 Senator Bai and Representative Zieth Green of Oregon and Patsy Mink of Hawaii all said either explicitly or implicitly that Title IX was to be passed without getting dragged into a side debate over athletics. That worked, but it also pushed that side debate into a key battle for the Ford administration and Title IX advocates in Congress. So after Title IX was passed and regulations were being written in 1973 and 1974, the NCAA took immediate exception to the law fearing that it would mean a transfer of funds away from men. It's also important to note at this point that the NCAA was not the governing body for women in inter-collegiate athletics. That was the job of the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women, the AIAW, which I think Nancy's gonna speak to more a little bit later. The NCAA brought out all of its guns in terms of its allies in Congress and even filed a lawsuit against HEW to exclude revenue producing sports from the law. That suit was dismissed. However, Senator John Tower of Texas sponsored an amendment to Title IX specifically exempting revenues producing sports from the regulation. Congress defeated the Tower Amendment in favor of a separate piece of legislation sponsored by Senator Jacob Javits in New York, which specified that Title IX would extend to athletics, but that HEW would make reasonable provision in its regulations, quote, considering the nature of particular sports. Then in 1974, the HEW published a draft of regulations specifically calling on colleges not to discriminate in athletics and to make affirmative efforts to engage the underrepresented sex, that is women, in intercollegiate athletics. This infuriated the NCAA and other proponents of college sports and particularly football. Walter Byers, who is then the president of the NCAA, her executive director actually, sent out a blistering memo in September of 1974 calling the Title IX regulations arbitrary, vague, lacking in specific standards and exceeding the authority of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. And he also went on to say that this would end college sports as we know it or worse of that effect. And I would challenge any of you to say that this has happened 35 years down the road. Secretary Weinberger, who served as Secretary of HEW, said during the hearings that, and quoting, that he had not realized until the comment period closed on these regs that the most important issue in the United States today is intercollegiate athletics because we have an enormous volume of comments among them. He went on to talk about the regulation saying that it does not require equal or aggregate expenditures from members of each sex or for male and female teams. It does not require women to play football with men. It does not require coeducational showers, locker rooms or toilet facilities. And it does not mean that the National Collegiate Athletic Association will be dissolved and will have to fire all of its highly vocal staff. Weinberger clearly was not amused by the volume of comments like these that he got during this period. And he too felt that athletics was a distraction to the main force of ending discrimination in not just in athletics but throughout education. Quoting him again, the goal of the final regulation in the area of athletics is to secure equal opportunity for men and women while allowing schools and colleges flexibility. We have to remember that in terms of sports, this is one of the very few areas in education where we permit separate but equal activities. So we have to be very careful about how we define and enforce equality. And in the 1970s, in talking about men's and women's sports, Weinberger noted that he was struck by the argument that women's athletics were supported by bake sales while men's athletics were supported by football game revenues. Weinberger had the implicit support of the president and he pushed through the regulations as I read them earlier in a way that specifically ignored the question of whether football ought to be included and instead stated that they that they applied throughout intercollegiate athletic programs regardless of where revenue happened to come from. The fight over title line, the preservation of an equitable revenue neutral vision of how athletes ought to be treated is crucial in the modern controversies over college sports. A week doesn't go by when a commentator or someone doesn't say something about paying players or allowing athletes to appear in commercials or playing every night of the week. But as colleges move in that direction, they run the risk of Congress or the courts deciding that college sports really is a business and it's not an educational enterprise. And if that ever happened, what we would see would be salaries for players, workers comp and disability insurance issues, taxes, and in essence a transformation of the University of Toledo to the Toledo Mudhins, the creation of a true minor league instead of the educational model of college sports that we know. And that would sacrifice the best thing about college sports and what President Ford and others like Supreme Court Justice Byron White recognizes the essence of their experience in college athletes. So the point I want to make is that in policymaking, again, even in something as mundane as college athletics, short term realism always has to be tempered by long term idealism and the commercial concerns that we have, as crucial as they may be in these enterprises that now have budgets of 50 or even $100 million a year, is that we have to remember what the long term goal is for the students and athletes involved. And if we lose sight of that, we lose sight of the most precious part of the entire enterprise. So with that, I want to say thank you and I look forward to hearing what Nancy Bill had to say. There's no big deal, right? First of all, it's a real privilege to be able to be here and be able to talk