@RockySoil Good input. Makes sense from a Title IX #s perspective, especially with the distance runners, though still seems a shame to me for a school such as Brown to not have a Men’s Track Team.
@twoinanddone good pt. on the typical # of D1 sports at the Ivies given the student body size. I believe the Brown announcement mentioned something about teams having to invite players to walk on to complete rosters.
So I can certainly understand making some of the sports club sports and trying to get more competitive. It’s just too bad that the # of men’s/woman’s spots had to cost a traditional sport like Men’s T&F but I am sure it is not easy balancing it out with football being only a Men’s sport.
I can’t really speak to the other sports affected, but there are a few things about the Track and Field decision that are particularly problematic. For one thing, as I understand it from discussions with alums and a few team members, coaches and athletes were blindsided by this decision. That wouldn’t be surprising if this were a budget related decision. But if it’s about reimagining the future of athletics at Brown, why exclude important stakeholders, especially those from one of the most egalitarian and racially diverse Olympic sports, from the discussion?
And about diversity…the Track and Field roster and coaching staff at Brown is a stark contrast to the nearly all white, prep school dominated rosters in sports like lacrosse and crew. So in a week when Brown is releasing multiple statements supporting people of color, and endorsing institutional reforms aiming at diversity and equality, they are also pulling the rug out from under a sport that has contributed to diversity on their own campus. For sailing. That might have seemed less tone-deaf when they made these decisions a few weeks ago, which in itself says something. Maybe if there’d been dialogue with stakeholders…
I do see the attractiveness from a title IX perspective. But Brown claims they were already in compliance. If so, they didn’t need to drop men’s sports, and certainly not to elevate women’s sailing. As far as competitiveness, anyone familiar with Track and Field understands how difficult it will be to recruit women to compete at a school with no men’s program. So the irony is that in their quest for competitiveness, they’ve made it a lot harder to build a strong women’s program in one of the highest-participation women’s sports in the country.
Some distance runners will be fine with a running club approach. But for the more competitive distance runners, and certainly for speed-power athletes and those in technical events, a club structure simply won’t work. It’s telling that the announcement suggests that these varsity sports being dropped have club equivalents, such as a club for “running”. Not sure the vaulters, jumpers, throwers, and hurdlers at Brown took much comfort in that.
@politeperson You make some very good points. I do not have any knowledge of the current T&F situation at Brown but agree with what you stated. Very well put including the diversity of a T&F team vs. sports like Squash, Sailing, Fencing.
I have a child that ran T&F at an Ivy and when I mentioned what Brown was doing they were surprised and commented about the Men’s & Woman’s teams practicing together, recruiting, sharing the coaching staff and that T&F is a big sport throughout the country in which the IL typically has very good athletes and competes well in.
Brown is just rearranging the deck chairs, but T&F, men’s soccer and men’s swimming have taken hits at many schools. I think it was Temple that dropped men’s T&F a few years ago. Although it still has women’s T&F, I have to imagine the facilities aren’t quite what they would be if a men’s team was also paying for some of the upkeep, new equipment, and coaching.
Several other schools have dropped teams this spring, and it was a shock to those team members too. The guy who was to be the captain at Furman’s lacrosse team was called to a zoom team meeting (he was out golfing at the time) and the team was told the sport was cancelled, their scholarships would be honored, but no lacrosse. He immediately entered the transfer portal because he wants to play. It’s unlikely he’ll get scholarship money or merit money transferring as a senior. Hard situation.
@twoinanddone yes I agree it’s been a tough spring all around. But I think the difference here is that this was not a budget issue (at least according to the announcement). It would have been easier to understand if so.
Do any of you have any theories on why Brown has taken such a harsh stance in making these decisions without giving much notice, and no transition years, and why it’s position has been that if you don’t like it you can transfer? It seems like the transfer option is the sole support the school is giving.
A transition year is terrible. You have no new recruits, the coaches start to leave, and everyone is miserable. Just rip the bandaid off.
I think it is always hard when YOUR sport is cancelled. At least at Brown they are transitioning the dropped sports to club teams. The report said they’d been looking into this for 2 years so while it may have seemed sudden to the athletes, it may not have been so shocking to the athletic dept.
I imagine there are only a few athletes who will want to transfer. Most are at Brown because they want to go to Brown.
I had heard the coaches were informed on the same zoom call as the athletes. Not all of the cancelled teams are being transitioned to club, and some that are being transitioned already have clubs.
Brown’s incoming class of 2023 was 47% Early Decision applicants/admits. Are these sports downgrades to club possibly a small step toward reducing the number of Early Decision admits at Brown?
Even though Brown’s actions do not appear to be related to football, no decisions about adding or subtracting sports can be made without realizing that football is in some major way behind those decisions. Many football teams have 125 players, a dozen or more coaches and many trainers and support staff. T&F and other sports will continue to lose out to football at schools across the nation in all divisions so long as this overly large, overly costly behemoth remains a central sport at most institutions. It was laughable and appalling years ago when Title IX was blamed for the shuttering of men’s (and sometimes women’s) T&F programs and many men’s wrestling programs. I hope for the day when programs start looking to football to save athletic dollars instead of ways to waste them building stadiums and supporting this expensive and harmful game.
Football is a wonderfully exciting game that brings in huge sums of money for a lot of schools in this country. It’s the #1 sport in America. And football has been made safer with equipment and rules changes over the years.
And speaking of injuries, women’s soccer has an extremely high rate of players getting concussions. Should we get rid of women’s soccer?
