This is about the numbers.

Stay focused, and think of it like high school calculus. OK, bad example, but at least take notes. Because the spin dripping from former ISU softball coach Ruth Crowe’s statements regarding her recent settlement with the athletics department can be more confusing than finding the derivative of a quadratic function.

Here’s the scenario: Crowe coached at Iowa State for nine seasons. She won 166 games and lost 244. 166 divided by 410 total games coached equals a .404 winning percentage … err, .405 once we round. Add it all up, and you have 0 winning seasons.

Crowe filed a wrongful-termination lawsuit after she was fired in 2005. She claimed, according to the Des Moines Register, that she was terminated for complaining about an inequitable compensation for coaches in women’s sports.

A five-woman and two-man jury  ruled in favor of Crowe. Iowa State planned to appeal, but then settled. The price tag?

$425,000 — from the state’s general fund (you, the tax payer).

Divide that with her lawyers and Crowe comes away with $275,000 — her lawyers, a cool $150,000.

The Register article reported Crowe said it wasn’t her intention to collect a large settlement. She told the Register, “this was my way of showing that these things don’t make sense and there is a responsibility to provide comparable opportunity to everyone in athletics.”

Are there some problems in equality for women’s athletics? Probably. Does Crowe’s lawsuit raise awareness for those inequalities? Maybe. Is making the people of Iowa pay $425,000 the right way to raise awareness? No. This wasn’t about raising awareness, this was about raising money for herself.

Seems like Crowe fell asleep during our math lesson. Crowe said she was unaware her job was in jeopardy. Unaware? Remember zero winning seasons? She definitely was treated differently. Somehow she stayed around for nine years.

Her replacement, Stacy Gehmeinhardt-Cesler, won 29 games in her third season, and lost 29. That’s a .500 winning percentage. She can win.

But, remember, this is about her being treated unfairly. It could have happened — after all, the jury ruled in favor of Crowe. Or she could have been fired for her comments that described Texas A&M fans as “dumb farmers,” her refusal to attend fund raising functions, and complaints from players and parents.

Either way, take the numbers, plug them into the formula, and the sum is negative.

Negative $425,000 to be exact — of your tax money.

Point made, Ruth.