This is a GREAT picture.  I wonder who won the match!  the black team, showing uninhibited ferocity, or the blue team, protecting their face? 

There have been great strides in establishing and promoting women's sports. Now the question is have these strides stalled? In this day and age if there is enough interest from women then the sport will receive the attention it deserves to consider it a varsity sport. 

I suspect the reason Rugby is not a full fledged and participative sport among all colleges is because the interest is not there. If there is enough interest in intermurals or club sports then it is natural to consider it for a varsity sport. I would wager (liberally) that there is a general lack of interest in women's Rugby from the point of view of the female participants and from the point of view of college students who would watch and enjoy watching women's Rugby.  

Keeping things in perspective, Swimming has a high interest not only as a varsity sport, but as a recreational endeavor by a large percentage of students. Same with Basketball, Football, Hockey, Track or running....  Whereas Rugby may have passing interest it is not played recreationally by a large percentage or even moderate percentage of females. Same with Ping Pong. That is why these sports are not Varsity sports.  

Making a sport a Varsity sport for the sake of demonstrating the power of being able to do so is a mistake. 

Donna Lopiano is excessively hung up on the proportionality prong of the test, and has been throughout her career.  The necessary bit of research is whether women across the populace are as interested in sports as men, justifying strict adherence to the proportionality prong.  The statistical difficulty of extrapolating that data and applying it to a 'moving target' within institutions of higher learning turn athletic departments into full-time survey, fulfillment and compliance businesses, a big step removed from their mission.  Thus, two other prongs are available to meet compliance...the lawyers are still winning.

Universities helped created this athletic monster, and the espirit de corps and national level awareness crossover to the educational institutions often translate to greater application rates and matriculation.  However, Universities' relinquishing fiscal control and insisting Division I athletic departments be self-supporting has forced this arms race.  I love college football as much as the next guy, yet as a swim coach, would prefer to see a spending cap to insure boys with Olympic sport interest/talent have greater opportunities to continue their sporting careers post high school.  The Olympic medal tally will only get more disparate in future quadrenniums without such resources.  Further,  women's sports benefit from a companion male sport:  capital/facility expenditures, staff and equipment are much harder to justify when only one gender has the opportunity without the long shadow of lawyers pointing a metaphorical gun at said institution's head.  

Some kid or coach has a whim that such and such a sport ought to be fun at a school or college, so they demand that authorities start such a program for women, no matter the surrounding circumstances. Something is way out of wack when there is absoluteness to the use of Title IX to provide women with a counter for every sport played by men at an institution.  Perhaps a more sensible way to run athletic programs, particularly at public schools where parents can not afford every fee the school athletic autorities demand, might be to cut a boy's team, or singular participant sport, for every sport offered to females. Let's see how far that kind of "fairness" would carry under Title IX.

If no one watches a sport, does it really exist??

What do FBS and FCS refer to in the article? These acronyms are used but not explained.

FBS is the Football Bowl subdivision, formerly division 1a....nortre dame, boston college, etc.  

FCS is Football Championship subdivision, formerly 1aa....Harvard, Holy Cross, UNH