to you all at the Ford School. I say as one of, as a Title IX advocate and as somebody whose daily life is involved in making sure that Title IX gets enforced, just that it is an interdisciplinary approach. That I work every day with people who have expertise as far beyond mine, who I work with, you know, economists. I wrote this with an economist. I have to work with physicians. Right now, I'm working with the NCAA writing pregnancy policies. So I'm working with physicians. I work with statisticians. I work with historians. I work with so many different groups and just how much fun it is really is getting to work with people who care very much about an issue and willing to, you know, willing to go the extra mile to make sure that the policies and how things get shaped affect millions of people out there. I actually, I was one of those. And when President Ford was what became President of the United States, I was just getting serious about my swimming career right at that time. And I had no idea anything about Title IX. I just know, you know, I love to swim and I was lucky enough to get, we moved to Jacksonville, Florida. I was a great coach there, who was probably 25 years old. Now, of course, he's in the Hall of Fame and he's probably produced 25 Olympians and probably 20 world record holders. And but you know, we were both just getting started. He took one look at me. He thought for sure I was going to be six foot three. And he and he said, you know, Nancy, you can be great if you want to be great. And so, you know, I trained for the 1980 Olympics. We boycotted those Olympics. And and I would like to tell you all that I got a full scholarship to Duke University because I worked very, very hard, very hard. The hard part of any swimming season is just think of a number in your head. How many laps a day do you think that people swim to be the best in the world? Just think of I think how many laps average high school size pool 25 yards. The number is 800. So, you know, and lifted weights and ran and whatnot. So I'd like to tell you all that I got a full scholarship because, you know, I had worked hard and that I was very accomplished and was world champion and head to head competition against the East Germans who were using steroids at the time and was defeating them. But the truth is, without this legislation, none of that mattered. But I was not going to get a full scholarship. I was not even going to get a place on the team, as Welch's book alludes to. So just how much a piece of legislation actually affects people's lives in a very real tangible way. It just it cannot be underestimated. It also cannot be underestimated where you find your friends. Where are the people who are big supporters? And you know, a lot of people would probably think that Gerald Ford that it would be very surprising that he would be a big supporter of title nine and these regulations when they were when they were being passed. And then he would sign them. You know, he comes from the world of football. He comes from the world, you know, sort of he his world was the the NCAA just before he signed these regulations. President Ford was given a major award, the highest award that the NCAA has to give. He was given this award, you know, not coincidentally. At the same time, the NCAA was spending about a million dollars a year trying to defeat title nine. So he he was able to buck up to you know, the forces that be. This is still true today. I'm never I'm always surprised at who some of the supporters of title nine are. I have a list of all the members of House and Senate who have daughters. And I will say the people who will willing to write me a check, the people who are willing to sort of, you know, to, okay, let's get going. Let's put the business here are men with daughters. I've never had a check from a mother yet. And I'm not saying they're not supportive. I'm just saying that sort of who's willing to really fight hard are the guys with daughters who know what a sports experience meant for them. They know the educational mission of athletics and are willing to make sure that their daughters get an opportunity to have those those same opportunities. So it is it is surprising. I will say now, Welch talked about how that the title line embodies this educational mission of athletics. Surprisingly, right now the NCAA has become a big supporter of title nine and a big supporter of gender equity. Our current president is doing what he can to try to weaken the regulations. And unfortunately, we're seeing the effects of this actually the the rate of growth in athletics has actually the the the there's actually a widening of gap between men's and women's athletics right now. And the that sort of sort of two ideas with this educational mission. One is that the idea of title nine, first of all, is very, very simple. People want to make it very difficult. They say, Oh, you're one of the leading experts and come to you asking questions. It's really not that difficult. Right now I have two two year old twins. Okay. And they know when I slice a pie, whether or not that's equal. Okay. Okay, so if my two year old twins can figure it out, then sort of when you're looking at what makes that an educational experience the same for boys and girls, it is really not that hard to be able to figure out. So there have been a lot of gains that women have made, but there also been some some great losses that have happened over the years. So number one, this very simple idea. One of the one of the great losses was, as, as Welch pointed out, was the passage of the Javits amendment. The Javits amendment said the schools were able to take into account the differences between different sports, instead of it has this appeal to it in that some sports are very expensive. Football, equestrian sports, very expensive sports. That doesn't mean that you're necessarily providing a lesser educational experience