[Preface: Great debate! I've tried to address what appears to be the factual basis in this debate. I understand that substituting sexism for racism is wrought with emotional overtones for many -- but the fact is that both arise from the same basic human traits and both in my opinion are wrong.]

>>[Big Daddy] Our debate wasn't about college athletics in general, or funding in particular. Its about soccer, and college scholarships. Period. And the facts.....are that girls have appreciably more opportunity than boys to get college scholarships. And the reason for this.....is an
attempt on the part of society to engineer a solution, a remedy as it were, for past wrongs.<<

What I don't accept is your fundamental premise that you can discuss soccer with respect to college scholarships outside of college scholarships for all sports. It seems to me to be a fundamentally silly point of view that you can somehow separate different sports and ask for "fairness" or "equality" and disregard everything else going on within the athletic department of a college.

>>If fairness is the question, is this fair?<<

Of course it is, because you fundamentally can't attempt to redefine the problem of "fairness" to a single sport while ignoring the spending of the athletic program of a college overall. To do so is absurd and self-serving...surely you see that?

>>The fact that America spends a fortune on football shouldn't be the justfication for unfairly treating male soccer players.<<

Of course it should given that "America" in this defintion are state and federal governments that fund a portion of these "academic" institutions. Trying to somehow eliminate "football" (or basketball, or baseball, etc.) from the equation means that you inherently make the decision that some types of "unfairness" or "inequality" are okay.

>>The fact that woman HAVE been artifically limited over the last 100 years.....cannot be undone by giving out 3-4 additional soccer scholarships per year.<<

Let's see -- since Title IX was passed female participation in sports at the high school level has gone from 1 in 27 in 1972 to 1 in 2.5 in 2002. It would appear to me that there have been some fundamental changes wrought by trying to increase the gender equity with respect to athletic spending in our universities.

>>We cannot compare football and soccer. We can only compare soccer to soccer.<<

Fundamentally untrue, as much of this thread demonstrates. We can compare anything to anything. Of course, the question is whether the comparison has merit. You are attempting to make the argument that we should eliminate certain male-only sports-related spending and take into account only inter-gender spending within one or more sports. While I certainly understand the basis of your argument, I don't and can't agree with it.

If you want to advance the argument that the NCAA should have rules that allow universities more flexibility in terms of individual programs, I have no issue with that. If you want to advance the argument that universities should give out the same number of scholarships for men's and women's soccer, I have no issue with that. If you want to advance the argument that public education spending shouldn't be spent on sports, I have no issue with that. However, I do have an issue with the argument that we should exempt certain male-dominated sports spending from the overall drive toward increasing equity within college athletic departments in some type of "college athletic spending apartheid" theory.

Fundamentally, here's what my definition of "fairness" is. I think in our system today that our best athletes should have a proportionally equal chance to participate and receive proportionally equal money for participating at government-subsidized institutions. Thus, if a young Terrell Owens or Randy Moss want to play football or soccer, they should have an equal chance to participate and receive funding regardless of the sport they choose as does a young Cheryl Miller or Mia Hamm. Anything else would appear to me to be fundamentally unfair.