THE BCS
OF
TITLE IX COMPLIANCE
“…and the champion for 2004 is ???”
Charles L. Kennedy
Senior Instructor
Political Science Department
Penn State York
August 2004
The division 1A college football season ended with considerable controversy over the
process of determining the national champion. Even though the Bowl Championship
Series (BCS) process determined that the champion was Louisiana State University (LSU);
the University of Southern California (USC) was voted the national champion in the
Associated Press survey. Thus a split decision and plenty of fuel for armchair quarterbacks
to continue the debate. Ironically, the BCS process was established to prevent
controversies such as this, and establish one national champion. The BCS process has been
drastically revised in hopes of eliminating this problem.
Although Monday morning quarterbacks expend considerable time and energy dealing with
the BCS rankings in sports of their favorite college teams, the future of college sports and
arguably, the area of the most controversy deals with compliance decisions involving Title
IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. This bill, which was signed into law by
President Nixon, bans sex discrimination at institutions receiving federal funds.
With the exception of the Vietnam War, Roe v. Wade, and affirmative action, there has
probably been no more controversial issue in America over the past thirty years. Arguably,
there also has been no other issue that has caused such dramatic changes in U.S. society
over the past three decades with the previously noted exceptions.
Since the passage of Title IX, There has been an enormous increase in the number of girls
participating in interscholastic and intercollegiate athletics. According to the Chronicle of
Higher Education in 1970-71, there were 170,384 men who participated in college sports
and only 29,992 women. In 2000-01 there were 208,866 men on college sports teams and
150,916 women. This is a 38.4% increase for men and a fantastic 468.1% increase for
women.
Additionally, there has been an enormous increase in the average number of female athletes
per college. On average there were 114.4 women athletes in 1982 and 199.7 in 2001, an
increase of 74.6%. Conversely there has been a decline in the amount of male athletes per
college. There was an average of 272.5 men on sports teams in 1982 and 266.3 in 2001, a
decline of 2.3%. It is also estimated that 2.7 million girls participate in high school sports,
an 846% increase since 1972.
Title IX has become a continual controversy in intercollegiate athletics. The U.S.
Department of Education has established a “three-part test” governing women’s
participation in sports. In order to be in compliance with the law, colleges must meet one
of the following criteria:
 Have the same proportion of women on sports teams, as there are female
undergraduates
 Have a history and continuing practice of expanding opportunities for
women
 Prove they are fully and effectively accommodating the interests and
abilities of women on its campus
Several factors coalesced in the 1990’s to turn the debate over Title IX into a raging
controversy. College sports increasingly became big business – football and basketball
became major revenue producers. The number of Division I football teams actually
increased. This accelerated the problem of complying with the “substantial
proportionality” rule. To emphasize this point, there are currently 7.1 million women
enrolled in colleges and universities and only 5.6 million men. Thus, 55.9% of the
undergraduate population is female. This has steadily increased since 1972.
This has produced a major dilemma for athletic directors. They need to increase revenue
and the easiest route is successful football and basketball programs. Simultaneously, they
need to increase the number of women in sports in order to comply with Title IX. This has
led to colleges dropping many minor, non-revenue producing men’s sports – wrestling,
tennis, track and field, and swimming.
THE STUDY
As a lifelong sports fan and a current enthusiast of women’s sports, I have constructed a
Bowl Championship Series (BCS) of Title IX Compliance among the major college
football schools.
This Title IX BCS is an attempt to rank the major football universities according to their
compliance with the spirit and intent of Title IX. The variables used in the study are based
on the four criteria suggested by the Chronicle of Higher Education in its study on “gender
equity” in 2004. This is necessitated since the Department of Education’s “history and
continuing practice” and “effectively accommodating” criteria are very subjective,
arguable, and difficult to quantify. (Note: All of the statistics were obtained from the
Chronicle of Higher Education). 1 Their criteria are participation, scholarship, coaching
salaries, and operating expenses. This method was selected in order to give a form of
statistical measurement and verification.
Participation is one of the three federal guidelines for a college to determine if it has
enough opportunities for female athletes. This is the simplest approach and the one most
colleges follow. In this test the percentage of female athletes should be proportional to the
percentage of women in the student body.
