Sportsgeekonomics

Musings on Sports Economics

Title IX Archive

Big Picture: Myth 6: We can’t pay them or else we’d violate Title IX

Title IX in its own words

See also, Myth 4 of

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2014/01/paying_college_athletes_a_point_by_point_evisceration_of_the_ridiculous.3.html

New York Times editorial on Title IX and paying athletes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/opinion/sunday/pay-for-play-and-title-ix.html  

A theoretical model to explain why Title IX won’t lower women’s funding if men’s funding is set by the market: http://sportsgeekonomics.tumblr.com/post/82682936330/a-simple-generic-example-of-how-title-ix-might-work-in

More detailed analyses:

Title IX: What It Does and Doesn’t Require.  (includes Georgia case study)

Title IX … second case study: Florida State

Third (and final, for today) Title IX analysis: Clemson

Title IX doesn’t work like you think (Alabama & Auburn)

New analyses using 2010-2011 data:

“Title IX doesn’t work like you think it does” 2010-11 analysis, Part I

“Title IX doesn’t work like you think it does” 2010-11 analysis, Part II

“Title IX doesn’t work like you think it does” 2010-11 analysis, Part III

“Title IX doesn’t work like you think it does” 2010-11 analysis, Part IV

Title IX doesn’t work like you think: Butler needs to give men more money

Also useful:

Quick Explanation: Counter vs. Equivalency Sports