Women’s soccer has some concussions and other injuries. However, it does not require 12 plus coaches, a particularly large stadium, or 125 players to field a team. The college bowl league teams make money (I assume, except perhaps in years where they are updating stadiums) but the reality is that most other schools do not make money from football. Plus I never said get rid if football. However, if programs are looking to cut back or adjust programs, then football is the proverbial elephant in the room. Certainly it won’t be reduced in the Big10, SEC or other powerhouse divisions. However, it should be part of the discussion any time changes are being made. I am not sure that football makes a lot of sense the way teams are structured now among smaller schools, division III, any school facing financial difficulties, or really any school other than those that are clearly and demonstrably making money from the program (powerhouse divisions). And we can ignore the ethical concerns about whether the powerhouse teams should be making millions on the backs of their athletes. Whether the Ivies really make money from the sport I think demands scrutiny. I hear a lot of comments that football makes alumni donations go up. And at many schools that is likely true but at most schools… perhaps not. And do those alumni donations exceed the cost of the sport? I am not sure. Many of those donations may have been the school anyway. I know there is as built-in bias for football and with so many parents that once played, it will always have that popularity. And I don’t claim to be an expert on how colleges finance their sports programs. However, I still think the cost of football (both financial and to the long term health of the student athlete) should be part of the conversation anytime schools are adjusting their sports programs. By the way I like college football and have attended a game in 2 of the past 3 years. I enjoyed the games. The last game I attended was truly exciting and high scoring. But I was troubled to learn that the star player of the opposing team had to have emergency brain surgery while the game was still going on. I wish him and all players the best and mean no disrespect when bringing up the fact that there are both financial and physical costs to the game. And there is no real comparison to women’s soccer.
And bigger stadiums are built usually to increase and accommodate patrons, which means more money. But if the Ivy League wants to rid itself of football, the vast majority of college football fans could care less.
And in terms of D1, there are roughly 130 college football teams and 80 of them play in bowls… Do all college football programs make a profit? No, but there’s anecdotal evidence suggesting that winning athletic programs increase the number and quality of student applicants to universities. Although, I don’t think that matters in the Ivy League. It has its own prestige and football probably adds nothing to it.
As for ethical concerns regarding making money on the backs of its athletes, if you read the news, the NCAA is changing. College athletes will be making money now, besides the free education, free food and free room and board and other free stuff (shoes, etc.). And this really only matters for the top echelon athletes anyway.
If we’re incorporating anecdotal stories here, I’ve coached high school AAU girls basketball and I have seen some pretty gruesome injuries, including many, many concussions. I know two girls, who I coached, that had severe concussions that forced them into retirement. I also witnessed several ACL/MCL tears on the soccer field in girl’s soccer.
My own D21 will be a 4-year starter this year in her HS sport (not the coach), where I’ve seen concussions and other injuries, but football is always the target, because it’s #1.
We all have choices to play or not play. To fund or not fund. To watch or not watch.
@Mwfan1921 just the opposite! They are getting rid of multiple sports with little recruiting, and will be ADDING to their recruiting now for their preferred sports as part of their “excellence “ program.
@Sam-I-Am and @sushiritto, it’s my understanding that football is going to be significantly increased. Too bad it’s at the expense of the other sports.
Saying that transitioning from varsity to club makes it easier to swallow is not correct. Imagine going to a school planning to major in one thing, then after you get there they tell you they are taking away the major but you can still minor in it. Not the same thing at all and if you’re committed to the major it’s no consolation. Plus you lose your eligibility to compete in regional or national NCAA meets when your sport is reduced to club status.
When athletes commit to a school, whether D1 or D3, it’s because they want their college years to include competitive sports. That is just as valid as other criteria for choosing a college. My S for example chose a UAA school precisely because he wanted to run AND have strong academics that those schools offer. If he did not want to run he would have gone to a D1 school and watched football on Saturdays. It is it not unusual for priorities to change once they are immersed in college life, and many D3 athletes don’t participate all 4 years. But that is their choice.
If this happened to him, would he transfer? If he were a senior, maybe not. Underclassman, most likely yes.
I also agree 100% with @politeperson regarding the diversity issue. There was an article on Medium that specifically addressed this point.
Ivy league schools are not going to drop football. Several conferences have requirements that certain sports be offered. I don’t know if the Ivy league requires football, but I’ve not heard of any Ivy school wanting out of football and maybe the Ivy league.
Very few top athletic schools don’t have football. DU has no football but has won national championships in skiing, men’s lacrosse, and men’s hockey, and is a strong competitor in women’s gymnastics and lacrosse. Its teams participate in several different conferences (including Big East, even though it is hardly ‘east’) but not one that requires football. Some smaller D1 schools are in Pioneer League so that they don’t have to balance football scholarships (don’t give them) with Title IX requirements.
@susheritto, I appreciate your comments. When you draw the injury comparison between football and other sports… well I already agreed with that point when I admitted that women’s soccer gets concussions and other injuries. I have been on the sideline to witness horrific injuries in soccer and cross country and even cheerleading. But when I said there was no comparison between football and women’s soccer I was largely speaking to the size of the rosters, numbers of coaches, venue size and expense. Although the injuries are naturally part of the discussion as well. As to leagues requiring football, that the intrenchment that should be re-examined any time an athletic program is being reviews. Just because these things have always been done this way does not mean they should continue to be done the same way.
Since squash and fencing are run by other organizations and not the NCAA, switching to club may not matter. They may get to compete in the same matches.