In the evolving landscape of college athletics, the past few months have witnessed a significant wave of changes as universities reassess their sports programs. This transformation is heavily influenced by the ongoing ramifications of the $2.8 billion NCAA settlement, which is expected to reshape financial structures within collegiate sports. As schools navigate these shifts, some have made the difficult decision to cut or add programs, reflecting a new era in how they allocate resources.
For instance, UTEP made headlines by discontinuing its women’s tennis program, while Cal Poly opted to end its swimming and diving teams. On the flip side, programs like women’s swimming are making a resurgence, with Marquette adding this team to its athletic offerings. Meanwhile, Grand Canyon University has opted to close the door on a historically strong men’s volleyball program. These decisions may seem arbitrary at first glance, but they reveal a broader trend: as the financial landscape changes, universities are forced to make tough choices about which programs to support.
At the forefront of this dilemma are athletes in non-revenue sports, who find themselves in a precarious position. While star athletes in lucrative sports like football and basketball are looking at enhanced compensation opportunities through name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals, the same cannot be said for their counterparts in less visible sports. The uncertainty looms large, as many athletic departments must decide which programs are financially viable in an environment where the expected distribution of up to $20.5 million to athletes next year may not reach all corners of the athletic landscape. In this evolving scenario, teams in less mainstream sports are increasingly at risk of getting sidelined.
Patrick Rishe, executive director of the sports business program at Washington University, emphasizes that we are only witnessing the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the decisions universities face as a result of the NCAA settlement. The pressure to compete effectively is escalating, particularly for mid-major and smaller Division I institutions. With rising costs attached to maintaining competitive programs, schools must critically evaluate which offerings make sense moving forward.
The financial impact of the pandemic has already forced some universities to reevaluate their athletic commitments. UConn, for example, previously eliminated four sports to cut costs, a move that affected more than 120 student-athletes. Now, as schools continue to adjust to new economic realities, there’s a visible shift occurring. Students and anyone who follows college sports will have to adapt to these changes, as the dynamics surrounding men’s and women’s sports continue to evolve.
Examples of program shifts are seen across the nation: St. Bonaventure and UT Arlington are wagering on women’s golf, while Marquette’s Big East athletic director Mike Broeker highlights the importance of the demographics within their student body in deciding to add women’s swimming. This thoughtful approach underscores the necessity for programs to be aligned with student interests, an aspect crucial for the future of collegiate athletics.
Rishe notes that compliance with Title IX—a federal law designed to ensure gender equity in college sports—will also play a critical role in shaping future decisions about which programs thrive and which ones may be cut. He predicts that men’s non-revenue sports could be more vulnerable to elimination as universities strive to maintain gender balance in their athletics offerings.
As we look ahead, the uncertainty surrounding college sports might result in transformative changes that challenge long-held traditions. With discussions suggesting that top universities could eventually splinter off into their own elite division, we stand at a crossroads where anything seems possible. A seismic shift in how collegiate athletics operate isn’t just on the horizon—it’s beginning to unfold right before our eyes.
