There’s talk of them joining the ACC by taking a reduced share but your scenario is possible. They have a huge budget given all the Olympic sports they fund. During Covid they scrapped 11sports but reversed the decision soon after. I’d expect some deep cuts if they can’t land a good deal. I’d think the women’s tennis team would survive given Title IX but the men’s team is certainly at risk in that scenario. It’s a pity because they do have a good team with potential. Perhaps an opportunity for other programs to poach the players away considering all the uncertainty
www.sfgate.com
Right, schools with big endowments like Stanford, BYU, Texas, Notre Dame, Harvard et. al. are likely going to be okay. Same goes for schools with massive fan bases like UK and Duke BB basketball, Alabama, Ohio St., Penn St., Michigan, Florida, etc. will also be fine. My list is not exhaustive and realize there are others with big banks and fans basesI'm pretty sure that Stanford's tennis program specifically is fully self-supported via their own endowment fund. I recall that back in the 90s when Dick Gould was there, they were the first college tennis program that didn't require money from the general athletic fund to operate.
In general terms, Stanford has been building up an athletic endowment war chest for decades. Here's an article from 20 years ago that talks about their funding for athletics, which is separate from any income that would have been coming in from the Pac-12 or any other conference that they move to in the future:
Huge endowment helps Stanford / No. 1 program has fund of $270 million
The school's $270 million sports fund -- part of a $7.6 billion overall endowment -- is...
Overall, Stanford's general endowment for the entire school is almost $30 billion dollars. The school has won the NCAA Director's Cup a record 26 times, which is a measurement of the number of championships their entire athletic program wins on an annual basis. Stanford is a pipeline for Olympic champions and arguably has the finest academic and athletic programs in the country. That success of the "non-revenue" sports and the huge endowment are the primary reasons why the alumni cried foul and there was a reversal a couple years ago when the school proposed eliminating 11 of the sports programs:
Stanford, Facing Pressure, Reverses Plan to Cut 11 Sports (Published 2021)
The change of plans came within weeks of the teams potentially dissolving.www.nytimes.com
Bottom line, Stanford tennis is safe. Stanford is in great shape financially and they will get an invite to a lucrative conference. On the other hand, Cal...
This plus shameless GREED by the P5's wanting to keep their cake and eat it too. They are going to kill the non-revenue sports with these East Coast to West Coast Conferences, no longer about Student Athletics
Was is Larry Scott who got out with a golden parachute and left Kliavinoff holding steaming bag of PAC12 excrement? Also heard Kliavinoff offered up the PAC12 to join the Big12 excluding Oregon St and Washington St. Lol. Regardless of that history up till now, I think your summary that GREED is the ultimate culprit. Look how the bowl system has been protected by the good ol boy system rooted in greed.
Agreed. The Knight Commission proposed a new governance structure for D1 sports in Dec 2020-FBS outside NCAA with its own organization; basketball, nonrevenue sports, and the lower tier of D1 football stay in NCAA. Right now NCAA is responsible for compliance and regulation of all D1 sports including football but does not get proceeds from football playoffs. March Madness funds NCAA for all sports. If football is spun off, then other sports would be arranged in conference to promote basketball or have separate conference associations for selected sports like lacrosse.
if FB and BB programs are separated from the rest of the non-revenue sports, I am pretty sure that student fees will increase to make up for the shortfall and that is not fair for the rest of the student population. Currently, UVA is charging $3500/year in student fees. If FB and BB programs go their separate ways, the student fees will probably go up to about $5,000/year to subsidize the non-revenue sports. Is that fair for the rest of the student population?
To subsidize non rev sports - nope. If it’s in any way to cover the students degree program- no issue with the increase in fees.
What I've heard is the ACC isn't going to happen. Oregon State and Washington State will probably go to the Mountain West ?
Most football programs lose $$. Even in 2019 prior to the pandemic, only 25 out of 65 P5 programs were in the black-the rest lost $$. High salaries for coaches, upgrades to stadiums, practice facilities etc can more than offset the revenues brought in by football. It may be basketball that is funding all sports. In the proposed NCAA change, basketball would not be separated out-it would stay with the nonrevenue sports in NCAA. at some universities, other sports may earn some $-baseball, hockey, etc
They would have to do it in a sensible manner. Talking to a sport admin in the ACC last spring he said when they had to cut costs during covid they shifted the schedule. They had to play Duke, UNC, NC St, and Wake all on the road. To cut costs they got them to realign the conference schedule. They played Friday/Sunday against two of them, then the following Thursday/Saturday against the other two, just stayed in the triangle and did online classes the whole time. That way they only actually paid for travel one time rather than flying them back and forth two weeks in a row. I think you'll see some interesting schedule management with all the realignment and extensive travel that schools are going to have to make in olympic sports. Additionally, I think we'll see either an expansion of allowable dates to higher than 25 OR they will have to eliminate the .500 rule. When your conference schedule goes to 16 or 18 dates and kickoff weekend counts as a date, you run out of both powder puffs and depending on conference, good teams to boost your ranking if you're a top mid-major and not getting much quality in conference.
