How worried shouid we be about D1 tennis’ future with latest revenue sharing proposal for football/basketball?

TennisFan97

New User
It looks like the SEC and Big 10 (and to a lesser extent the ACC and Big 12) are moving towards a revenue sharing model with their student athletes, obviously geared towards football and basketball players.

This would seemingly be very bad news for non revenue sports and mens tennis in particular is sadly often one of fhe first to go.

It’s been a slow decline over the years of D1 program cuts but this latest development seems like a really bad development. Am I overreacting or is this as bad as it seems?
 

silentkman

Hall of Fame
It looks like the SEC and Big 10 (and to a lesser extent the ACC and Big 12) are moving towards a revenue sharing model with their student athletes, obviously geared towards football and basketball players.

This would seemingly be very bad news for non revenue sports and mens tennis in particular is sadly often one of fhe first to go.

It’s been a slow decline over the years of D1 program cuts but this latest development seems like a really bad development. Am I overreacting or is this as bad as it seems?
Do you have a link to a article that discusses it?
 

andfor

Legend
This very issue has been a concern of mine for a few years regarding the survival of all non-revenue sports. Given the ongoing state of finances in the NCAA and DI programs seeming to need more money every few years, I can see some P3 schools keeping mens FB & BB and a few womens sports to meet Title IX requirements and dropping the rest. I can see tennis surviving better at the non-P3 schools who have to be more financially prudent since they often don't get to count on TV and big fan ticket revenues.
 
This stuff is the only thing that a local Clemson sports radio statio I listen to talks about.

Non-revenue men’s sports are most at risk, with tennis possibly being at the very bottom of the totem pole. There just aren’t enough people out there who would bat an eye whatsoever if men’s college tennis was greatly changed or reduced.

Quite frankly I’m just sticking my head in the sand and trying to ignore it for now. Have no control over it and I don’t think there’s anything we can really do about it.
 

silentkman

Hall of Fame

You can see that 45% of the money in the budget come from gift/endowment. If the people who give money want men tennis/golf programs to stay, those programs will stay. I see the same at schools like UVA, UNC, Michigan, Northwestern, etc... Other schools without sugar daddies may not be lucky :(
If I'm not mistaken, the cost to run a tennis program is a little ove one million, at the most two million. Just contine to use some of the football money to cover the costs. That doesn't seem like a ton of money.
 

bobleenov1963

Hall of Fame
If I'm not mistaken, the cost to run a tennis program is a little ove one million, at the most two million. Just contine to use some of the football money to cover the costs. That doesn't seem like a ton of money.
The University and school athletic department only have to answer to essentially two entities:

- The Federal government because it wants to get research federal funding and be compliance with Title IX. The last thing it want is to get into a pissing match with the powerful Federal government because the Fed can take down just about anyone,

-T he university big donors because as mentioned above, almost 50% of the school operating budget relies o gift/endowment. If those donors want the tennis program to go, it will go. If those guys want it to stay, it will stay. Money talks.....
 

silentkman

Hall of Fame
The University and school athletic department only have to answer to essentially two entities:

- The Federal government because it wants to get research federal funding and be compliance with Title IX. The last thing it want is to get into a pissing match with the powerful Federal government because the Fed can take down just about anyone,

-T he university big donors because as mentioned above, almost 50% of the school operating budget relies o gift/endowment. If those donors want the tennis program to go, it will go. If those guys want it to stay, it will stay. Money talks.....
You have stated the obvious. My comment was concerning the cost to run a division one program.
 
If I'm not mistaken, the cost to run a tennis program is a little ove one million, at the most two million. Just contine to use some of the football money to cover the costs. That doesn't seem like a ton of money.

Yes, tennis does not make revenue of course but it is actually one of the lowest cost sports to have thanks to smaller teams and support staff as well as less equipment than other sports.

There are many sports that lose far more money than tennis.
 

bobleenov1963

Hall of Fame
Most women tennis operating revenue expense is higher than men. That's understandable because there are 8 scholarships for women vs. 4.5 for men. Some of the programs like Florida State and Wake, have higher operating revenue for men than women. I am not a title IX lawyer but would that be a red flag for possible of violating Title IX?
 

andfor

Legend
I think the unintended consequences will be non revenue sports at these P3 schools will get squeezed out. My wild guess is these sports will be okay at non P3 and below
 
I spoke a prominent AD this morning and he has been working on the revenue sharing model for a while, in anticipation of this day. Basically what he told me is that some sports reduced in terms of funding, but he wouldn't cut any as they are almost at the minimum for NCAA D1 requirements (16 sports). What is more worried about is the amount they'll be able to give football players with regard to other schools in conference. In his case, their revenue is in the middle 50% while a rival school is near the top so football players at his school would make 20k less per year than players at this other school as their conference is suggesting using a cap of 22% of revenue at each school.

As for men's tennis, I doubt very many players will get any of the revenue share. Football and men's basketball players will get first priority (and rightfully so). Then will be the women's sports as you have to balance out due to title IX. If you dilute the revenue sharing pool even more by issuing more "shares", then you'll start seeing a negative impact in recruiting
 

jcgatennismom

Hall of Fame
I spoke a prominent AD this morning and he has been working on the revenue sharing model for a while, in anticipation of this day. Basically what he told me is that some sports reduced in terms of funding, but he wouldn't cut any as they are almost at the minimum for NCAA D1 requirements (16 sports). What is more worried about is the amount they'll be able to give football players with regard to other schools in conference. In his case, their revenue is in the middle 50% while a rival school is near the top so football players at his school would make 20k less per year than players at this other school as their conference is suggesting using a cap of 22% of revenue at each school.

As for men's tennis, I doubt very many players will get any of the revenue share. Football and men's basketball players will get first priority (and rightfully so). Then will be the women's sports as you have to balance out due to title IX. If you dilute the revenue sharing pool even more by issuing more "shares", then you'll start seeing a negative impact in recruiting
I wonder if D1 schools incl P3 will lobby NCAA to reduce minimum sports below 16 or have more of a D3 model for men’s nonrevenue sports.
 

Sureshot

Hall of Fame
I worry about the olympic sports. The US has dominated the Games on the basis of their excellent feeder network. What happens going forward is unclear.
 

andfor

Legend
I spoke a prominent AD this morning and he has been working on the revenue sharing model for a while, in anticipation of this day. Basically what he told me is that some sports reduced in terms of funding, but he wouldn't cut any as they are almost at the minimum for NCAA D1 requirements (16 sports). What is more worried about is the amount they'll be able to give football players with regard to other schools in conference. In his case, their revenue is in the middle 50% while a rival school is near the top so football players at his school would make 20k less per year than players at this other school as their conference is suggesting using a cap of 22% of revenue at each school.

As for men's tennis, I doubt very many players will get any of the revenue share. Football and men's basketball players will get first priority (and rightfully so). Then will be the women's sports as you have to balance out due to title IX. If you dilute the revenue sharing pool even more by issuing more "shares", then you'll start seeing a negative impact in recruiting
While it makes sense that an AD would be preparing for this, I can see the P3 schools giving the NCAA the middle finger and breaking away to create their own conference. I'm less than optimistic this goes well.
 
Top