Title IX (branched from "Men on Strike")

Branched from this thread

Quote: Gabes22

The bigger issue with Title IX IMO, is that there is a greater market for boys to get into sports, but just about the same amount of positions throughout the school. Most schools these days do not have boys volleyball, although, I would tend to think that it is a sport boys would like to play competitively. This interest gap is why you see such a much wider talent gap in female sports to males sports, the interest just isn't there to make it as competitive

Men's volleyball is a "regional sport"; while it's played everywhere, it's heavily concentrated in southern California. (Men's lacrosse is similar; schools in California play it, but its strength is along the Atlantic coast.) On the other hand, women's volleyball is strong nationwide. Here's how many schools play NCAA volleyball:
Women, Division I - 334 Schools
Women, Division II - 309 schools
Women, Division III - 433 schools
Men (all divisions combined) - 113 schools

Also, a main problem with Title IX isn't an interest imbalance, but a spending balance requirement; what you spend on football or men's basketball, you have to match in all-women's teams, and never mind what your school makes in terms of the football or men's basketball TV contract money (which doesn't apply anyway if you're not a Division I (and FBS at that, for football) school, and almost 90% of the NCAA schools are not); you can't use it to offset men's sports expenditures using the "it's men's sports revenues, so why should half of it have to go to women's sports?" defense. This is one reason why there are a number of sports (e.g. bowling; rugby; triathlon) where the NCAA allows for women's scholarships but not men's.

I understand most schools don't allow it, however it is a Title IX casualty. Most schools do have a female counterbalance for football, so a sport that has male participation, such as volleyball, has to get nuked.