University of Virginia made about 15M in FB and about 2M in BB. That 15M is supporting the athletic department. if they are going to separate FB from the rest, there will not be enough money to support non-revenue sports. The only way to do it, IMHO, is to increase student fees on ALL students, layoff people, or both. I just don't think it is fair to impose that burden on regular students.
Unfortunately, almost all schools use part of student fees to support athletic departments. HBO Real Sports did several stories on this a few years back. Unfortunately, schools are not using student fees to cover student degree programs.
If you have 18 teams in a conference, won't the conference split into N/S or E/W divisions with either the winners or SFists of each division or maybe the top 8 teams overall playing in conference championship? The SEC structure as it was in recent years improved the rankings of all teams with all teams playing each other. As it expands, even for tennis, it seems impossible for every team to play each other every year and still allow some early schedule dates for easier teams, kickoff, and some competitive nonconference matches prior to conference play start.
This is why I believe the ITA/NCAA will add more allowable dates. They used to be pretty unlimited and teams would play like 4 days a week. Maybe expanding the allowable dates to 30 a year and do with them what you may. If you look at certain teams, some use significantly more dates in the spring than others anyway due to having fall schedules and proximity that line up with Futures and challengers so they don't have to use dates in the fall and can get better match ups in the spring.
In Georgia, the flagship universities of UGA and GA Tech have set limits for enrollment. However the other public universities (including 3 other public D1 unis) in state have to accept every student who applies who meets a minimum admissions criteria. GA offers large Hope scholarships that cover most of tuition but not fees, so attending college in state is very popular. There are 4 universities in state with more than 40K students including grad students (in '22 GT had 18K undergrad but 27K grad students). GA State (45K UG, 51K total) and KSU (39K UG, 43K total) had the highest number of UGs in the state. Rural GA Southern was less appealing to Atlantans in '22-only 25K total students (22K UG). If you have a decent HS GPA of 3.0, 90% of tuition is paid by state -excludes fees. Of course our kids who would have qualified for Hope chose to attend universities out of state... Being a southern state, all 5 D1 public universities have football teams...
That's tough for a student athlete esp if more Thursday matches are added. As a parent of a former collegian, I know all about the 25 dates-some teams do the doubleheaders- an easy team plus a more competitive one to get more matches in. Plus the guys who play more in the fall can sit out 1-2 of the easier matches. Actually fall can be tougher than dual season for student athletes-lots of big tourneys with midweek matches-AA, Regionals, etc right around midterms-not the best time to miss a Wed or TH class 3 weeks in a row. I hope a solution is reached that balances the need for competition without sacrificing academics. Tennis isnt basketball, and most of the players will seek professional careers post grad.
With WSU and OSU being left out of a move to a current P5 conference, I can see them having a hard time supporting non-revenue programs due to massive budget shortfalls with no short term plan to make up that gap. Hope I'm right that those P5 schools that get to stay in the system can still keep those programs and the schools who have never been in a P5 have the right budget structure to maintain there's.
Yes, it's all gotten astoundingly crass and stupid. The evolving soon-to-be 20-team P5 conferences won't be conferences in the traditional sense--as
Well, I can understand why people would want to split off football from the rest of non-revenue sports. FB is by far the highest risk of all college sports and college football players are taking risk in generating money for the schools. Other sports such as tennis, golf, swimming, with virtually zero injury risks, are being subsidized by the football program. Most of the football players come from poor backgrounds and the universities use them to subsidize non-revenue sports that athletes from upper class and wealthy people participate in. Is that fair? I do not know what the answer will be.
That would be pretty funny, if the Stanford tree mascot was replaced by a person wearing a giant X costume.
How about using that 15M to take care of FB players by 1- paying them for playing a high risk sport in order to make $$$ for the university; 2- Use that money to take care of the players after their playing days are over at the University; 3- use that money for players personal and professional development, that they actually get meaningful, not some useless degrees.
Bob, taking your 3 points further one at a time comes with unintended consequences.
A lot of that sounds good, but then there are the schools that don't make any money on football. That will create a visible haves/have-nots situation in which player are taken care of to a high degree at 50 schools, while the rest of FBS, FCS, NCAA Division II and Division III take care of players to a hugely lesser degree. Would create some interesting publicity over time.
The victim card again. Really quite sad to see this played, it's not helpful. While FB pays for many other sports in some instances the vast majority of schools FB and BB programs don't make enough money to fund other programs. We've been down these rabbit holes before.
Where do you think they get the 4.5 scholarship and 8 scholarship money from for men women tennis? The same goes with golf men and women. It is not a victim card, it is just a fact. All I know is that UVA where my kid attends, they make 15M in profit from FB. the OSU where I attended, the school is making a whole lot more than 15M and they are using that money to subsidize other programs. When you said " Also, the budgets at P3 schools are so huge that sports like tennis and golf take up such a small percentage, AD's for the most part don't have time to focus there" doesn't make it ok.
4.5 men's and 8 women's scholarships have roughly been around since IX, look it up. If I'm wrong on the timing so what, goes back 30+ years. You've view is very narrow, UVA and OSU are monster P3 schools. Again, the vast majority of colleges with FB programs lose money. You're playing civil rights advocate for FB against Tennis, that's just a loser position.