to the athlete on the ground than a swimmer who might be getting the same quality equipment. So the Javits amendment allows for this wildly divergent amount of expenditures between athletics. So while it has this appeal, at the same time, it is much easier to look at a budget and be able to say what resources are the genders getting than to be able to look then then to be able to look at are they getting the same educational experience. For those of you that are attorneys out there, there's this wonderful process called discovery, which means that you have to find out whether not whether not men and women are getting the same educational experience and the amount of information that an attorney has to go through to figure that out is a very long, difficult, expensive process for them to be able to go through. So while it does have this appeal, on the other hand, it has meant that measuring this has become very difficult. And two is I'm going to say something that I think President Ford would have understood and that most people understand today. And that is that really, Title IX is not controversial. Every major poll that comes out shows that the public Democrat, Republican, independent, young, old, are very supportive of Title IX. President Ford would have loved to have the approval numbers that Title IX has. It's about 80%. And again, that holds true over time. This is not a con. But there are some people who are very vocal about it. And those folks just have continuously used the political process and used public opinion to try to make it seem like there's a lot more controversy than there actually is. So even today, now, 35 years after Title IX was passed, one just cannot say that you just really just don't think that girls should be getting the same thing that boys do. It doesn't have any appeal at all. What they usually try to sort of get at the margins, what they say is they're getting at the margins. But right now, it's not at the margins. What the foes of Title IX right now, if the changes that they wanted came into being, there would be a large scale back in the opportunities that are offered to women right now would be a huge loss out there. So number one, you have this very simple idea. You've got this very non-controversial idea. And I would also like to say that these ideas about the simple non-controversial ideas that President Ford did a very good job of extending these ideas to the Olympic movement. In 1974, President Ford established a presidential commission on the Olympics. The report that they came out ultimately came into legislation, which was the 1978 Amateur Sports Act recently renamed as the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act. And this really restructured the way that sports operates, that amateur sports operates in this country. There used to be sort of a lot of competition between entities on who was going to get the world records at their events and who was going to get the best athletes to participate at their events. And one of the things that's part of the Amateur Sports Act is this mandate for equity in athletics. And it's because of that that you see the women's soccer team, notwithstanding their last game, but that you see in the women's soccer team went from relative obscurity to now being role models for women all over the country. Earlier we talked about this interconnectedness idea of athletics. And in Gerald Ford's time, there was this idea that there was this commercialization of sport. And the NCAA was founded in part to try to put some breaks on some of that. So he was fully aware, but I don't think in his wildest imagination he would have thought that we would be in the schizophrenic world that we are right now, where you have coaches who are making three, four million a year and athletes limited to the price of the cost of the education. I'm going to say, you know, it just sort of it makes no sense how I and sometimes I have to sort of jerk my students away to say how schizophrenic that this world is that we're living and how the Title IX policy comes into direct conflict with policies dealing with our antitrust laws. NCAA has lost two major antitrust law decision, which says that when it comes to certain things like coaching salaries, and like television contracts, the NCAA cannot do anything about it. They are that's that has to do with commercialism. And so they have to keep their hands off. So they're really in this catch 22 they really can't do anything about this aspect over here. But the more that they that the NCAA tries to capitalize on on some of the on some of the commercial aspects, the more likely they are to get in trouble with Congress who's saying, Oh, well, if you're going to act like a business, and you're not going to pay your athletes, and you're going to have this thing called donors, and you're not going to, you're not going to pay taxes on this business. Well, then we're going to actually treat you like a business, which is to tax you. So and I think that's actually as much as I would like to think that the that the organization the NCAA is behind Title IX because of, you know, it is it's the right thing to do to provide this great educational experience. But it also has to do with if if if they believe in the educational mission of athletics, and if that's really what it is that they're all about, then then that has to be sort of part of the core of what it is that they're doing. So, you know, as I said, you just you never know where your friends are you never you really never know who would have thought that two Republican presidents President Nixon would have signed it into into being signed the law and that President Ford, despite being getting very, very heavy, heavy pressure, still came out and signed the 1975 regulations. Still to this day, there's you know, you just you never know who your friends are. And I don't think that he could have possibly foreseen