A percentage of the college football bowl season is fun, like out-of-conference matchups between Michigan State and Stanford; a percentage is meaningful, like the national championship game between Florida State and Auburn; a significant percentage might only be watchable for hard core or local fans, like at least half of the 35 bowls in a given year; a percentage is frustrating, like the BCS match up between Alabama and Oklahoma (which should have been Oregon at the least); with much more of the BCS pie still unaccounted for, a certain percentage also represents the amount of money generated by the games, and how much of it is dispersed to other athletic programs

According to a recent article by Runner's World, twenty percent of bowl participants have either dropped or cut funding for their men's running programs, whether track or cross country. Some of that percentage is inflated by Title IX and its rules forcing schools to have a more equal distribution between men's and women's team. Yet, Title IX can be overcome with the right amount of funding. College's cut programs because they believe their budget can't sustain them in light of the women's programs they are obligated to either add or fund in greater depth, not because they are required to by law.

Thus, twenty percent of schools generating substantial profits from bowl games and likely performing even better during the regular season aren't putting any of that money into certain running programs. Though many have argued that profitable sports like football and basketball fund profit-less sports like pretty much every other college sport, the stat remains: twenty percent of bowl schools aren't doing it when it comes to men's running. Are they justified?

Whether or not schools take advantage of the expanded rules regarding player gifts during bowl season, Runner's World points out their potential excess and how the money could fund running programs. Players are allowed to receive gifts from bowl sponsors valuing up to $550 and additional gifts from the school for $400. If every player on a 125-man roster (the NCAA max) received $950 in gifts, that total could cover 14 percent of an average cross country or track-and-field's budget for one season, according to Runner's World.

Runner's World then provided a list of the football programs that make up the twenty percent and the gifts their players will be receiving. USC (9-4) who opened up bowl season with a blowout win over Fresno State and cut men's cross country in 1994 (you may not read those two facts in the same sentence ever again so savor the combination), gave players (in combination with the bowl's sponsor) a Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 tablet, a beanie, an Oakley Flak Pack XL backpack, a football, and a Zappos gift card. South Carolina (only SEC team without a men's cross country program) players made out even better with a $450 Best Buy gift card, a Timely Watch Co. watch, and a Russell Athletic workout shirt, according to Runner's World.

It's easy to make a counter argument against Runner's World's investigations. College football players make their schools a ton of money, they're under more pressure than almost every other athlete, they have a much more involved schedule than a typical Division I runner (I ran DIII cross country, but I know that even at good DI schools athletes have a great deal of flexibility when it comes to scheduling), and they participate in a much more popular sport. They deserve the gifts they get. Still, Runner's World's fine piece of journalism also demonstrated just how rich football programs really are: They take what they earn, give some to lesser programs, and seem to be left with a substantial amount (based on the excessive gifts and the profitability of bowl games) that some aren't willing to offer to men's running programs.