The College agrees that if, upon commencing the 2013-2014 season, it has not met 85% of its recruiting goal for women's intercollegiate sports at that time, it will halt its recruitment for men's tier II and III sports until such time as its recruitment for women's intercollegiate sports reaches at least 85% of the level outlined in this agreement..."
So, less participation by women would mean opportunities for men needs to be reduced? This is typical of liberal thought: it's not about opportunity, it is about ensuring a pie in the sky outcome.
I know there have been reduction and elimination of mens’ programs with Title IX included in much of the debate. Here is one column from 2011 that talks of the University of Delaware.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/sports/02gender.html?_r=0
From the column: “Rather than spend money on expanding sports for women, many universities have instead cut mens teams in order to comply with the proportionality method. The practice is frowned upon by the Office for Civil Rights, but it is not prohibited.”
You ever notice it is never ’till there are no poor no more? Same approach here.