what effect those 1975 regulations we're going to have here in the year 2007. So thank you very much. Well, I wish my football team at the end of the year would have an 80% win rate if you have 80% approval rate. Dean Collins, Edie, thanks for inviting me. I made the journey up from South State Street. It took all of two or three minutes to be here and to join Welch and Nancy. Nancy had me in her class last year via two years ago. I can't even one year. And I think we talked about some of these same very issues. It was all done by a teleconference. And man, was she right on it? And it didn't connect with me until probably a couple weeks ago. I know that woman. So you know, I kind of figured out what Welch was going to say. I didn't know what Nancy was going to say. And I said, What can I bring to this discussion tonight about Title IX that's different? And what I thought I would do would be to share with you the views, the experiences, the realities that an athletic director at a major institution faces day in and day out in dealing with the challenges of Title IX. And it's not all roses. It's not all great. There are some realities and difficult decisions on a daily basis that I have to make that they don't have to make. And I want to share some of those with you. But I want to talk about basically give you two stories, one pre Title IX and one post Title IX. So the pre Title IX story starts three years ago or three weeks ago, September the seventh Friday, three weeks from today, the day before we played Oregon and football. So coming to Ann Arbor to support his Oregon football team was Phil Knight, the founder of Nike. He wanted to spend the day reviewing our facilities, chatting with me about why after 25 plus years, Michigan is leaving Nike and going to Adidas short answer money. And so I really hit it off with this guy. I mean, he's been named the most powerful man in sports. He comes in and leave eyes, needs a haircut, wears an old pair of tennis shoes. And it's four o'clock in the afternoon three weeks ago on Friday. And he says, Hey, Bill, one of the guys I came here with my college roommates said there's a neat place down around the corner called Dominix. Literally, it's a minute from where we're sitting today. Let's go have a couple of beers and continue our discussion. There's nothing at that moment I wanted to do more than to go have a few beers with Phil Knight. Well, my staff had arranged and I can take absolutely no credit for it whatsoever that we would honor all the women athletes who represented Michigan in the pre title nine era. And I had a host that group. I had to give several speeches. I had to shake a lot of hands. I had prepped for it, but I had this debate. Where do I want to go? Okay, I said there's no question where I'm going to go. It's where I'm required to go. And I have to tell you as I look back at that experience three weeks ago and that evening I spent with women that represented Michigan going back as far as 1948 up through 1972. In the eight years I've been athletic director at Michigan in the hundreds of events I've attended. It was by far and away. One of the most emotional long lasting events that I attended. These women finally had conclusion to their athletic careers because they saw how they were treated vis-a-vis the men. They didn't get the resources. They didn't get the block M, the letter. And that's what they really wanted more than anything else. And so we gave each of them a block M in a picture frame with their name and it was absolutely great. As I said, I had nothing to do with it. But you know what the good news was about that evening? They had beer and I had beer so it all turned out okay from that standpoint. And you know, what's been happening in the last three weeks? I've been getting letters from them. I've been getting checks from them. And it was the right thing to do. And that gave me a whole new insight into the pre Title Nine era in collegiate athletics that I absolutely didn't have before. The other thing that was interesting, every one of those women's played multiple sports. Multiple sports. Some as many as four. Why? Because that's what you did with the change of the seasons around here. And it wasn't like today, we don't have one athlete in our 750 varsity athletes that plays more than one sport. There's some that could and have the capacity and certainly didn't high school. But because of the nature of their scholarship, their coach wants them focusing on their sport and no other sport. You know, I called our woman's swimming coach and I said, Hey, Nancy's coming today. Why don't you bring your team? You know, you ought to honor this former Olympian. And she said to me, I'd love to, but it's in the middle of our practice. So Nancy, they're doing those 800 laps, but it's no longer a 25 yard pool anymore. But the coach said to me, You know what I remember about Nancy more than anything? In 84, when she won her three gold medals, one of those in the hundred free, you won as an absolute tie with Carrie Steinsiefer. Did I get that right? And that's to a hundreds of a second. And that doesn't happen in swimming ever. I mean, how many times has that happened in the Olympics? You know, I don't probably never. So that's what our coach remembers about that one particular race you were in. So that's my pre title nine story. So my post title nine story, um, you know, a couple of years ago, President Ford Bush to present for it. Sorry, we've been talking about President Ford Bush to try to tweak title nine. We saw it came around the country. Lots of lots of interviews, lots of public hearings around the country. Our faculty rep here, Percy Bates was involved in the committee. Now, I sat down one day, you know, and I saw this going on and I said, well, what would happen if there was a change that gave Michigan flexibility to modify and not have to have equal facilities. It said scholarships