Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Stanford May Cut Back in Athletics
Stanford’s athletic department is projecting a $5 million loss in revenue over the next three years and is considering cutting staff and eliminating some sports teams, The Associated Press has learned.Times are tough all over. Because Title IX essentially puts a cost on men's teams that is not placed on women's teams, how will Title IX be used if it comes to cutting teams?The school is expected to decide in the next 30 to 60 days on staff cuts, a Stanford employee familiar with the budget issues told the AP on condition of anonymity because the person is not authorized to discuss the shortfall.
The person also said Tuesday it wasn’t clear which teams, if any, would be considered for elimination—and it likely wouldn’t be until next season so at the earliest in the fall.
“That’s the last thing they want to consider. They don’t want it to affect student-athletes,” the person said, noting another department was looking to eliminate 50 positions from a staff of about 140. “We do have some serious budget problems. We’re looking at other ways (to save).”
Reducing travel costs also was being discussed.
Labels: NCAA; college sports, Title IX
Thursday, June 05, 2008
The Title IX Grim Reaper
1) The university decision makers are in a budget pinch. They overestimate the savings from dropping a sport by using budgetary "costs" that include fixed (often sunk) costs that won't change if the sport is dropped.
2) The decision makers understand #1 but are using this strategically to make athletics appear as if it is "sharing the pain" of budget cuts more than it is. This might come about at the top administrative level or because of transfer prices to the athletic departments are set in a way which creates the incentive to reflect budget "costs" rather than actual costs savings.
3) Title IX goals are creating the incentive to cut men's sports.
I have seen #1 in action at my institution many years ago, and possibly #2 in action just recently in the dropping of men's soccer (although it maybe #3). I was not inclined to suspect #3 in the Arizona State because much of the Title IX reshuffling at schools like ASU already took place in the 1990s. A column, however, in the Arizona Republic (Title IX Headlock -- pointer from Saving Sports blog) pulls no punches:
Yes, the decision to eliminate men's wrestling, swimming and tennis is a reflection of the state's free-falling revenues. Facing a $3.4 million deficit, eliminating the three programs will save ASU $350,000. Budget cuts, of course, are necessary for all enterprises that must meet a bottom line, and the programs headed by Lisa Love, the ASU athletic director, are no different. But the choices that left ASU with eight men's programs and 12 for women were forced on the university as much by federal requirements regarding proportional resource allocation for men and women - Title IX, in other words - as by the need to cut spending. Given the extraordinary impact - both good and bad, by the way - that Title IX has had on college sports, it is irresponsible to pretend that elephant isn't there.As part of the story, it does come out that ASU is engaging in some of #2. By the schools statement in Phil's post, they would save $1.1 million. By the Republic's figuring, this is more like $350,000, which lines up with studies of athletic accounting that I have done. For goodness sakes, the school is not filling in the pool or building a new structure on the tennis courts. The wrestling mats and facility -- well, they will be continue to rented to a local group.
Labels: college sports, Title IX
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Arizona State Eliminates Three Sports
Labels: college sports, NCAA, Title IX
