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

Scholar Expert wrote:

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

What they bank on is that the football team at a D3 schools gives players a chance to play college football. So let's say they have 100 players who are all paying tuition. That is 100 more students than that college might have had otherwise.

Now if those players decide not to play and leave school then that is a problem.

They might generate a bit of revenue from ticket sales to help offset costs.

Link attached to my aforementioned post:

https://www.businessinsider.com/college-sports-football-revenue-2017-10

You say it is not true but then pretty much agree. The roster spots across all sports will be equal. That has nothing to do with individual sports. I challenge you to find a college that has more men on rosters across all sports than women. So you can say that they only have to provide the opportunity but there is no way to track that so schools will always ensure that they have as many women as men. You care correct that they also should mirror the student body which means that will actually have more total women than men across all sports, not the opportunity to have more women than men.

I provided a link a while ago that showed dozens of schools who earn a profit from track. Much of the profit from football and basketball is from donations which is the same reason that track programs are profitable.

lease wrote:

I fear it. The college I'm assisting at (public D3) has already told us the program will face steep budget cuts next year.

Colleges didn’t give refunds. D3 doesn’t lose ncaaa tv basketball revenue. How are they impacted by this? Would seem to be better than 95% of us

If anything this helps d3 schools, and any small school that is tuition driven. A d3 school of 2,000 kids where 300-500 play sports (100 football, 50-100 between men’s and women’s track 30 men’s and women’s hoops, etc) means that close 25% of students are attending that school because if sports! And if some d1/2 schools cut scholarships even more kids will attend d3 and there are tons more d3 schools around the country so kids looking to stay close to home May again lean toward d3... d3 schools need sports!

If covidaphobia continues, what happens to revenue sports like football and basketball, which crowd large, yelling groups of people together?

Why wouldn’t you ask the question differently.

Get rid of the expense. What is the cash expense? I’m guessing it’s coaches salaries and then travel.

Get rid of the coaches or cut the pay by 50 percent. Many will find something else to do with their time. THAT’S OK.

Reduce the meets. So what if people don’t fly to Wisconsin for an invite mid season. Big deal.

Are scholarships cash expense? I’m guessing not.

Facilities. Not sure how much goes to that.

We had several schools in our conference that had more female students than men, but had more men on rosters. They could justify the compliance discrepancy by offering more female sports, in other words athletic opportunities. Compliance is not just about rosters and scholarships being even, but also, the number of coaches, facilities, and equality in things like access to trainers, academic support, etc.. This is how schools get around roster sizes. Football rosters are always going to skew the numbers.

Smaller schools use sports to fill seats and bring revenue to the school. Unlikely they will cut track/XC because it's an easy sport to recruit large numbers for to bring kids in to help keep the schools afloat. Likely though that they will have huge budget cuts for the next few years with an expectation that they stick to local meets and a shoe string budget. I'm guessing most coaches will be given huge roster goals to hit with their jobs depending on hitting a roster minimum with less regard for team performances.

I think it's unlikely that teams get the axe entirely. You might see more D1 teams acting like D3 teams tho, which I'm not so sure isn't a good thing. Maybe athletes don't get as much free gear. Maybe east coast schools don't travel to Wisconsin for a meet and take a bus to Boston instead. There's a lot of money that gets wasted on travel that could already get pumped back into academics.

When you look at what has been happening in higher education (admin bloat + salaries, skyrocketing tuition, majority adjunct faculty, major building projects), cutting cross country/T&F probably isn't the first place you need to look for cuts.

I take it you weren't around in the 70s, remember UTEP, Washington State, Western Kentucky, etc.

No. Which school? You should want to name them so that we can bring scrutiny to ensure that they are complying but you won't. If you count the roster spots across all sports, they had more women than men on the rosters. Your analysis is just silly.

ck3237 wrote:

I take it you weren't around in the 70s, remember UTEP, Washington State, Western Kentucky, etc.

Villanova, Arkansas (moreso in the '80s), Providence, too.

I bet Penn makes a profit each year just based on penn relays alone

Football will stay as the money maker. Running will stay because it's relatively cheap. It's all the sports besides those that are in trouble.

tough but fair

Short term suck but mid to long term very positive for the sport Switching to a robust local club system would boost the sport at all levels It would also get colleges focused on education instead of expensive circle jerks

remember the NCAA wrote:

Don't they have to have a certain number of sports at each NCAA college in order for their money sports (football, basketball) to compete?

XC has to be the cheapest sport to have. Track is not that expensive either considering for most schools the meets are away. I don't see any issues here

Track makes a profit at many of the P5 schools.