Arizona State University cancels men's tennis

10isDad

Hall of Fame
In a very disappointing move, Arizona State University joined an ever-increasing number of schools to stop funding men's tennis. They cited economic reasons in their decision to drop men's tennis, men's swimming and men's wrestling.

Arizona State University Cites Economics in Reducing Number of Varsity Sports

University will not sponsor men's swimming, men's tennis and wrestling after this academic year

May 13, 2008


TEMPE, Ariz. - In response to economic realities experienced over a long period of time, Arizona State University today announced the discontinuation of three varsity sports programs, effective immediately. The sport programs affected are men's swimming, men's tennis and wrestling. ASU President Michael Crow and Vice President for University Athletics Lisa Love made the announcement. With the budget cuts the University is facing, Intercollegiate Athletics cannot expect the University to make up the difference.

"Our primary concern for the immediate future is the student-athletes and coaches that are affected," says Love.

The student-athletes in the discontinued sports who decide to transfer to another institution will be provided with full assistance from ASU regarding the transfer process. The student-athletes who chose to remain at ASU will receive the full benefits of their scholarship awards through their senior year.

"With a dedicated effort to a successful 20-sport varsity program in mind," says Love, "these three sports were selected with the following criteria: financial impact, potential competitive success, conference/regional support and gender equity. Our revenue trajectory has been positive, however, our ongoing financial challenges have been well documented by the media. The decision to discontinue sport programs is a last resort, yet necessary."
 

goober

Legend
Yeah pretty sad considering they had a top 25 team and some really good players. Their coach had been there for 26 years.

Their wrestling team was once a pretty dominant force in the 90s.
 
K

kctennis1005

Guest
that is really scary. sucks for all the kids on the team.
 

CGMemphis

Rookie
I knew Lisa Love from when she was back at USC as an Assistant AD, I used to work with the Athletic Department, shes a smart cookie, wonderful lady.

However, that being said, what their not telling you is that you can thank the wonderful Title 9 for this bullcrap.
 
K

kctennis1005

Guest
they either stay there with their scholarship and dont play tennis....or if they want to play they transfer to another university
 

Fedace

Banned
Arizona state had always been a strong tennis presence in Pac-10. They will be missed. Perhaps when economy improves, they will start to fund tennis again ?? Since Ariz state is dropping out of Pac-10, maybe pepperdine will decide to join the Pac-10 conference ??
 

kairosntx

Professional
I knew Lisa Love when she was at UTA! Took the Mavericks to final 4 thanks mostly to two South American ringers- Uraguayen I believe.

The title 9 question is interesting here. Does anybody know the fate of womens tennis at ASU?
 

kairosntx

Professional
The ASU athletics website is interesting. the entire article of which a portion is in the OP is available there. The funny thing is when you scroll over "womens sports" a drop box opens up and when you click on "swimming/diving" you get a link to the story about cutting the men's programs??? Not sure if they still have women's swimming or not. The womens tennis link does not take you to the article about cutting programs. I believe they will keep their womens tennis program.

The article also cites other D1 programs around the country. With the cuts ASU will have 20 programs which is in line +/- 1 with most major schools.

Does anyone know if title 9 counts the number of athletes or the number of sports? The football team obviosly takes up a huge number of athletes. They could have one mens program (football) and 8-10 womens programs and still be in line with title 9 if they only count number of athletes.
 

tursafinov

Rookie
I can't believe this!!!!

I start at ASU in the Fall.

I'm from New Jersey and was flabbergasted at the Rutgers decision.
Now I'm in Arizona and they decide to pack it up!!!

Freakin' ridiculous.

This is an extension of my karma that dooms all players I put on my PC desktop wallpaper I feel it.

man this bites,

~Tursa
 

gully

Professional
Does anyone know if title 9 counts the number of athletes or the number of sports?
The NCAA does both. Many might assume that there are fewer men's collegiate tennis teams than two decades ago. According to the NCAA, that's not the case. There were 690 in 1981-82 and 744 in 2003-04. (Most recent figures I could find. There may be others.)

