In a session that was sometimes contentious, sometimes collegial and always interesting, the members of the Commission on Opportunities in Athletics began to discuss specific areas of its work during its second day of hearings in Colorado Springs, Colo., Oct. 23.    The session did not allow any input or involvement from the general public, but was open for all to listen to lively discussion between the commission members. For perhaps the first time, the commissioners began to provide a glimpse of their opinions about the vast volume of testimony that they had heard in the three Town Hall meetings held to date.    The first Town Hall meeting was hosting in Atlanta in August, with a second Town Hall meeting in Chicago in September. Now that the third Town Hall has been completed in Colorado Springs, the final public portion of the hearings will be held in San Diego, Calif., Nov.  20-21.    At one point, when two commissioners were engaging in a heated disagreement about a specific Title IX issue, co-chair Ted Leland exclaimed that "it's like hurding cats today," a humorous response to some of the exchanges between commissioners about this serious but complicated issue.    Leland opened the meeting, explaining that the commission "remains in a fact-finding mode," and that "there was nothing to preview and that conclusions were premature." He reminded the commissioners to "think consensus" and explained that the session would allow commissioners to comment on the seven questions posed to the group in the charter of the commission.    Before the commission could get to the specific seven questions, Donna De Varona pointedly challenged the selection of the panelists at the Colorado Springs and previous hearings. Saying that she was frustrated with the process, De Varona noted that a number of the potential panelists that she and Julie Foudy had suggested were not selected, and she inferred that they had been "weeded out" by commission staff.  She asked for feedback from the staff about the status of the panelists suggested. De Varona also asked why finances had not been included as a topic for the Colorado Springs sessions.    Commission Executive Director Debbie Price explained that there had been 290 individuals considered for inclusion on a panel. She noted that the panels of athletic directors and general counsels, which had been requested by commissioners, were included this time, and that finances would be included in the San Diego meeting. Ted Leland suggested that the commissioners indicate what topics or questions that they had at this time that should be included in the San Diego hearing testimony.    When a commissioner suggested that the group review the list of potential panelists, Debbie Yow said that she was not comfortable talking about 290 names, and that it was not a good use of the panel's time. Percy Bates asked that the commission members have a more active role in the process of selecting panelists for the San Diego hearings.    When asked what topics needed to be further explored, Bob Bowlsby suggested that finding a set of numbers that the commissioners could agree to was a priority. Leland noted that statistics on the cost allocation issues must be covered.     Instead of going into the seven questions, the panel was sidetracked again when Rita Simon asked for information on how the Commission report would be written, edited and reviewed. Debbie Price explained that Jay Diske, a veteran commission report editor, had been hired by the Commission to put it all together.    Soon, the commissioners began to debate whether the group would make specific recommendations, a variety of choices, or just frame the many sides of the issue for the Secretary of Education. A suggestion of a majority or minority position was made, and Gene DeFillippo noted that the group may not be able to make a consensus and that there could be two or three recommendations.    "Are we going to solve the Title IX problem by consensus?" asked Tom Griffith. "I think not. If we can present reasonable arguments to the Secretary, I would be very proud of our work."    With that behind them, the Commission then turned its attention to the seven questions in its charter.    QUESTION ONE - Are Title IX standards for assessing equal opportunity in athletics working to promote opportunities for male and female athletes?    This was the area that the commission spent the most time, had the most disagreements, and even struggled with what the commission was actually working on.    Donna De Varona immediately noted that she had problems with the way the question was framed, and Bates asked if the commission could rephrase the question.  General Counsel Brian Jones noted that the charter suggested that the commission may deal with these and additional questions, but that the group should work with the questions as closely as possible.     When more discussion ensued on what the question meant,   Yow asked the members to "stop beating the questions to death." The commission then decided that the group should address the three-prong test, the previous interpretation and clarifications, and the other materials used by the OCR for Title IX enforcement.    A few commissioners noted that they believed the answer to be "yes" when dealing with promoting opportunities for women, but may be "no" when concerned with male opportunities.     Bob Bowlsby asked the group to consider whether the undergraduate population was the correct group to measure for Title IX, and if another body of individuals would be a better group. He also noted that the group should address the "non-traditional students," and if they were realistic potential sports participants.    Donna De Varona suggested that there might be confusion about how to apply the three-prong test, especially on high schools, and that an expert with historical information, such as former OCR Director Norma Cantu, might be considered for testimony. Rita Simon then compared the work on Title IX to the situation with the Brown vs. Board of Education decision. Lisa Graham Keegan expounded on the Brown vs. Board of Education, saying that "I worry that you can comply with a test, but not have improved the situation greatly."    Ted Leland suggested that there may be a fairer way to define opportunity. "We decided that equal outcome was appropriate for awhile; we may need to look at a way to measure opportunity," he said.     Debbie Yow decided to tackle that question directly. "What does equal opportunity mean? There is logic that for what is happening in high schools and expected for colleges be considered. There is no logic flow to compare the number of students to the number of athletes."    Yow also talked about walkons. "We know, year in and year out, that we struggle to get women on teams, and we turn away men that want to wear the uniform. In my mind, that is wrong. There has to be a better way," she said.    Graham Spanier asked the commission to look forward, instead of backward. "I don't think the Secretary of Education and the President of the United States and 200 people who flew in from all over the United States want to know what we thing happened over the last 30 years. I think we can do better," he said, Spainer suggested a new letter of clarification, then stronger application t of the new rules. "We need clear guidance and better enforcement," he said.    Cynthia Cooper suggested that the test needs to be discussed, with a concern that if they "change enforcement it would put women back 10-20 years." She then questioned whether it was appropriate to consider  if the law promotes opportunity for men, or if it were a law just for women.    Cary Groth began to question the data about whether it was true that men had lost sports opportunity. She said that it was true that swimming, gymnastics and wrestling has lost, but there was not enough information on sports that had been "silent" during the debate.    Graham Spanier again said that it was wrong to spend too much time looking back and arguing over those details. "I'm more interested in creating a system that looks forward so nobody loses out to a narrow interp