</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Liquid Karma:


And most of you already know what I think of the degradation of men's athletic programs so Nancy and Polly can have their little love fest playing field hockey.

By the way, how many of you can tell me which party was responsible for the legislation that initially created Title 9....you'll be shocked when you find out.

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't have a problem with Title IX as written in it's time. I have a problem with the way that the Clinton administration interpreted and enforced the law. If interest is not there for the women's teams don't cut men's teams to keep proportionality. I ref HS sports in Michigan and have seen Larger Class C schools (243-491 students) not be able to field Frosh teams for girls due to lack of interest (of course schedules have to be cut at the last minute to cover this). Can you explain to me why it would also be a title IX violation to hold opposite seasons for 5 dual gender sports (in MI they have BB, Tennis, swimming, Soccer and golf in seasons different thatn the guys and VB is a winter sport too. This allows our HS's ot have Frosh. teams).