For instance, at my school, Penn State, women comprised 46.51% of the total
undergraduates and 43.15% of all athletes in 2004 for a difference of -3.36. This earned
PSU a rank of 6th in the Big Ten. It was above the conference average of -5.96. The
Purdue Boilmakers were +2.42 and the Iowa Hawkeyes ranked last with a score of -8.8.
Scholarship is actually the only purely numerical section of guidelines, issued under Title
IX regulations, governing scholarship funds allocated to women athletes. The
Department’s Office for Civil Rights has specified that colleges must award the same
proportions of aid to female athletes as there are women participating in varsity sports. The
proportion is to be within one percentage point.
Penn State’s proportion of female athletes was 39.65% and the women’s proportion of the
scholarship budget was 40.41% for a difference of +0.76. The Nittany Lions rank 4th in the
Big Ten and above the conference average of -2.4. Iowa was highest with +2.95 and the
Wisconsin Badgers were in the basement with a score of -8.04.
1
http://www.chronicle.com/stats/genderequity/2004
Coaching Salaries is not mandated by Title IX regulations. Equity in salaries, however,
should strongly indicate that the salary for coaches of women’s teams should be equivalent
to the salary of coaches of men’s teams.
At Penn State the proportion for coaches of women’s teams of the salary budget was
34.7%. This earned the Lions first place in the Big Ten well above the conference average
of 29.5. The Michigan State Spartans finished last with only 21.73%.
Operating Expenses is also not included in any specific guidelines. Interestingly,
however, the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act does chart how much of athletic
departments’ budgets should be allocated to women’s teams.
At Penn State the women’s proportion of the operating budget was 28.99%. This earned
the Lions a rank of 8th – below the conference average of 30.51%. Michigan was highest
with 34.02% and Michigan State was again the cellar dweller with 28.75%.
The BCS Title IX champion for the Big Ten was determined by ranking the 11 schools on
all four criteria and then computing the average total rank for each school. Thus, Purdue,
with an average rank of 3.75 would be #1 and Penn State with an average rank of 4.75 was
#3 of the 11 school in the conference. Penn State had finished 1st in 2002 and 2nd in 2003.
Purdue jumped from 3rd in 2003 to Conference Champion in 2004.
The next point of inquiry is to determine how the Big Ten compares with the other major
conferences in the BCS - The Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), Southeastern, Big East,
Big 12, and PAC-10. For purposes of analysis the average score for all the schools in each
conference was computed for each of the four variables. The conferences were ranked on
each variable and then the average rank was computed to rank the conferences 1 – 8. Note:
the Mountain West Conference and the Mid-American Conferences were added in order to
set-up an 8 team BCS playoff system. The Mountain West and Mid-American were
selected over Conference USA and the Western Athletic Conference (WAC). This
decision is based on the belief that the Mountain West and Mid-American Conferences
have fared better in football games against the original BCS members over the past three
years.
THE BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES (BCS)
OF TITLE IX COMPLIANCE:
AVERAGES BY CONFERENCE
CONFERENCE
ACC
BIG EAST (2)
BIG TEN
BIG 12
MOUNTAIN WEST
MID-AMERICAN
PAC-10
SOUTHEASTERN
2
PARTICIPATION
-10.6
-9.8
-5.6
-11.7
-4.5
-11.3
-11.2
-18.9
SCHOLARSHIP
-1.4
1.4
-2.4
-1.6
-4.9
-1.4
0.3
2.8
COACHES
SALARIES
30.7%
29.5%
29.5%
28.4%
34.5%
37.0%
37.1%
32.4%
OPERATING
EXPENSES
25.66%
27.74%
30.51%
29.72%
31.37%
36.99%
29.04%
28.62%
Only the nine colleges in Division 1-A were considered for the compilation of the BCS
rankings.
