← Previous Post: | Next Post:

 

“[T]he rampant cut of nonrevenue sports at universities has become a disturbing trend.”

From the New York Times:

… Sports like rowing … are left to suffer.

Last year, the University of Maryland cut seven varsity sports. In 2006, Rutgers chopped six. The week that Temple announced its cuts, Robert Morris, a private university near Pittsburgh, announced that seven varsity teams were on their way out.

Obviously, none of the sports on the block were football or basketball…

What kind of a business case can you make for a sport like rowing, which is not even one conducive to spectators (because the course is 2,000 meters long), much less one that makes no money for the university? Well, a weak one, if any. But that’s the whole point of amateurism, the quality that is supposed to fuel college sports in the first place.

… But is this latest round of cuts the end at Temple? What if the football team doesn’t start generating big bucks, enough to sustain the smaller programs?

You have to wonder if we will wake up one day, glance at the sports offered at the Temples, the Marylands and the Rutgerses of the world and see two words left: Football. Basketball.

Keep the American university a lean mean money-losing machine. Without revenue, more and more courses will go online. Eventually the only non-virtual campus activities will be football games and post-game riots.

Margaret Soltan, December 23, 2013 6:25AM
Posted in: sport

Trackback URL for this post:
https://www.margaretsoltan.com/wp-trackback.php?p=42504

7 Responses to ““[T]he rampant cut of nonrevenue sports at universities has become a disturbing trend.””

  1. Dave Stone Says:

    I thought the question “what kind of a business case” in the original article was a little disingenuous. The author raises the question of Title IX only to disregard it. But looking at the math (the article’s a little ambiguous), either four or five of the seven teams cut were men’s teams. That certainly helps the university keep the necessary number of women athletes to balance out the massive number of men athletes needed to run (in Temple’s case) an uncompetitive and money-losing football team.

  2. Margaret Soltan Says:

    Dave: Yes – and then the only question is why they’re insisting on continuing to run an uncompetitive and money-losing football team.

  3. Dave Stone Says:

    Yeah–that’s always puzzled me too. There IS a kind of sense in using massive surpluses from your football team to subsidize wrestling or softball. But if your football team’s losing money . . . well, it’s like the old _I Love Lucy_ where she lost money on every bottle of salad dressing but planned on making it up in volume. http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions_of_a_community_college_dean/making_it_up_in_volume

  4. gtwma Says:

    I think the money losing football schools have relied on the unconvincing argument that its about getting students to notice you (admissions) and keeping alumni in touch (donations). I think the evidence on both is weak.

    Over the next few decades, I think you will see most of the bottom half of D1 programs drop down a level, as the bigger schools will cut a deal with the NFL and cut the NCAA out of the picture. The bigger schools will focus on turning those non-revenue sports that they can into revenue (or at least break-even) sports (e.g., hockey and wrestling in the Big Ten; baseball in the west and Southeast), while eliminating those they cannot.

  5. Mr Punch Says:

    There is actually a “business case” for crew, which has been said to be attractive to the kind of applicants who pay full freight.

  6. JND Says:

    Over 30% of the students who come to the DIII school at which I teach come here to play intercollegiate sports. Sports are a major recruiting tool that bring us — tuition-paying students.

    Is there some reason the geniuses at DI schools can’t do this with so-called nonrevenue sports?

    Boathouse row is a beautiful place. How could Temple walk away for losing football?

  7. Dave Stone Says:

    JND: biggest reason is Title IX. If you’re going to give 100 men scholarships to play football and basketball, then federal law says, in effect, you’ve got to give scholarships to an equivalent number of women. There are other paths under Title IX to show you’re providing equal opportunity, but most schools just go with this.

    NCAA also frowns on starving non-revenue sports of scholarships when you’re giving them to the big boys.

Comment on this Entry

Latest UD posts at IHE

Archives

Categories