Opportunities for men have actually INCREASED, and significantly so, after Title IX:
  • Women's sports, all participants, 1981-82: 64,390.
  • Men's sports, all participants, 1981-82: 167,055.
  • Women's sports, all participants, 2003-04: 160,997.
  • Men's sports, all participants, 2003-04: 214,854.
(http://www.ncaa.org/library/research/participation_rates/1982-2005/1982_2005_participation_rates.pdf, p. 73.)[/QUOTE]
 

10isDad

Hall of Fame
Women's tennis, women's swimming are both still sponsored. The worst thing: women's water polo is a funded sport.

Unfortunately, to cut women's sports in order to fund men's tennis would mean cutting other men's sports in order to remain in compliance with Title IX.

Zootennis dot com has a good perspective on it, especially when Collette mentions how many sports Ohio State and Stanford fund.

With the rising cost of everything else, there will likely come a day when tennis becomes just a club sport in most universities. ASU put out a separate release that said if sufficient funds were raised from private endowments, the sports might be reinstated. They indicated they would need $5 million to continue mens tennis, $5 million for mens swimming and $8 million for mens wrestling.

That's a lot of cash to raise. Hopefully there are some wealthy philanthropists out there, 'cause charity car washes and stuff ain't gonna cut it.
 
Well, this is just peachy.

I was about to reach in my wallet and pay $50. to get another young'n
into the NCAA Eligibility mill- Certification number.
Might as well skip it now... Any male juniors in High School may as well NOT plan on any tennis programs being around by the time they graduate....

I think anyone who says Title IX INCREASES opportunities should be slapped. Anyone with any ability to think logically (and do the simple math required to get into these august institutions) understands the unintended consequences that actually SHRINK opportunities.

Kids... remember this lesson well, as YOUR OX is the one getting gored-
ANYTIME the Federal government gets involved in ANYTHING for your "feel goods" this is the outcome; Have fun dealing with those who would tell you different. Tell them to please quit wetting down your leg, and trying to tell you it's raining at the same time.
 
^ A quick note, for those who don't see how TITLE IX has decreased sports for ALL- When a school is faced with providing for equal women's and men's participation, they take the opportunity to cut back BOTH.

And as a little amusing anicdote- Arizona has just started a women's water polo team for Title IX purposes.... Too bad NO high school in the state PLAYS women's water polo- so all the players will have to be IMPORTED- I'm sure this event will be yet another crowd and fan pleaser and money maker.
 

JLyon

Hall of Fame
BTW Arkansas Little Rock dropped their program last week in the name of Title IX and they were also a top 75 team. As mentioned above, guys might as well quit tennis because there are very few scholarships that will be left due to the regs of Title iX
 

10isDad

Hall of Fame
The only saving grace is that the same thing happened to Virginia some years ago and some wealthy private folks put up the endowment to continue the program - and look at it now! One of the very best programs in the nation.

I can only hope that something similar will happen here.

The sad part is ASU is spending tens of millions on an indoor football practice facility, a new basketball arena and upgrades to the football stadium. I do know there was over $27 million raised for this - mostly by business looking to capitalize.
 

weaver

Rookie
The sad part is ASU is spending tens of millions on an indoor football practice facility, a new basketball arena and upgrades to the football stadium. I do know there was over $27 million raised for this - mostly by business looking to capitalize.
Of course, football and basketball make a lot more money than tennis... Very sad though!
 

Aeropro master

Professional
The only saving grace is that the same thing happened to Virginia some years ago and some wealthy private folks put up the endowment to continue the program - and look at it now! One of the very best programs in the nation.

I can only hope that something similar will happen here.

The sad part is ASU is spending tens of millions on an indoor football practice facility, a new basketball arena and upgrades to the football stadium. I do know there was over $27 million raised for this - mostly by business looking to capitalize.
the same thing is for the University of Cincinnati, they spend so much money on a basketball program that isn't even good. i wish somebody would bring back their tennis program, some of their playesr are ranked pretty high nationally in the senior rankings
 

chrisplchs

Professional
the same thing is for the University of Cincinnati, they spend so much money on a basketball program that isn't even good. i wish somebody would bring back their tennis program, some of their playesr are ranked pretty high nationally in the senior rankings
But let me ask you this: how much money does the UCincy men's basketball program bring in? how many times have you heard of UCincy basketball being mentioned on TV? the money and exposure is what drives those programs
 
T

tenniscrazed

Guest
The NCAA does both. Many might assume that there are fewer men's collegiate tennis teams than two decades ago. According to the NCAA, that's not the case. There were 690 in 1981-82 and 744 in 2003-04. (Most recent figures I could find. There may be others.)