and all the other requirements that have evolved over time to be a part of title nine. And the answer is very simple. Nothing would change title nine wasn't there today. Nothing would be different at Michigan. It is a part of who we are. It's a part of our DNA. We have today 13 women's sports, varsity, 12 men's sports. We have 52% female athletes, 48% male athletes, because that is the makeup of our undergraduate student body. And we grant the maximum number of scholarships for every sport, men's and women's, that the NCA permits. And they do set a limit on that. Now, having said that, there are a couple of things that bother me about title nine. I wouldn't do justice to this format if I didn't mention them. One is roster management. This is the policy that we follow de facto, where for every one of our men's sports, we have a maximum number that you can have on the team. For every one of our women's sports, we have a minimum number that that coach has to carry. And that's how we do the balancing. The level of this discussion today is leveling the playing field. There's two ways you level the playing field. If somebody's here and somebody's here, you can bring the others up, or you can move the teeter-totter the other way. What we did in Michigan in 1972 is we immediately added six women's sports and we've added them on continuously over time. I don't particularly like roster management, but I understand it. Our women's volleyball coach is required, I think, to carry 15. The coach says, you know, the team would be more efficient and better, and kids would get a better experience if I could keep a couple less than that. On the other hand, you'll have a men's team that say, I have a walk-on swimmer that can really contribute to our team. But I can't put them on that team because we have a ceiling and a limit. That's an aspect of Title IX I don't like. I understand it. We give you another example. In the early 70s when Title IX was passed in collegiate America, there were over 100 men's gymnastics programs. To date, there are 17 men's gymnastics program. I'm putting my Olympic hat on now. The NCAA collegiate system is the pipeline for Olympic medals in this country in almost every sport. Not all, but most most of them. There are 17 men's gymnastics program in the country. Six of them are in the Big Ten. It takes six to have a conference championship. One of those schools right now is considering dropping it. So we would only have five in our conference. So what's that mean for our conference? Do we continue to have a conference championship or not? What I'm concerned with that certain sports may lose the pipeline to our kids that represent us internationally. And there is one good example of what could happen. What would happen I think if that was carried out a little bit further is we'd go to identifying certain schools that would be considered. That's where you go if you want to be in the Olympics in men's gymnastics because they're going to train you. It's what they do in China. They have sports schools. And it's not a bad model. That's the things I don't like about. We live with it and we move on from there. I have in preparing for this and Nancy mentioned it and that is that President Ford was absolutely instrumental in passing the Amateur Sports Act of 1978. I had been given a copy of an article that he wrote for sports illustrated in 1974 in July. What was that the month before he became president? He was on the cover of sports illustrated and lo and behold I got off my duff to get ready for today about a month ago and I said where can I get that. I went on eBay and I was able to buy the actual sports illustrator for 12 bucks. I was so proud of myself. And he wrote this article that talked about his career here at Michigan about what he felt about the challenges with amateur athletics as Nancy so correctly explained and his pushing forward in his administration and actually seeing that the Amateur Sports Act got passed which had a major major impact on how we govern how we select our Olympic teams. I wanted to share with you some numbers on what our country has done in terms of medals won in the Olympics pre and post Title IX. Alright so title IX 1972 I'm going to deal with the summer Olympics first and then the winter Olympics. Okay the modern Olympics started in 1896 so 1896 to 1968 that's a 72-year period men U.S. men won 1125 medals women won 125 all right. And the post title IX 1972 to 2004 that's not 72 years that's 32 years men won 535 women won 293 so pre Title IX 86 percent male 14 percent female post 65 and 35. So you can see the tremendous positive growth we've had in medals won as a result of women. I can say that that's paralleled here at Michigan in terms of the number of Big Ten championships we have won. Our women in the last 20 years have won more than the men have. And we as if you don't know what are the winnings program in the Big Ten we've won about 360 Big Ten championships second place is Illinois with 250 it is in our friends down in Columbus. Winner Olympics just to give you quickly the winter Olympics started in 1924 44 years versus 32 years 51 men 23 women pre title IX post title IX 65 men 67 women. So the women in the winter Olympics have exceeded our male counterpart. So there are a little discrepancies because you know sports are changing all the time. One thing to understand about the Olympics is what programs are on the docket is determined by the International Olympic Committee that's 150 old men and women of which most of them are from Europe. So it's Europe centric and they've got the votes and they voted that we are going to dump softball and baseball for the next Olympics after Beijing this next summer. So we're all going to be fighting very hard to put those two sports back on the program there after I can simply say that I had the honor and privilege of serving as president of the Olympics leading up to