There are several interesting items that literally jump off the page in examining the above
data. The first item deals with participation. All of the conferences finished with a
negative ratio between percentage of women in the student body and the percentage of
student athletes. The Mountain West was highest with a -4.5 differential, followed by the
Big Ten with -5.6. Interestingly, the Southeastern Conference finished a very distant last at
-18.9. This participation problem is accentuated by the continuing increase in
undergraduate female enrollment. It should be noted that the average number of women
enrolled is over 50% in six of the conferences. Only the ACC (48%) and the Big 12 (49%)
are below 50%. The Mid-American Conference is highest with the 55% female students
and the Mountain West second at 53%.
On the proportion of scholarships, which is supposed to be within one percent, three of the
conferences on average were in compliance (Big East, PAC-10, and Southeastern).
Additionally, the Southeastern (2.8) and the Big East (1.4) exceeded the recommended
guideline.
In dealing with both participation and scholarships it is worth examining the average
number of intercollegiate athletic teams in each conference. The Big Ten has an average of
21 teams (10 male and 11 female) followed by the Big East and the Pacific 10 with 19
teams. The Mountain West finished last with an average of 15 teams. All of the
conferences average more women’s teams than men’s teams with the exception of the
ACC, which has a 50-50 ratio of nine each.
The information on undergraduate enrollment, number of teams, as well as the total
average budget for men’s and women’s teams per conference is contained in the following
chart.
CONFERENCE
UNDERGRAD FEMALE
ENROLLMENT
NUMBER OF
ATHLETIC TEAMS
TOTAL
ACC
BIG EAST
BIG TEN
BIG 12
MOUNTAIN WEST
MID-AMERICAN
PAC-10
SOUTHEASTERN
48%
52%
50%
49%
53%
55%
51%
52%
18
19
21
16
15
16
19
16
(M-F)
(9-9)
(9-10)
(10-11)
(7-9)
(7-8)
(7-9)
(9-10)
(7-9)
TOTAL BUDGET BUDGET
MEN & WOMEN
RANK
SPORTS (MILLIONS)
$19.96
$18.56
$25.74
$20.75
$12.98
$8.65
$23.84
$22.22
The Big Ten is the biggest spender on men’s and women’s sports – averaging $25.74
million per college. The PAC – 10 is a distant second-spending an average of $23.84
million per college. The Southeastern Conference is 3rd at $22.22 million. It should be
emphasized, however, that the Big Ten’s athletic budget of $25.74 covers 21 teams for any
average of $1.23 million per team. The Southeastern Conference averages only 16 teams,
so they actually spend more per team, $1.39 million, than the Big Ten and the PAC-10 at
$1.21 million per team.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, the budgets for men’s and women’s sports for the
Mountain West and the Mid-American Conferences are the lowest with an average of
$12.98 and $8.65 million, respectively. This translates to an average of $865,000 for each
5
6
1
4
7
8
2
3
of the 15 teams in the Mountain West and only $540,000 for each of the 16 teams in the
Mid-American conference. When compared to the average of $1.39 million for the 16
teams in the Southeastern Conference, it certainly begs the question, “How can they
possibly compete with the major division 1-A football powers?” But they have and they
will. These numbers arguably also underscore the demand of Conferences such as the
Mid-American, Mountain West, the WAC, and Conference USA to be included in the
Bowl Championship Series and get their slice of the pie.
RANKINGS BY CONFERENCE
BCS OF TITLE IX COMPLIANCE
CONFERENCE
ACC
BIG EAST
BIG TEN
BIG 12
MOUNTAIN WEST
MID-AMERICAN
PAC-10
SOUTHEASTERN
3
PARTICIPATION
SCHOLARSHIP
4
3
2
7
1
6
5
8
4.5
2
7
6
8
4.5
3
1
COACHES
SALARIES
5
6
7
8
2
1
4
3
OPERATING
EXPENSES
8
7
3
4
2
1
5
6
TOTAL
RANK
21.5
18
19
25
13
12.5
17
18
AVG
RANK
7
5
6
8
2
1
3
43
Wins tie break for the fourth place due to a #1 finish in scholarship.
Interestingly, the two Conferences that spend the least amount of money on sports, the
Mid-American and the Mountain West, finished first and second respectively. The MidAmerican actually finished first in two categories – coaching salaries and operating
expenses. The Mountain West finished first in participation, whereas, the Southeastern
Conference finished first in scholarship.