Opportunities for men have actually INCREASED, and significantly so, after Title IX:
  • Women's sports, all participants, 1981-82: 64,390.
  • Men's sports, all participants, 1981-82: 167,055.
  • Women's sports, all participants, 2003-04: 160,997.
  • Men's sports, all participants, 2003-04: 214,854.
(http://www.ncaa.org/library/research/participation_rates/1982-2005/1982_2005_participation_rates.pdf, p. 73.)
[/QUOTE]

Although the pure numbers have increased, the increase is NOT significant. 1) The increase in mens participants is by 50,000, on a percentage basis that is an increase of 28%.

2) The increase in womens participants is by almost 100,000, on a percentage basis that is an increase of over 150%

Hardly a significant increase relative to the increase in female participants. Another thing that you failed to cite is the increase in female participants on scholarships in non revenue sports (Womens Lacrosse, swimming, volleyball, water polo etc).

This does have a reverse discrimination scent to it as did Title IX when it was approved by the NCAA membership schools.
 
T

tenniscrazed

Guest
Sorry for the double post. IMHO, unless Title IX is repealed, most mens programs in non revenue generating sports will cease to exist in the next 10 years.

It is sad especially when you consider that most Junior tennis players, swimmers, water polo players etc. really look to NCAA programs to further their careers in their sport as well as furthering their education.
 

gully

Professional
Although the pure numbers have increased, the increase is NOT significant. 1) The increase in mens participants is by 50,000, on a percentage basis that is an increase of 28%.
Well, you can SAY it's not significant, but it's not small. I provide this to counter the conventional wisom that opportunities for men have decreased since Title IX. Not true; they've increased.
2) The increase in womens participants is by almost 100,000, on a percentage basis that is an increase of over 150%.
Of course it has. Opportunities for women were few before Title IX, and even though the increase is over %150, it still didn't bring women's participation up to equality with men. You act like it's unfair that participation increased more for women than it did for men--but you ignore that the numbers for women were so small twenty-some years ago.
Another thing that you failed to cite is ...
I failed to cite? Since when do you decide what I failed to do. I'm the one who did some homework. If you've got something to prove, dig up some data and support it, instead of telling people what they should have done.

By the way, it's a shame to see ASU's program go. It has a rich history and shouldn't have to. I'm saying it's shortsighted to blame Title IX. So is the data.
 

theace21

Hall of Fame
It is going to happen more and more. Wrestling, swimming, soccer, water polo, and tennis all on the chopping block at a school near you. Opps add mens to the beginning of each sport...

Shame this great opportunity for womens athletes penalizes the mens sports.
 
Sorry for the double post. IMHO, unless Title IX is repealed, most mens programs in non revenue generating sports will cease to exist in the next 10 years.

It is sad especially when you consider that most Junior tennis players, swimmers, water polo players etc. really look to NCAA programs to further their careers in their sport as well as furthering their education.
i guess practicing the drop back isn't such a bad idea!
 
You guys are looking at things through a small lens. Look at the big picture.

Title 9 has its faults no doubt, but it has helped women get education and athletic opportunities. And yes, some men have paid a price for that.

But give me a break...men's tennis, wrestling, swimming, water polo....lots and lots of healthy, athletic, white guys, from families in decent financial shape.

The advantage that Title 9 throws to women athletes certainly does not even touch the huge advantage white guys from good families have in America. Income levels, CEOs of major companies, government positions....pretty much everything is tilted towards these guys.

Quit your dang whining.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
Arizona state had always been a strong tennis presence in Pac-10. They will be missed. Perhaps when economy improves, they will start to fund tennis again ?? Since Ariz state is dropping out of Pac-10, maybe pepperdine will decide to join the Pac-10 conference ??
The tennis program is being eliminated. Nothing was said about ASU's athletic program as a whole dropping out of the Pac-10.
 