those Athens games and on a personal note we set the goal I set the goal that we'd win a hundred medals in Athens. And that's always our goal to win the most medals and to win the most gold medals. We had won 96 in Sydney at the last summer game. So I said four medals more. What's the big deal. We can do it. We get down to the last three days of the summer Olympiad and we're at about 92 and I'm sitting sweating this out. This is a I have to tell you that the women came through for me and we won a hundred and four. So I'm ever for indebted to title nine and thank you. Very well. Yes. In reference to the title nine that Nancy referred to the letter to that is given to a unit. I think Mr. Martin to a university. I think what's the term you use roster roster whatever you roster management roster management. Some years ago I saw I saw a study which ranked colleges by athletic the athletics programs of different universities of major all universities I guess in the school division one whatever. And I noticed that the University of Michigan it was unusual that in that it was not ranked in the top 10. And one of the reasons was the explanation for that was that it doesn't really rank very high in terms of women's athletics. Now could you explain to me maybe this wasn't under your watch because you know as a previous speaker said he's getting old you know I'm getting old maybe so I can't remember the day and study but I could find it if I have to but could you explain to me why the University of Michigan which ranks number in the first top 10 in just about any sport with of course the possible exception of football this year. The year isn't over. That's why I said the possible. Could you explain to me why the University of Michigan which has such a strong athletic program was not ranked in the top 10 given that the important criteria that went into this particular ratings where it was the university's record on women's athletics. Well sir I don't know what period of time you're talking about. There is a what used to be called the Sears Cup which is the National Association Collegiate Athletic Directors which is overall sports championships where they take 10 men's 10 women's programs and see who has the best record. We refer to that as the Stanford Cup because they win it every single year but why do they win it every year. Two reasons you take you only count 10 men and 10 women's programs. They have 35 to choose from in total. We only have 25 plus they're good in the country club sports because of the weather and everything else that goes on in California. Ever since the the start of the director's cup Michigan has been in the top seven all except for one year. We finished second last year in it and again this is primarily the result of our women so I just can't help you because I don't know what year or what study was there. Sorry. I can't talk to this particular study. I just can't believe that any in any universe that University of Michigan would not rank very highly. I'd just like to respond a little bit to these ideas of roster management and this idea that yes certain men's sports have been cut but there's a there's a causation question. Is it because of Title IX that some men's sports have been cut and one of the sports that has come out quite vocally saying that it's because of Title IX is has it has been wrestlers and so there was a period of time where there was no Title IX between 1984 and 1988 there was a Supreme Court decision that said that Title IX was program-specific meaning that if the student loan program got federal funds then that student loan program couldn't discriminate but the rest of the university so it's interesting to look at when there was no Title IX what was going on with certain men's sports like wrestling and gymnastics and the truth was they were losing programs at about a rate of four times higher than what they've been doing since Title IX got reenacted. So you know whether or not you can say is it because of Title IX the fact that these men's sports are losing at the same time that men's gymnastics has been losing women's gymnastics has been losing about double the pace that men's gymnastics has been losing so we've you know certainly that cannot be because of Title IX that women's gymnastics has also been there's you know there's liability issues and there's all kinds of things that play into whether or not a school keeps a team. Let me make a sort of a racial analogy. In the 1950s we had lots of laws that dealt with desegregation. Now a lot of communities in order to come into compliance with these desegregation laws said we're just going to close the pool we're going to close the golf course and well these these cases went up to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says that's okay as long as it's equally bad for everyone okay so they had the it was right but okay but the difference is when a city or a school or whoever when they choose to cut a team a permissible choice or in the case of a city when a when a city was was choosing to cut a cut a facility nobody said oh therefore we shouldn't have desegregation laws we should be able to keep that swimming pool or that golf course all white nobody said that everybody recognized sort of whoa what a bad decision that was there and yet when it comes to title line when a school does choose to cut a men's sport they will blame title line saying oh therefore we should make the laws for women not as strong we should offer fewer protections as though that's going to solve their problem because let me tell you right now the heave hoeing of money that is going the rate of growth that's going into men's sports instead of women's sports is enormous the just as you all know from your practical experience the rate of growth in men's the coat the coaching budgets alone so if you did make title nine easier to comply with so that if so that you could provide fewer