the "safe harbor." This document made proportionality the primary method to enforce Title IX. Through OCR rules and court decisions, colleges are allowed to cut men and add no women athletes to reach this numerical quota. For that reason, proportionality is very UNSAFE for men athletes. It is this interpretation that the National Wrestling Coaches Association has wisely chosen to challenge in its lawsuit against the government. TO REACH PROPORTIONALITY, ANOTHER 60,000 MEN COULD BE CUT FROM THE NCAA Currently, according to NCAA statistics, there are 208,866 male athletes and 150,916 female athletes in NCAA programs. However, enrollment rates are approaching 55% female and 45% male across the nation. In order to reach the gender quota, NCAA colleges will have to axe about 60,000 more men athletes, or add 60,000 more female athletes or a combination of both. Based upon how many colleges are dealing with this issue, including schools that chose only to cut men like Northern Iowa, Bowling Green, Howard and others this year, more men will get cut as we get closer. The only question is how many and how quickly. HOW MUCH IS 60,000 ATHLETES??? YOU DO THE MATH * There are 56,804 college football players in the NCAA. You would have to cut every single football player, then throw in all of the men ice hockey players (3,758) to get to the 60,000 level. * Without cutting from football (which is the most popular sport in high schools by a large margin), you would have to eliminate completely many men's sports programs: The entire total from these seven sports add up to 59,958 athletes. To be proportional, you would eliminate: Wrestling - 5,966 Swimming - 7,265 Track and Field - 20,271 Gymnastics - 367 Soccer - 18,093 Golf - 7,639 Rifle - 357 WOMEN HAVE MORE TEAMS IN THE NCAA THAN MEN, AND THE GAP IS GROWING In 2001, there were 8,414 NCAA teams for women and 7,832 NCAA teams for men. That is a grand total of 582 more women's teams than men's. Current trends will make that gap even wider, as colleges continue to dump men's teams and add women's teams. Where is the missing opportunity here? LET'S COMPARE APPLES WITH APPLES. CHECK OUT MEN VS. WOMEN IN EACH SPORT To get a true picture of what is happening on campuses, let's compare athletes in the same sport. Let's look at men and women swimmers, men and women track and field athletes, men and women rowers, etc. This is very important, so everybody realizes what is happening on campuses today. There are many schools who have existing facilities and coaching staffs, but have kicked the men out of the pool and off the track in order to meet the quota. Consider colleges like Nebraska and Northern Iowa, which killed off the men's swimming team but maintained the women's swimming team. Or how about Bowling Green and Vermont, schools that have axed their men's track and field programs and continued their women's track and field program. This is clearly wrong. And the women in those sports are unhappy that their peer men athletes have been eliminated. IN EVERY NCAA SPORT BUT ONE, THERE ARE MORE WOMEN'S TEAMS THAN MEN When you look at apples and apples, men and women competing in the exact same sport, you see clearly that there are more women's teams than men's. In some sports, it's not even close. NCAA Sport/Men's teams/Women's teams Baseball/Softball/838/850 Basketball/967/995 Bowling/1/23 Cross country/817/874 Equestrian/8/40 Fencing/37/45 Golf/717/402 Gymnastics/24/89 Ice Hockey/129/60 Lacrosse/202/229 Rifle/33/39 Rowing/48/132 Skiing/40/44 Soccer/710/824 Squash/20/25 Swimming/370/454 Tennis/745/852 Track - Indoor/525/564 Track - Outdoor/638/673 Volleyball/73/947 Water polo/44/45 THE NCAA ALLOWS MORE SCHOLARSHIPS FOR WOMEN THAN MEN IN MOST SPORTS The NCAA has institutionalized its discrimination against men in its decision to provide women with a higher number of scholarships than men in the same sports. Can anyone explain why women should have more scholarships when they are competing in the exact same sport as men? Consider these examples: * = headcount NCAA Sport/Men scholarships/Women scholarships Basketball/13/15 Cross country-track and field/12.69/18 Fencing/4.5/5 Golf/4.5/6 Gymnastics/6.3/12* Lacrosse/12.69/12 Skiing/6.3