You guys are looking at things through a small lens. Look at the big picture.

Title 9 has its faults no doubt, but it has helped women get education and athletic opportunities. And yes, some men have paid a price for that.

But give me a break...men's tennis, wrestling, swimming, water polo....lots and lots of healthy, athletic, white guys, from families in decent financial shape.

The advantage that Title 9 throws to women athletes certainly does not even touch the huge advantage white guys from good families have in America. Income levels, CEOs of major companies, government positions....pretty much everything is tilted towards these guys.

Quit your dang whining.
look at it from a bigger lens! its allowed women to enter the corportorate world and they forget to leave it once they had kids and forget to enter the most important job in the world parenting, then leave it up to someone else and low and behold look at the results across america rich poor white or black its had major consequences! just a thought! well thought out too!!
 

SoCal10s

Hall of Fame
overall picture???

Overall picture?? It's all F@#$ing president Bush fault... USA and the Bush administration can spend billions and billions of US$ dollars on Iraq and illegal immigrants ,so everyone in the USA has to cut corners and have this kind of stuff to deal with ... That money spent can surely fix alot of ailing elderly and all Americans , put alot of young deserving Americans through school but Americans are seeing less and less of our tax dollars work in a way that will affect US directly. I don't know any Iraqians but I can surely guarantee you that a few years from now a lot of Iraq refugees will make their way over here and get a free ride and our tax dollars will be supporting them....and the thing is,they should get it ,because we(Bush,USA) ravaged their homeland just like in Viet Nam.. so what is the common denominator ? answer -- Texas a--holes presidents...
 

kairosntx

Professional
Title 9 has its faults no doubt, but it has helped women get education and athletic opportunities. And yes, some men have paid a price for that.

But give me a break...men's tennis, wrestling, swimming, water polo....lots and lots of healthy, athletic, white guys, from families in decent financial shape.
I agree with this first statement and I back title IX in its philosophy but not its execution. But the second point here I'm having trouble with. If men's tennis, swimming and water polo are for athletes from families in decent financial shape, then wouldn't most athletes in women's tennis, swimming and water polo also come from similar demographics? Having these paticular sports increases the number of athletes that would be able to participate in college athletics, not increase the number of kids that otherwise wouldn't go to college.
 

kairosntx

Professional
Overall picture?? It's all F@#$ing president Bush fault... USA and the Bush administration can spend billions and billions of US$ dollars on Iraq and illegal immigrants ,so everyone in the USA has to cut corners and have this kind of stuff to deal with ...
Sounds like a rant for a different thread.
 

JLyon

Hall of Fame
The NCAA does both. Many might assume that there are fewer men's collegiate tennis teams than two decades ago. According to the NCAA, that's not the case. There were 690 in 1981-82 and 744 in 2003-04. (Most recent figures I could find. There may be others.)

Opportunities for men have actually INCREASED, and significantly so, after Title IX:
  • Women's sports, all participants, 1981-82: 64,390.
  • Men's sports, all participants, 1981-82: 167,055.
  • Women's sports, all participants, 2003-04: 160,997.
  • Men's sports, all participants, 2003-04: 214,854.
(http://www.ncaa.org/library/research/participation_rates/1982-2005/1982_2005_participation_rates.pdf, p. 73.)
[/QUOTE]
Numbers can be misleading, how many of the men increase comes directly from adding football? Basically if you play Football, then there is possibly a scholarship, but lower sports on the pecking order are being dropped like flies.
Colorado, Kansas, ASU, UALR are just recent ones.
 

10isDad

Hall of Fame
The loss of the ASU men's tennis program could have other trickle down effects. First and foremost, it could help the University of Arizona team. I know of 3 ASU players that are talking about transferring there. Unfortunately, I also heard they only have scholarship money for one of the 3. There are 4 seniors that won't be there next year but they don't all get scholarship money.

On the other hand, it makes it less likely that teams will want to travel here. In the past, teams came in, played ASU one day then UA the following day (or vice versa). Economically, it's much less of a value to fly in to play only one team.
 

