Reports from Washington say that a complicated new education bill includes a section that—for better or worse—could emasculate college sport. The bill is said to require equity between men's and women's activities. If the men's basketball coach is paid $23,000, then the coach of women's basketball must be paid $23,000. If the football team has nine coaches, then the same number of coaches must be provided in women's sports. Most significantly, half of all athletic scholarships must go to women; if a school has 150 athletic scholarships to disburse, 75 of them go to women.
The colleges would have five years to comply with the new regulations but must show signs of progress in that direction before the five years are up. If they do not, sanctions would be invoked. Federal funds for the school—for buildings, special projects, ROTC and the like—would be cut off.
The proposal seems extreme, considering the prominence that men's sports have in intercollegiate competition, but the other extreme is what prompts such legislation. For example, at the University of Oklahoma, currently on probation because of football recruiting violations, a women's group asked the athletic department for a financial report. The athletics business manager said that long-range obligations for capital improvements came to $4,277,475 and that current obligations for the football field, the track and a combination dormitory and golf facility totaled $611,417. Even so, he said, and despite losses over a three-year period of $62,000, $97,000 and $22,000, he would be able to make budget adjustments that could provide $1,500 for women's athletics during the second semester.
Women's place in sport may be gaining wider and wider recognition, but not in the dog-show world, even though the majority of people who show dogs are women. At a recent meeting the 90-year-old American Kennel Club cautiously rejected an amendment to its constitution that would have allowed women to be AKC delegates. The greater part of the 202 delegates present (itself a record attendance) voted in favor of deleting the word "male" from the rule that reads, "The voting power of each member club or association can and shall be exercised only by a male delegate," but the 127-74 vote (there was one illegal ballot) was 25 votes short of the three-fourths required to pass.
Not that the AKC is a stodgy, stick-in-the-mud organization. The question of women's rights has come up before—21 years ago, to be specific—and was much more soundly defeated. Next time maybe women will break through. And perhaps next time will be sometime this year rather than, say, 1995, another 21 years in the future.
ST. LOUIS OF ST. LOUIS
Unlike pro football's annual draft of college players, major league baseball's draft of free agents excites relatively little interest. A shame, too, for this year's produced three name ballplayers. The California Angels came up with Daniel Boone, a sharpshooting lefthander, while the Cleveland Indians picked a genuine bonus baby in James Baby. The Cardinals could have had the best of all, but missed the boat. They let the Montreal Expos grab Pitcher Michael St. Louis.
UP HERE IN THE BOOTH
The biggest football news of the 1974 season was made last week when ABC-TV announced that Don Gifford or Frank Meredith, one of those fellows, will be back on the Monday evening talkathon again next year. The other chap will be there, too, the one who sells the underwear. Roone Arledge, the ABC-TV sports chief, also admitted what everybody had already noticed: the genial Duffy Daugherty, master of the post-game quip when he was coaching Michigan State, was "disappointing" as a color commentator on college football games. Arledge said, "Duffy's greatest contribution was to make Bud Wilkinson look better. Duffy is great at dinners and banquets, but he hasn't yet mastered the art of getting on and off the mike during a game broadcast. He'll be back next year in some capacity, but we'll have to see where."