Title IX just means equality in opportunity, facilities, practice time, room/board, travel, etc. It is somewhat open to interpretation with some things - travel, facilities, etc. I doubt any program will get called out because the mens locker room has 17 TVs and the womens only has 13. But if the women were forced to share a locker room with the general student body at the rec center and the men had their own locker room, that would be problematic.
The dollars don't necessarily matter. It is about the opportunity. Football and hockey are expensive sports to put on from an equipment standpoint. Cross country and soccer aren't. So if the football team is rocking brand new fancy helmets, pads, and the best Nike cleats money can buy while the womens cross country team was wearing used shoes to run in, that would be problematic. At SLU the men and women's basketball teams practice in similar environments, play in the exact same arena, wear the same brand jerseys, shoes, etc. They both get nickeldicked on charter flights. They both take buses to places. They live in the same dorms. Etc. Same thing goes with mens/womens soccer.
It isn't necessarily full scholarships that have to be equal either. It is the opportunity. Schools with football can't possibly have equal numbers of scholarship athletes because there are 80+ on that side and no women's sport could come close. Cross country, indoor track, and outdoor track programs are popular because you can double count them for the D1 requirements while using a lot of the same athletes and scholarship dollars. The volume of participants on those teams versus the scholarship limit (I want to say in the 10 range per squad) make it a good investment from an "opportunity" standpoint even though it will always lose money overall (minus a team that has a benefactor.)