10isDad

Hall of Fame
Title IX was a very good thing back in the day. It has created many opportunities for female athletes to get financial assistance for college. Unfortunately, these days it also allows for some non-deserving female athletes to get scholarship money at the expense of male athletes. For example, I know several girls that got full rides for tennis - players that really aren't that good. Their male counterparts, who happen to be far more talented tennis players get no athletic scholarship moneys.

The reason for this is solely due to football and the 85 scholarships available for these players and the requirement for "gender equity" in the title.

I strongly feel there is no need for Title IX to be repealed but there is a need to revise it so that football doesn't count toward the "gender equity" portion. However, that would not have necessarily stopped ASU from canning men's tennis. There are still budgetary issues and they would have still cancelled three sports. The only difference is that they could have cancelled one or more womens' teams, as well.
 

Gus

New User
It is sad that the program is being eliminated, but I'm less quick to point to title IX as the reason. However, title IX is most certainly protecting some women's programs from being canceled that might otherwise also get cut. ASU's budget (as with all public universities) relies heavily on appropriations from the state of Arizona, in down economic times these are sure to be reduced. ASU has undergone a significant building boom and enrollment increase over the last five years and costs to support those increased services has also grown. Also, their returns on their 1/2 billion dollar endowment fund are also probably down significantly this year.

In a public services environment it is difficult to justify supporting more programs than at similar institutions, especially when dollars get tight. Hence the reduction to 20 varsity programs. This cut is most likely just as much political as financial. In situations like this there is often a need to demonstrate actions to cut costs. Tennis is probably an easy victim since it doesn't bring in money and because half their team is foreign. These programs will probably return in the future as the economy improves. After all, they have made a significant capital investment in their courts and olympic pool (both of which still have to be maintained).
 

goober

Legend
In a public services environment it is difficult to justify supporting more programs than at similar institutions, especially when dollars get tight. Hence the reduction to 20 varsity programs. This cut is most likely just as much political as financial. In situations like this there is often a need to demonstrate actions to cut costs. Tennis is probably an easy victim since it doesn't bring in money and because half their team is foreign. These programs will probably return in the future as the economy improves. After all, they have made a significant capital investment in their courts and olympic pool (both of which still have to be maintained).
Well they didn't cut womens tennis and swimming so their pools and courts will still be used. It is MUCH harder to add programs and get funding for them once they are cut. I would say that unless a wealthy donor(s) step in all three programs are going to be gone for a long time some permanently. Mens gymnastics at UCLA produced lots of olympians. It got cut and never came back.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
Overall picture?? It's all F@#$ing president Bush fault... USA and the Bush administration can spend billions and billions of US$ dollars on Iraq and illegal immigrants ,so everyone in the USA has to cut corners and have this kind of stuff to deal with ... That money spent can surely fix alot of ailing elderly and all Americans , put alot of young deserving Americans through school but Americans are seeing less and less of our tax dollars work in a way that will affect US directly. I don't know any Iraqians but I can surely guarantee you that a few years from now a lot of Iraq refugees will make their way over here and get a free ride and our tax dollars will be supporting them....and the thing is,they should get it ,because we(Bush,USA) ravaged their homeland just like in Viet Nam.. so what is the common denominator ? answer -- Texas a--holes presidents...

While I'm no fan of the Bush administration, I really don't think federal funds used for the war effort would be diverted to collegiate athletics if they were not being used for military and related expenses.

Title IX brought a wave of program cuts under different administrations, even when the economy was doing good.

Really sad. I watched the ASU mens team play on a trip to see my parents. I know the wrestling team has won a national title and was always highly ranked. And, the swimming program was also very good. These weren't bottom-feeder programs.

It's difficult to have an enormous athletic program that funds all sports for men and women (like Ohio State or Stanford). There's got to be private funding, a football or bball program that brings in a lot of cash, and an administration that's willing to spend cash on athletics that's in short supply and which many other departments are lobbying for.
 

CGMemphis

Rookie
The initial intro of Title IX was great,but it was a gender biased equation from out of touch politicians.

