The mandate should have been to freeze participation in men's sports (so that they could not be reduced to meet any requirements in Title IX), and instead require INCREASE where necessary, in women's sports.  It would have meant better control over finances, and limitations on spending on men's sports, especially considering what they have become.  Have males lost opportunities in order to increase female opportunitiies?  There is a "football player" and "basketball player" class of athlete, and then everyone else, basically.  Title IX has caused the focus to be upon football and basketball with female sports equivalencies, that cut down on the number and diversity of male sports offered at colleges.  There is no question that males lost in order that females gain.  It should have been a mandate that females gain and a prohibition on males to losing.  In other words, "win-no loss".  Title IX is blemished because it did not do that.  Arguments to the contrary are sexist.