The Reasons Behind NCAA Division I Sport Elimination

The landscape of college sports is undergoing a significant transformation, marked by financial pressures, legal battles, and evolving priorities. This article delves into the multifaceted reasons behind the elimination of NCAA Division I sports programs, exploring the economic realities, Title IX considerations, and the impact of major legal settlements.

The Financial Crisis in College Athletics

College sports find themselves in a state of crisis, as highlighted by Joe Moglia in a Sports Business Journal article. The NCAA faces numerous legal challenges, while revenue sports like football and basketball experience unchecked financial growth. This imbalance increasingly disadvantages smaller schools and non-revenue sports. The focus on compensating a small percentage of Division I athletes (around 23% earning NIL dollars) overshadows the needs of the majority, including the approximately 83,000 NAIA athletes.

Bryn Athyn College in Pennsylvania, for example, eliminated all 11 of its NCAA sports teams and its club hockey team to address a $3.4 million deficit. The school's president described the move as "a necessary step" for the institution's survival. This decision, while difficult, reflects the harsh financial realities faced by many smaller institutions.

Lindenwood University, just one year after reclassifying to NCAA Division I, discontinued nine NCAA sports, including men’s lacrosse, men’s swimming & diving, men’s tennis, men’s indoor track & field, men’s outdoor track & field, men’s wrestling, women’s field hockey, women’s gymnastics, and women’s swimming and diving. This decision, framed as "Rebalancing Lindenwood’s Resources," highlights the challenges of maintaining a broad-based athletic program in a competitive environment.

Declining Enrollment and Conference Affiliation

Two key factors often contribute to the decision to cut sports. Declining enrollment can significantly impact a university's financial stability, as seen with The College of Saint Rose's closure. While Lindenwood initially reported growing enrollment, a closer examination of their Common Data Sets reveals a decrease in undergraduate students from 7,549 in 2016-17 to 4,808 in 2022-23.

Conference affiliation also plays a crucial role. Lindenwood's membership in the Ohio Valley Conference (OVC) presented challenges, as the OVC does not sponsor championships for several sports the university was dropping. This mismatch between conference offerings and sponsored sports further strained the athletic program's resources.

The Impact on Student-Athletes

The elimination of sports programs has a profound impact on student-athletes. Sean Scalen, a sophomore at Bryn Athyn College, expressed his disappointment and the prospect of having to transfer. Connor Walmsley, a junior, highlighted the close-knit community within small school athletics. Andrew Leibig, a freshman, felt disheartened by the lack of transparency surrounding the decision. Keren Abraham, also a junior, acknowledged the difficult choice made by the president.

Lindenwood University's decision affected 284 student-athletes. The reduction in sports teams can lead to a decrease in tuition and room and board revenues, further exacerbating financial challenges.

The NCAA's Broken Model

The Intercollegiate Coach Association Coalition (ICAC) argues that the elimination of college sports harms the feeder system for American Olympic teams, diminishes the motivation of young athletes, and can ultimately cost schools millions in tuition dollars. They assert that discontinuing teams is a superficial solution to a deeper problem: an NCAA model that prioritizes football and men’s basketball revenues over broad-based educational and athletic opportunities. Mike Moyer, executive director of the National Wrestling Coaches Association, believes that the Division I model of intercollegiate athletics is fundamentally flawed, and COVID-19 has exposed its weaknesses.

Financial Disparities and Spending Habits

Mid-major programs faced deficits even before the pandemic. The shutdown of campuses and the economic downturn have worsened the situation, providing cover for athletic directors contemplating sports cuts. Colleges anticipate significant revenue losses from various sources, including state and federal funding, institutional support, ticket sales, and donations.

Read also: Crafting Your NCAA Profile

The financial disparities between Power 5 and Group of Five conferences exacerbate the problem. Power 5 schools can rely on cash reserves and substantial TV revenue, while Group of Five athletic departments depend heavily on institutional and state funding. As enrollment declines and state economies weaken, these programs face increasing financial strain.