Most, not all, athletic departments get little funding from the university. They mostly raise their own funds. Hence booster clubs, Alumni clubs, coaches tours, fund raising and so on.

So when an athletic department isn't making enough money to endorse their programs, they can apply for federal funds or the university may allocate federal education funds for scholarship. In order to receive said funds, they must be Title IX compliant. Apples for Apples, Oranges for Oranges.

Its that kind of BS thats irks me to no end. So ASU couldnt raise enough money or had to take a look at increasing scholarships for womens basketball or a low drawing womens gymnastics (im being hypothetical, not literal) , in order to receive the money, they ax a good program.
 

Gus

New User
Well they didn't cut womens tennis and swimming so their pools and courts will still be used. It is MUCH harder to add programs and get funding for them once they are cut. I would say that unless a wealthy donor(s) step in all three programs are going to be gone for a long time some permanently. Mens gymnastics at UCLA produced lots of olympians. It got cut and never came back.
Regarding UCLA, they still support more varsity programs than most major universities. It is also important to realize that there are currently only 16 NCAA Division I programs with a men's gymnastics program. There were most likely reasons specific to that sport to justify dropping it.

Since ASU publicly announced how much money in private endowments it would take to keep the programs going (I believe it was $5M for tennis $8M for S&D), it is safe to assume that is what they are angling for. Given that they received $104M in private donations in 2007 alone it seems doable.
 
A couple points

1. Brad-
You aren't supposed to be posting anymore, remember what your handlers said? You know: "No-No-No Brad- now, here's a bisquit"

2. SoCal10-
They have a "special" high chair waiting over in "rants and raves" for you where you can help those giant brains solve ALL the world's problems( if only folks in power read a little tennis thread), Most the time those jokers give me a headache.

3. Title IX has been beat to death on other threads- There is even a group dedicated to it's examination and overthrow- which includes the REAL statistics about the damage it has done.
And don't get too comfortable, you major-sports guys... Title IX ALSO includes equal representation in Coaching AND Sports Administration. EVERY SINGLE Div I is out of compliance at any time over some section of IX- It just depends when and where they want to crack the whip.

4. ASU has a GREAT tennis facility- surrounded by a lot of the ugliest multi-level parking lots that greed could create- I hope to God that the plan was not hatched just to make a short-sighted grab for the real estate and more butt ugly parking.

5. I have some tennis balls with the SUN DEVIL logo stamp I picked up a couple weeks ago, maybe the LAST home stand against ARIZONA.... I wonder what they will go for at auction?
 
Last edited:

10isDad

Hall of Fame
Since ASU publicly announced how much money in private endowments it would take to keep the programs going (I believe it was $5M for tennis $8M for S&D), it is safe to assume that is what they are angling for. Given that they received $104M in private donations in 2007 alone it seems doable.
Actually $5M for tennis, $5M for swimming and $8M for wrestling. The men's diving team is still in existence and funded.

Much of the $104M in private donations was to build the indoor football practice facility, fund a new basketball arena and repair the football stadium. Additionally, there was a fair amount of money donated specifically to develop facilities designed to attract scientific research/researchers.

Colorado boosters couldn't raise $1M a couple years ago and tennis probably isn't popular enough to get the wealthy to contribute enough. Hopefully, though...
 

gully

Professional
... but lower sports on the pecking order are being dropped like flies. Colorado, Kansas, ASU, UALR are just recent ones.
From the same document cited earlier, listing Div I, II, and III as totals, Div I in parentheses.
  • Men's Tennis, 1981-82: 690 teams (267 D1); 7,340 participants (2,884 D1)
  • Men's Tennis, 2004-05: 742 teams (265 D1); 7,386 participants (2,613 D1)
Would anyone like to present any kind of empirical evidence to demonstrate that there are substantially fewer opportunities for men to play collegiate tennis today or that there are substantially fewer teams to play for? Granted, I don't have the most recent stats, but someone else is welcome to do some homework here.
 

