The NCAA's decision to cancel its biggest money-maker was the right one, but it left a massive financial hit that will trickle down to the schools. March Madness money is distributed to conferences who then spread it among their member institutions. The better the conference does, the more money everybody gets. No games means no money. For anybody. Which is a tremendous blow to the schools that rely on that money and now need to find a way to make up for that loss.
That's one of the reasons it's so important for there to be a college football season this year, and why schools and conferences have been coming up with contingency plan after contingency plan to make sure there is one. The money BCS schools bring in because of football makes the March Madness money look like pocket change. And losing that money would be even more catastrophic.
Some smaller BCS schools, particularly those in the Mid-American Conference, have been preparing for that possibility in the worst way possible. They're cutting sports, particularly men's sports. To the bare minimum level. All while leaving football alone.
Schools with a BCS football team are required to have 16 sports (the non-football NCAA minimum is 14). Outside of needing to have at least one sport per gender per season, there's no additional requirement on how those programs are broken down. However, because of Title IX and the sheer number of football scholarships, that breakdown is overwhelmingly tilted towards women's teams. Which is why when Athletic Departments cut sports, it's men's sports that are more vulnerable. And it's no different here.
I've lost count of how many schools and how many programs, but it's well over 100 teams that have been cut--a vast majority of them men's teams. The University of Akron, for example, will be down to just six men's teams in the fall, two of which are football and basketball. By contrast, Akron, also cut women's tennis, but will still have 10 women's programs. Meanwhile, Furman, which plays football at the FCS level, cut two large-roster men's programs--baseball and lacrosse.
These cuts aren't limited to mid-major schools, either. The University of Cincinnati was one of the first to announce it was discontinuing sports. They dropped men's soccer back in mid-April after a "comprehensive and thorough review" of their athletic program and the "long-term budget implications of supporting the number of athletes currently at UC." They didn't flat-out blame it on coronavirus, but everyone knew that was the main reason.
UConn may be next. Just as they get ready to rejoin the Big East, they're also evidently planning on cutting eight of their 24 sports. A third of their sports offerings gone in one felt swoop! In a not-so-flattering article on SI.com the other day, Pat Forde wasn't shy about offering a reason why UConn was in this financial situation. You get one guess as to what sport he blamed (his reasoning is pretty solid, so I can't really argue with him).
Even the Ivy League, which doesn't even offer athletic scholarships, isn't immune. Ivy League athletic programs are notoriously big. Harvard has 43 sports and the others are in the 30s. Brown, however, will go from 38 to 29 next season after reducing nine teams from varsity to club status. At least they aren't flat out cutting those nine teams, but they won't receive nearly as much support (financial or otherwise) by dropping to club. More significantly, the NCAA doesn't recognize club programs. Only varsity.
Not all of these decisions were caused by coronavirus. Dropping sports isn't something schools just do without putting some thought into it, so it's entirely possible that some of these teams were already on the chopping block anyway. The unprecedented situation that the country is currently in only exacerbated the problem and forced their hand. However, there's no doubt that some of these cuts were indeed directly because of coronavirus and the expected budget shortfalls that these Athletic Departments envision having to make up.
Yes, it's a difficult financial reality for these schools. And not having to pay scholarships and team budgets and coaches' salaries will definitely help their bottom line. Although, it should be noted that a lot of these schools are dropping non-revenue sports, which generally have smaller rosters (and thus fewer scholarships) and smaller operating budgets. But it's easier to justify getting rid of men's golf than cutting the football budget. (Akron's cutting men's cross country also makes absolutely no sense to me when they're keeping men's track.)
But who is it that suffers? The student-athletes on these teams. Or, I should say, the former student-athletes. Furman baseball players had no idea that March 10 would be their final day as Furman baseball players. Period! First they lost their season, then they lost their program. Through no fault of their own. Sure, they can transfer or stay at the school and have their scholarships honored. But they're no longer Furman baseball players, and that's probably the whole reason they went to Furman in the first place!
Talk about a double whammy! All that work they did to earn a scholarship, only to have their program taken away because of a global pandemic. And they won't necessarily be able to get another one, either. Not only are there now fewer teams, other schools are reducing their number of scholarships, and still others have to find money for both their 2020 seniors and 2021 freshmen. So it's possible that some of these students will never play college sports again. Which is the biggest shame of it all.
This can't be easy for anybody. Making the decision to cut sports is something no Athletic Director wants to do. And in the long run, it might help their department financially, which is the entire point. But in the short term, it's the student-athletes who feel the biggest blow. Unfortunately, there's nothing that can be done about that. That doesn't make it any more heartbreaking, though.
No comments:
Post a Comment