The next step would be to determine the individual champions for each conference. They
will be determined by the same process as described above – each school will be ranked
according to the four criteria of participation, scholarships, coaching salaries, and operating
expenses. The scores for each college is listed in the following chart.
Note: All conferences were based on 2003-04 alignments.
BCS GENDER EQUITY RANKING OF TEAMS PER CONFERENCE
1-
2MID AMERICAN
MOUNTAIN WEST
1-Ohio
1-Utah
2-Central Michigan
2-San Diego State
3.5-Ball State
3.5-Brigham Young
3.5-Buffalo
3.5-New Mexico
6-Kent State
5-Colorado State
6-Eastern Michigan
6-Wyoming
6-Bowling Green
7-Nevada-Las Vegas
8-Toledo
9-Northern Illinois
*Air Force 4
10-Western Michigan
11-Akron
12-Marshall
4 Data for Air Force Academy not listed
3-
4PACIFIC 10
SOUTHEASTERN
1-Stanford
1-Georgia
2.5-California
2-Florida
2.5-Oregon State
3.5-Louisiana State
4.5-Washington
3.5-Arkansas
4.5-UCLA
5-Tennessee
6-Arizona
6-South Carolina
7-Washington State
7.5-Auburn
8-USC
7.5-Mississippi
9-Arizona State
9-Mississippi State
10-Oregon
10-Alabama
11-Vanderbilt
12-Kentucky
5-
BIG EAST
1-Connecticut
2-Notre Dame
3-Rutgers
4-Syracuse
5-Virgina Tech
6-West Virginia
7-Miami
8-Boston College
9-Pitt
6-
BIG TEN
1-Purdue
2-Michigan
3-Penn State
4-Northwestern
5-Ohio State
6-Indiana
7-Illinois
8-Wisconsin
9-Minnesota
10-Iowa
11-Michigan St
7-
ACC
1-Maryland
2-North Carolina
3-North Carolina St
4-Florida State
5-Duke
6-Virginia
7.5-Wake Forest
7.5-Georgia Tech
9-Clemson
8-
BIG 12
1-Missouri
2-Iowa State
3-Kansas
4-Nebraska
5-Kansas State
6.5-Texas A&M
6.5-Texas Tech
8-Oklahoma
9-Texas
10-Baylor
11.5-Colorado
11.5-Oklahoma St
Ohio University is the runaway champion in the Mid-American Conference, placing far
ahead of 2nd place Central Michigan. The Bobcats ranked first in both salary (40.9%) and
operating expenses (41.7). The Marshall Thundering Herd finished a distant last with two
12th place finishes and one eleventh position.
Utah repeated as the champion in the Mountain West. The Utes were paced by 1st place
finishes in scholarship and expenses. San Diego State finished 2nd and UNLV was a distant
last.
Stanford repeated as champions in the PAC-10 with two first place positions (participation
and expenses). The California Golden Bears and the Oregon State Beavers tied for second.
The Oregon Ducks finished in last place, narrowly edging out the Arizona State Sun
Devils.
Georgia was also a repeat champion for the 2nd straight year in the Southeastern
Conference. The Bulldogs narrowly edged the Florida Gators, also for the second
consecutive year. The Wildcats of Kentucky were a distant last place finisher in the 12
team conference.
The UCONN Huskies again were the champions of the Big East. First place finishes in
salary and expenses enabled the Huskies to edge out the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame. The
Pitt Panthers finished a dismal last, also for the second straight year.
The big upset occurred in the Big Ten, where the Purdue Boilermakers edged out the
Michigan Wolverines and the Nittany Lions of Penn State to win the championship. The
2003 champion, Ohio State, dropped to fifth place. The basement was the sole possession
of the Spartans of Michigan State.
The Maryland Terrapins also repeated as champions in the Atlantic Coast Conference.
First place finishes in scholarship and expenses enabled the Terrapins to run away from
their closest challengers, the North Carolina Tar Heels and the Wolfpack of NC State. The
Clemson Tigers finished a distant last.
In the Big 12 the Missouri Tigers edged Iowa State for the championship. Colorado and
Oklahoma State finished in a tie for last place, far behind the field.
