Oh yeah, proof that most title 9 proponents are feminists:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&ved=0CFUQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wcl.american.edu%2Fjournal%2Fgenderlaw%2F12%2Fbrake.pdf&ei=mzChUqamLtOE2gXOtoFY&usg=AFQjCNG3D9lPLKYbubaSeldrnikOeh7GiQ&sig2=YF8jiNikVx0ImVf919fg8g&bvm=bv.57155469,d.b2II have a theory as to why feminists push on this so hard, too. Its sort of bout social engineering what they think is equality in a sociopathic way, disregarding whether or not millions of other females might like the things they hate. And that's bad, yes. But I think there is also a money interest to this, which ties into this question:
This seems rather relevant. Why are there no alternates? Cirque du Soleil acrobats have alternates.
The lack of training which would teach the good sense to do things like what you just asked is only barely paid for by the state, and here is how they train coaches:
http://www.aacca.org/coursefinder.aspxYeah. I won't get into the money issue though unless anyone is interested, since I can't find any evidence for it except the existence of varsity, and the HUGE prices parents have to pay for competitive cheerleading, and a few other things.
Anyway. That's my two cents. Tell me what you think.