Some argue that universities contribute to the problem by overspending on football and men's basketball. High coaching salaries, large staffs, and extravagant facilities divert resources from other sports. For example, Cincinnati, which cut men’s soccer, pays its football coach a substantial salary. Akron, which eliminated three Olympic sports, incurred significant debt from coaching buyouts and the construction of a stadium.

Existential Crisis and the Power 5

Kathy DeBoer describes the situation as an "existential crisis" stemming from the autonomy granted to the five largest conferences. The gap between the Power 5 and Group of Five has widened due to lucrative television deals and the College Football Playoff (CFP). The CFP distributes significantly more money to Power 5 programs than to the Group of Five, further exacerbating the financial imbalance.

The pressure to compete with wealthier programs leads to difficult choices. Cutting broad-based sports is often seen as a way to close the budget gap, but it only provides a temporary solution.

Title IX Considerations

Title IX, a federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in education, also influences decisions regarding sport elimination. Athletic directors may be hesitant to cut women's sports due to Title IX requirements, which mandate a proportionate number of female athletes and equal athletic opportunities. The presence of football, with its large number of scholarships for men, can create an imbalance, leading to cuts in other men's sports.

However, some argue that many schools are violating Title IX regardless. Nancy Hogshead-Makar, founder of Champion Women, emphasizes the importance of fighting for women's sports, as it can also benefit men's programs. Eddie Nuñez, New Mexico AD, cited Title IX as a "driving force" in eliminating sports at his school, while acknowledging the potential backlash from alumni.

The Impact of House v. NCAA Settlement

The proposed settlement in House v. NCAA aims to transform how collegiate athletes are compensated. While it seeks to remove restrictions on athlete compensation and allow direct payments from schools to players, the creation of roster limits for all Division I teams has become a major point of contention.

These roster limits, intended to maintain competitive balance, are smaller than the current size of many Division I teams, forcing schools to cut athletes. This has created uncertainty and stress for thousands of athletes. Some schools have already cut athletes and rescinded offers to incoming recruits, leading to transfers and athletes ceasing training.

Athlete Perspectives and Financial Burdens

Athletes who have lost their spots express feelings of heartbreak and frustration. Tate Cutler, an Auburn swimmer, questioned how the settlement was benefiting him after being cut from the team. Lance Hollingshead, a Notre Dame golfer, felt distressed and embarrassed by the prospect of losing his roster spot.

Athletes cut from teams may face unexpected financial burdens. The loss of access to dining halls, Alston awards, educational supplies, and tutoring services can significantly increase the cost of attending college. For some, like Jessie Cox, a Liberty runner, college sports were a crucial pathway to a college education. The potential loss of her roster spot threatened her ability to afford school.

The Emotional Toll

Beyond the financial implications, the elimination of sports programs takes a significant emotional toll on athletes. Hollingshead described feeling depressed until he connected with other affected athletes and began advocating for their concerns.

Trends in Sport Elimination

Eliminating nonrevenue sports is not a new phenomenon. UCLA, for instance, cut men's swimming and men's gymnastics in the early 1990s. However, there had been a decline in dropped sports since the Great Recession. The recent surge in eliminations marks a reversal of that trend.

Some sports have been disproportionately affected. Since 1990, several men's teams, including wrestling, swimming, gymnastics, and tennis, are sponsored by fewer schools. Men's tennis has experienced the most significant proportional decline. Tennis is also responsible for having the largest foreign participation of any sport. Concerns about the lack of American juniors filling scholarships and the costs associated with facilities have contributed to tennis being targeted for cuts.

Swimming is another sport at risk. D-I swimming and diving coaches have voluntarily slashed budgets to preempt further cuts. The elimination of swimming programs at some schools raises concerns about a domino effect.

tags: #NCAA #Division #I #sport #elimination #reasons