opportunities for women which is exactly what would happen probably not not at schools like university mission there are plenty of schools that would not happen but at all I'm telling you at a lot of schools it would happen that that somehow that men men's minor sports men's gymnastics men's wrestling that they would somehow benefit that is the flawed thinking right there they would not the because what is sucking up all the resources are men's football and men's basketball some programs are very financially successful obviously you are one of them okay this is the model everybody wants to be where he is right now everybody wants to be this kind of program and people are spending enormous sums in order to try to get there there are only about 50 schools in the country that are making money at their football program only 50 which men the schools that lose money the average loss is almost three million dollars a year that's just the loss in one sport football alone is losing which is typically more than the entire women's program combined is how much it is that they're losing so you know to blame the fact that women want a want their federal dollars spent for to be given the same educational experience you know it's like denying somebody math class you know it just it's not title 9's fault the fact that we've lost these two anti trust law decisions and we cannot do anything about this runaway spending going on here so weakening the title 9 is not going to benefit those other sports when it comes to roster management I will say that again that is a choice that a school can do women really want to participate in a sport I don't know of a single example and I mean a single example high school or college and I've been doing this for a long time where a school did not start a team hire a coach get facilities uniforms where they didn't have people that they didn't have people who signed up for the team so the NCAA they have this emerging sports category which has nothing to do with student demand nothing but when they start a women's crew team they have no problem getting you know 60 and 80 women to join that team who have never done crew before and my brother went to college he went to Harvard he had never done crew before you know he's a huge guy great big shoulders used to play football heard his shoulder they said come on the crew team exactly the way the women's crew is working they recruit the exact same way and it's a phenomenally successful sport if you build it they will come so women actually want to participate if women want to have it's a school wants to have lots of teams for women with a smaller number and then and have a few number of men's teams with with the same number of athletes who were involved that's a perfectly permissible choice for a school to do or they can do roster management they're not required to do my roster management if not I'd love to make one yeah it's been so long that I forgot what I wanted to say but just for all the Wolverines here yes I want to let you know financially where we are at Michigan I am the biggest dad at the University of Michigan I pay the most money to the University for scholarships and we pay retail we don't divert one nickel away from the academic mission of Michigan it's forty three thousand dollars for out-of-state students and seventy percent of our athletes are out of the state twenty three thousand in state all right on top of that I pay about a million to as an overhead charge for the benefit and privilege of being a part of the University and starting this last year I've committed from the athletic budget a million and a half to go to the general fund of the University for need-based scholarship aid for undergraduate students so seven years ago we were losing five million dollars a year and so we've changed this whole thing in seven years and it hasn't been easy or hard to do it's just been a little bit of common sense and patience and it's been fun and you know there's a lot of passion surrounding collegiate athletics all across the country but we all know one thing it's the glue that brings the alumni family back together and everybody benefits from having strong programs particularly in the fall thank you final word thank you I was just to follow up on that just a little bit very early my reporting career I went out to Stanford to write about their program and how well they done everything and the quote that their athletic director at the time Ted Leland left with me was that the rich have the luxury of being philosophically committed and the sad truth is that that explains an awful lot of behavior in intercollegiate athletics everybody wants what Michigan has everybody wants what Georgia has the problem is that if you do not have the history and the culture and the fabric that brings together a group of alumni and supporters and friends around the program like Michigan's and Georgia's it's very difficult to get there and so when you see the colleges that are dropping sports they're making the choice between having a broad based program or being able to devote the resources to the programs they think they're going to get them the benefits that in Michigan or Georgia Ohio State gets and this is the very difficult problem that college athletic programs are facing today in the NCAA with expenses growing so quickly in certain areas and the challenge is going to be are we going to have college athletic programs that benefit a broad array of the student body or they're going to be narrowly focused towards turning out elite athletes who can be on TV on Saturday or Sunday or Monday or Tuesday nights and that is the challenge of both title nine and of college sports generally well I hope that you'll join me in thanking our panelists for a very very interesting discussion and I think that we have time for a little break is that correct before we reassemble at four o'clock for the four o'clock session