Do you fear that colleges are going to get rid of track and cross country?

I don’t think many XC Teams will be effected, as it’s a super cheap and easy sport to keep for D1 status. As for track I don’t know, but also you may be forgetting that with this Track season being canceled a lot of schools actually made money off of the track teams, because they didn’t have to pay for them to travel anywhere, so that may end up being a saving grace in the end, but who knows?

Because online education is terrible.

No. NCAA and conferences still have minimum varsity sport quotas for membership and xc, indoor, & outdoor are probably the least expensive three an athletic department could carry on its annual budget.

Nothing is going to change, if a school cuts a program it was because they were already close to doing it and this just tipped the scale.

IAmAlwaysRight wrote:

With the lack of revenue due to the coronavirus, do you believe colleges will axe their track and cross country programs?

It will only affect Men's track. Women's track is here to stay because it, along with volleyball, allows for a balancing act against men's programs. Everything from roster sizes to scholarships to budget is greatly benefited by the existence for women's track.

In D1, where football pays for everything else accept men’s hoops, the other sports are going to see fewer scholarships. I think they (schools and NCAA working together) will reduce scholarships before they outright cut a sport. In D2/3 where football is not profitable in most cases then everything is on the table for cuts.

school guy wrote:

I realize that it is hard to understand math. If The University of Nebraska has 2000 men and 2000 women across all sports today and they cut 10 men from track, they then have 1990 men and 2000 women so they also have to cut 10 women from a sport. The 90 football guys are in the 2000.

NCAA D1 rules place the limit on athletic scholarships at roughly 230 for men and 236 for women if you are counting ALL recognized NCAA sports (things like fencing, equestrian, shooting sports, bowling, etc.) Title IX compliance is an accounting issue based on the money used for athletic scholarships, not raw numbers of participants.

Let's say that a D1 institution has a major financial shortfall in their athletic department and must cut athletic spending and scholarships. The AD and regents decide that only 130 full scholarships can be offered for each gender. Here's how that will breakdown at the average institution with FBS football:

Men (Four largest revenue/exposure sports)

Football - 85

Basketball - 13

Baseball - 11.7

Soccer - 9.9

Total - 119.6

Women (Four largest revenue/exposure sports)

Basketball - 15

Soccer - 14

Softball - 12

Volleyball - 12

Total - 53

So the men have 10.4 scholarships left to give and the women have 77 spots. If you are a northern university with a traditionally strong ice hockey program, substitute that sport's 18 scholarships instead of soccer and now you have only 2.3 spots to fight over.

Which side of the gender aisle is going to get hit the hardest? If you are a male track athlete, you had better hope that your school's golf, wrestling, and tennis teams really suck! Or get ready to pony up your tuition and living costs as any other program allowed to survive will be a crew of walk-ons competing against other colleges within 50-100 miles of your campus. Power 5 schools wouldn't have to cut this deep but mid-majors certainly might find themselves in this very situation.

Would be upset if college running took this kind of a hit. However, I would like to think that scenario could open up new and better systems for developing and training distance runners. the US is the only country in the world that ties school and sports so closely together.

I remember looking it up recently, how much money each NCAA sport makes. Football is first by a longshot, then mens hoops, i think womens hoops after that... then baseball and ice hockey, then track and field. So really, T/F and XC are at best, the 6th most profitable sport and at worst, in the same boat as every other sport i didn't mention above.

Both sides of the gender aisle get hit the same. If the school currently provides 200 scholarships total and needs to get to 130, they need to cut 35 from men and 35 from women. If they currently provide 140, they need to cut 5 from men and 5 from women. Neither gender gets more removed or they would no longer be in compliance. And it is not just scholarships, schools also balance roster spots across all sports. No school wants to deal with explaining why they provide more scholarships to either gender or more roster spots to either gender. Many schools actually go around campus recruiting girls to participate in track or rowing just to get the school's total number up to the number for men. I happen to know a few girls who were asked to join XC, indoor and outdoor track to get some free gear without having to do more than show up the first week of each sport.

D3 doesn't make money on sports but they seem to keep them going.

That's not entirely true. Another category of compliance is classified as athletic opportunities. No women's sport will ever have a roster size of football, but schools can counter this by offering more women's sports. You'll see at a lot of schools that they may have 6 men's sports (the minimum to get funds from the NCAA) but they'll probably have 7 or 8 women's sports. The roster sizes may not match but the school can claim that they are offering a sufficient amount of competitive opportunities for women. Also, the numbers do not have to be equal but they should reflect the school's overall enrollment. If a school has 55% female, they should offer that many more opportunities for females. Women's Track and Field is almost always going to be protected because it can accommodate the largest roster size for a women's sport.

Not sure why you think women will have less trimming. Ever seen a cross country team of Armenian chicks?

OldNECoach wrote:

That's not entirely true. Another category of compliance is classified as athletic opportunities. No women's sport will ever have a roster size of football, but schools can counter this by offering more women's sports. You'll see at a lot of schools that they may have 6 men's sports (the minimum to get funds from the NCAA) but they'll probably have 7 or 8 women's sports. The roster sizes may not match but the school can claim that they are offering a sufficient amount of competitive opportunities for women. Also, the numbers do not have to be equal but they should reflect the school's overall enrollment. If a school has 55% female, they should offer that many more opportunities for females. Women's Track and Field is almost always going to be protected because it can accommodate the largest roster size for a women's sport.

This. In 2016 56% of US college students were female, and the trend is for that difference to increase. Those kind of demographics are going to hurt men's sports in the long run, even football.

University of Delaware dumped all xc and track and got rid of their indoor track. so del hs champs were in landover md. thi nk that will happen again - nope. byebye hsntrack

ken g wrote:

why even have colleges? ONLINE EVERYTHING! THE DAYS OF BRICK AND MORTAR COLLEGE BUILDINGS ARE OVER!

Ummmm No...

school guy wrote:

some D1 schools have 2000 students while some D3 schools have 15,000.

Is there a list somewhere of D3 enrollments? I am thinking few D3 are over 15K students.

As best I can tell only 4 D1 schools have fewer than 4K students: Colgate, Evansville, Davidson and Presbyterian. Only the latter two have fewer than 2000.

I'm in the camp that thinks, "So? Get rid of all college sports."

The whole thing is silly. Get rid of them. Find your entertainment somewhere else. American football especially needs to go, for reasons that are so obvious that it doesn't need stating.

paul72 wrote:

Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:

Not if they elect to keep 90 football players. The number of athletic opportunities has to balance out, not the sports offerings. Oregon State is a prime example. No men's track or XC (cut in 1988 due to budget problems) but, they have full squads in both sports for women. Why? It offsets the larger number of men on football and brought OSU into compliance with Title IX mandates.

Athletic directors will have to make choices. Historically, schools have cut "minor" sports like wrestling and men's track in times of financial crisis. No institution in today's political climate will cut a women's program for fear of backlash.

this--men's track and cross the low-hanging fruit, and you know that most programs will hang on to football, making women's programs a safe bet to stay given title IX-why football has 90 scholarships is beyond me--$$ talks...

Football has 85, but why it has so many is because it needs a lot of players. For those who do not know football, you have at a minimum 27 starters (11 offense, 11 defense, 2 kickers, long snapper, holder--unless the punter in the holder you have a back up doing it).

As you note, the $$ talk and football generates the revenue especially in Power 5 schools.

Now I think that with all the money rolling into power 5 schools and the money from the NCAA tournament (in most years) that grant limits should be increased. Track, baseball, volleyball, etc grants have remained the same since the limits were put into place. Also, more pressure should be exerted to fund fully the sports they do choose.