What Happens AFTER A SCHOOL DROPS A SPORT?
By Matt Brown, Extra Points with Matt Brown
A study from the Journal of Amateur Sport at the University of Kansas examined what actually happened with at programs that had dropped teams. If a school dropped a sport in order to save money, well, did they actually save any money? If they cut a sport to better comply with Title IX, did they actually reach compliance? Did any of those stated reasons end up being accurate?
Once the dust settled, it doesn’t appear the data supported the bulk of those decisions
For example, let’s take a look at the schools that claimed they wanted to limit athletic spending. 22 institutions reportedly cited this specific desire, but while many of them reduced the rate that their athletic budgets rose, “These institutions experienced multi-million dollar increases in total athletic expenses after the discontinuation of athletic teams. This is certainly not indicative of a reduction in athletic spending…”
Well, what about dropping men’s programs to comply with Title IX? The data didn’t really support that either.
While institutions identifying Title IX compliance as a primary factor for the elimination of athletic programs have made progress in the area of substantial proportionality, the progress made still leaves the institutions well short of compliance. None of the institutions achieved direct substantial proportionality. Based on these findings, institutions seeking Title IX compliance through the discontinuation of athletic teams were consistently failing to meet their stated goal.
This study appears to support that skepticism. The raw cost savings in eliminating most Olympic sports is relatively modest, and if a school actually wants to save money, they’ll need to step away from the coaching and facility rat race a bit, and simply not spend quite as much money on football and basketball. Nobody, at least, at the D-1 level, seems especially interested in doing that, or politically empowered enough to actually execute that strategy.