Thus, the “elite eight” finalists for the Bowl Championship Series of Title IX Compliance
are: Ohio University, Utah, Stanford, Georgia, Connecticut, Purdue, Maryland, and
Missouri. The teams will be seeded in the tournament according to the BCS ranking of
their conference. Thus, the pairings will be:
SEED
CONFERENCE
TEAM
1
8
Mid-America
Big 12
Ohio
Missouri
4
5
Southeastern
Big East
Georgia
UCONN
2
7
Mountain West
ACC
Utah
Maryland
3
6
Pac-10
Big Ten
Stanford
Purdue
CHAMPION
In the battles between the number one (Ohio), and the number eight (Missouri), the winner
is determined in the head to head competition in the four variables of measurement:




Participation = P
Scholarships = S
Coaching Salaries = CS
Operating Expenses = OE
( Indicates win)
The format would be as follows:
P
S
1-Ohio
-10.7
2.55
8-Missouri
-13.0
6.14
CS
40.9
35.9
OE
41.7
36.8
Total Wins
3
1
Thus, Ohio would defeat Missouri, since they won three of the four variables.
The other competitions in the first round yield the following results.
P
S
CS
OE
4-Georgia
-10.9
2.85
41.0
34.65
5-UCONN
-2.05
-0.27
40.1
40.2
Total Wins
2
2
In a rematch of last year’s national championship in which Georgia narrowly defeated
UCONN, the Bulldogs & Huskies faced off in the quarter finals. Since this match ended in
a 2-2 tie, it was necessary to utilize the tie-break provision. This is done by determining
which school has the greatest differentials among the variables. Thus, UCONN, with a
differential of +13.72, is the winner and advances to the Final Four. The Bulldogs are
eliminated and will not be able to repeat as national champions.
The other two contests were both decided by 3-1 margins
1-Utah
7-Maryland
P
-2.04
-1.86
S
-1.2
2.3
CS
33.6
33.9
OE
33.2
30.2
Total Wins
1
3
In a series of very close contests in which the differential actually favored Utah, Maryland
upsets the number two seed and advances to the semi-finals.
P
S
CS
OE
Total Wins
3-Stanford
0.0
1.96
38.0
39.2
3
6-Purdue
2.42
-1.67
32.4
30.67
1
Stanford defeats Purdue 3-1 paced by the Cardinal’s high scores on Coaching Salaries and
Operating Expenses.
SIMI-FINALS
Thus, the match-ups for the semi-finals are:
P
S
CS
1-Ohio
-10.7
2.55
40.9
5-UCONN
-2.05
-0.27
40.1
OE
41.7
40.2
Total Wins
3
1
7-Maryland
3-Stanford
30.2
39.2
1
3
-1.86
0.0
2.3
1.96
33.9
38.0
The finalists for the Bowl Championship Series of Title IX Compliance are the #1 seed Ohio
University Bobcats from the Mid-American Conference and the Stanford Cardinal from the
PAC-10. Ohio earned its spot by edging UCONN and eliminating last year’s runner-up in
these variables for a 3-1 win. Stanford advanced 3-1 over Maryland with decisive victories
again in coaching salaries and operating expenses. The Cardinals, a perennial contender and
last year’s 3rd place finisher, enter the championship match as heavy favorites.
FINALS
In the showdown for the national championship Ohio prevails over Stanford 3-1 with even
higher scores in coaching salaries and operating expenses.
P
S
CS
OE
Total Wins
1-Ohio
-10.7
2.55
40.9
41.7
3
3-Stanford
0.0
1.96
38.0
39.2
1
NATIONAL CHAMPION OF TITLE IX COMPLIANCE = OHIO UNIVERISTY
It should be emphasized that this study does not attempt to pass judgment, beyond the
obvious implication that the four variables of proportionality, scholarship, coaching,
salaries, and operating expenses are valid, reliable, and measurable indicators of Title IX
compliance. The decisions on the actual standards need to be addressed by the participants
and the policy makers. As a strong sports fan of both men and women’s sports, I sincerely
hope that this study will enlighten, increase, and intensify the debate on this vitally
important issue