As colleges struggle to support non-revenue sports, U.S. Olympic future is threatened

Dave_Berry · 06-03-2012, 03:12 PM

"Over the past 30 years, college wrestling has lost 45 percent of its Division I teams — down from 146 in 1981-82 to 80 in 2010-11, according to figures compiled by the NCAA.

Men’s gymnastics has been hit even harder, with just 16 Division I teams remaining from the 59 that existed in 1981-82. That’s a drop of nearly 73 percent.

'It’s dying fast, and I hate it,' says Jonathan Horton, 26, who won five NCAA titles at Oklahoma before going on to win the silver medal on the high bar at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. 'I hate to see it go. . . . Going to Oklahoma and doing college gymnastics was one of the best things I ever did. Knowing that [college gymnastics] is on a downward slope is tough.'

The shifting priorities of college athletic departments are a particular concern to the U.S. Olympic Committee ..."

Olympics 2012: As colleges struggle to support non-revenue sports, the United States’s Olympic future is threatened - The Washington Post

parent1986 · 06-03-2012, 04:57 PM

I only skimmed the article and didn't see it mentioned, but Title 9 is the main reason for the decline in male sports, esp. wresting and gymnastics, as I understand it.

arabrab · 06-03-2012, 07:50 PM

Years ago football generated huge surpluses at a significant number of schools. But the "arms race" in football (coaching salaries, fancy stadiums, multitudes of assistants,...) has led to football no longer being a money-making proposition at most colleges, and it has instead become a cost center. So rather than throwing off a lot of cash that in turn could support a number of non-cash-generating sports, schools are forced to subsidize athletics. And thus you see a lot of sports cut. Since most schools barely meet the Title IX safe harbor tests as it is, the first sports to be cut are almost inevitably those for men, but plenty of women's sports have been cut too.

The notion that schools need to spend "whatever it takes" to run a football program needs to end. At too many schools football is run as if money doesn't count, and everything else is starved.

tom1944 · 06-03-2012, 08:21 PM

I was a wrestler and I fully support Title IX. Cut football scholarships to a more reasonable number and not only will there be more parity in college football but minor mens sports can continue.

parent1986 · 06-03-2012, 08:34 PM

The Battle Over Title IX - CBS News

Source for my above comment. A 60 Mins. broadcast.

"At too many schools football is run as if money doesn't count, and everything else is starved."

Especially hideous, mountain blocking biotech buildings that are doing who knows what.

tom1944 · 06-03-2012, 08:45 PM

Those men were duped- just because they blame Title IX does not make it true. There are many people with opinions on things that are incorrect. Colleges decided that they would put more money into football rather than have other mens sports.

Cut football from 85 scholarships down to 70- see I fixed the problem

soccerguy315 · 06-03-2012, 10:16 PM

colleges put money into football because it has a good ROI... how many people go to watch a wrestling match?

Bay · 06-03-2012, 10:18 PM

I hate, hate, hate it when people blame Title IX for the elimination of mens' sports. It is analogous to saying, "If only the government hadn't made us share our drinking fountains with Black people, there'd be more drinking fountains for US." waa waa

Title IX codified equal rights for girls/women in sports (among all other things), which should have existed but didn't without a law specifically mandating it.

If mens' sports are being cut, it is because the administration is choosing to cut them, not because women are (horrors) being offered equal athletic opportunities. Colleges are free to offer every sport that exists if that is how they want to allocate their budgets. Don't blame women or Title IX.

barrk123 · 06-03-2012, 10:18 PM

That does nothing, ~700k in scholarships is not enough to change anything.

parent1986 · 06-03-2012, 10:26 PM

Bay, you can let 60 Mins know how much you hate it. I'm surprised you have such strong feelings about it. I don't find the idea the least bit discriminatory. It makes perfect sense to me.

But I do agree that football most likely makes more than enough to cover its expenses and that it is not taking money away from academics. Of course, I only have newspaper reports and TV reports to know for sure - same with everyone else commenting here.

hops_scout · 06-03-2012, 10:27 PM

Quote:

I hate, hate, hate it when people blame Title IX for the elimination of mens' sports.

Title IX needs re-worked. People blame the elimination of men's sports such as wrestling and gymnastics because there is some truth to it. Administrations remove the budgets of these men's sports and move them into women's sports under the guise of "equal" when it really is far from true.

Only the really big schools offer the football scholarships that people think. 85 in FBS is required. At the FCS level they can give out no more than 63 (no requirement) and DII have fewer and DIII has NONE. Outside of FBS schools, many other schools only give out full-ride scholarships to female athletes. At my college, only women's basketball was "fully funded" while the women's gymnastics fell into that category due to the girls' dedication to academics.

Men's sports will continue to suffer while we continue to try making things "equal." The courts have found in favor of females in cases where they should not have. That isn't likely to change.

notrichenough · 06-03-2012, 10:41 PM

Quote:

It is analogous to saying, "If only the government hadn't made us share our drinking fountains with Black people, there'd be more drinking fountains for US."

It's nothing like that. Everybody can drink from a water fountain. Only men can play a men's sport.

It's largely a zero-sum game. If title IX requires that you take money from one group to give to the other, then you can "blame" title IX for that, and there is some validity, because it caused a change to the status quo.

The "blame" really lies with the administrations of the universities who decide how to invest their limited sports dollars. If they choose to carry 100 people on a football team, that's their choice.

Football teams don't need 100 players, or 80 players, or even 70 players. If they want to burn their male athlete quota on 4th string players who have zero chance of getting in a game, that's their choice.

Quote:

That does nothing, ~700k in scholarships is not enough to change anything.

15 scholarships would be enough to keep a couple of sports like wrestling or gymnastics, which don't need large rosters, in the game.

Bay · 06-03-2012, 10:47 PM

Quote:

If title IX requires that you take money from one group to give to the other, then you can "blame" title IX for that, and there is some validity, because it caused a change to the status quo.

This argument is wrong. Title IX does not require anyone to take money from any group. Colleges are free to offer the same mens sports they have always offered, and simply add a proportional number for women. Instead, many administrations *choose* to eliminate mens sports, rather than spend additional money to fund sports for women WHO ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED TO THE OPPORTUNITY, but were WRONGFULLY DENIED the opportunity for decades.

Please place the blame where it belongs - with the administration for being too cheap on sports.

barrk123 · 06-03-2012, 11:00 PM

Is womans horse riding a real sport?

notrichenough · 06-03-2012, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Title IX does not require anyone to take money from any group.

It doesn't require it, but that is the net effect. There is not an unlimited pool of money to fund sports.

Quote:

Please place the blame where it belongs - with the administration for being too cheap on sports.

Did you read the next paragraph?!? I blamed the administration.

Now that many if not most public colleges are 60% women or more, I'm waiting for the Title IX lawsuit that those schools are discriminating against men.