JLyon

Hall of Fame
From the same document cited earlier, listing Div I, II, and III as totals, Div I in parentheses.
  • Men's Tennis, 1981-82: 690 teams (267 D1); 7,340 participants (2,884 D1)
  • Men's Tennis, 2004-05: 742 teams (265 D1); 7,386 participants (2,613 D1)
Would anyone like to present any kind of empirical evidence to demonstrate that there are substantially fewer opportunities for men to play collegiate tennis today or that there are substantially fewer teams to play for? Granted, I don't have the most recent stats, but someone else is welcome to do some homework here.
Thanks for the work.
Below are additional teams dropped since 2004 (D1):
http://www.itatennis.com/Advocacy/DroppedProgramsSummary4.26.08.pdf
U. of Evansville 2004 *******
Towson University (MD) 2004 Mid-Atlantic
U. of Vermont 2004 2004 New England
Savannah State University (GA) 2005 Southern
American University 2005 2005 Mid-Atlantic
Missouri State (formerly SW Missouri State) 2006 2006 Mo Valley
U. of New Hampshire 2006 2006 New England
U. of Colorado (Boulder) 2006 Intermountain
Rutgers University 2007 Middle States
University of Rhode Island 2008 New England
University of Arkansas Little Rock*
Arizona State University*


Would be curious to see where the breakdown is for DII and DIII (no scholarships athletics)?
Since the recent study looks like an additional 7 teams have been dropped, so add roughly 50+ athletes.
Also 100 programs have been dropped at all levels since 2003, which does include some Ladies programs.
Also JUCO decline has been enormous:
"JC According to a membership report provided by the National Junior College Athletic Association, NJCAAmembership for men’s tennis programs has declined over the past decade from a high of 162 programs during the 1990-91 academic year to 78 programs in 2007-2008."
 
Last edited:

goober

Legend
Regarding UCLA, they still support more varsity programs than most major universities. It is also important to realize that there are currently only 16 NCAA Division I programs with a men's gymnastics program. There were most likely reasons specific to that sport to justify dropping it.

Since ASU publicly announced how much money in private endowments it would take to keep the programs going (I believe it was $5M for tennis $8M for S&D), it is safe to assume that is what they are angling for. Given that they received $104M in private donations in 2007 alone it seems doable.
Well 17% of that private endowment went to athletics and most of that for funding facilities. To keep all 3 ASU would have to more than double its donations to the athletic department which I think is a far reach in the current local economic situation. May be it is "doable." but I would say extremely unlikely to happen.

Lisa Love also made a very bone headed decision to extend Dirk Koetter's contract 3 years at 3 Million and then firing him with a very expensive buy out and bringing in another expensive coach. But that is another story...
 
Last edited:

goober

Legend
Regarding UCLA, they still support more varsity programs than most major universities. It is also important to realize that there are currently only 16 NCAA Division I programs with a men's gymnastics program. There were most likely reasons specific to that sport to justify dropping it.

.
I am very aware of how many varsity sports UCLA supports (23), but that was not my point. UCLA had the highest profile, most successful mens gymnastics program in the country and you didn't see wealthy donors stepping in to revive it. Why do you think ASU Mens tennis, wrestling and swimming are somehow different?
 

Gus

New User
I am very aware of how many varsity sports UCLA supports (23), but that was not my point. UCLA had the highest profile, most successful mens gymnastics program in the country and you didn't see wealthy donors stepping in to revive it. Why do you think ASU Mens tennis, wrestling and swimming are somehow different?
I was simply proposing a theory based on the following information: 1) current economic situation affecting most state governments is severe but probably (hopefully) short lived; 2) they stated how much they needed, they have a good track record of raising funds, and I believe there is a growing trend of corporate sponsorship of college athletics (wells fargo arena, karsten gc are specific to ASU); 3) they have specific use facilities that were expensive to build and are very expensive to maintain regardless of whether or not the teams use them; and 4) the $1M a year they are going to save is "chump change" in the big picture.

I guess I'm holding out hope that this is a political maneuver in the face of state budget cuts. Maybe I'm dead wrong.

The only point I was trying to make about the male gymnastics was that it is probably dying all on its own. I don't know how many aspiring boy gymnasts there are out there, but its most likely next to nil. Or, just enough to fill the rosters of the 16 schools still competing.
 
Top