Anybody read this article?

What are your thoughts on the state of college swimming?

Link?

I saw it online at Swimming World (Eddie Reese on the cover). I couldn't read it because I'm not signed up.

What is your opinion without reading it?

An older article but a good start.

http://swimswam.com/in-deep-water-the-recent-struggles-of-collegiate-swimming-programs/

quote:

---

An older article but a good start.

http://swimswam.com/in-deep-water-the-recent-struggles-of-collegiate-swimming-programs/

---

A snippet from the article in Swimming World

quote:

---

Shortly before Christmas 2014, a small group of representatives from the American Swimming Coaches Association (ASCA), the College Swimming Coaches Association of America (CSCAA), USA Swimming (USA-S) and the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) met to brainstorm and develop an initial strategy to save scholarship swimming.

---

I think swimming, particularly mens swimming, has an uncertain future. As much as I love college football, the arms race forces D1 schools to allocate outrageous amounts of money to football. Something will lose, especially for mid or small schools. Look at OU, Texas Tech, etc. - which don't have any swim teams. But they used to in the SWC days. I'm not sure when they killed swimming, but I'm sure it was about money. They needed every dollar to play with the big boys in football. So they took it from lesser sports, including swimming.

quote:

---

I think swimming, particularly mens swimming, has an uncertain future. As much as I love college football, the arms race forces D1 schools to allocate outrageous amounts of money to football. Something will lose, especially for mid or small schools. Look at OU, Texas Tech, etc. - which don't have any swim teams. But they used to in the SWC days. I'm not sure when they killed swimming, but I'm sure it was about money. They needed every dollar to play with the big boys in football. So they took it from lesser sports, including swimming.

---

I haven't read the articles, but will try.

IMO, the biggest impact to Men's Swimming is Title IX.

See: UCLA

Quickest way to get equity for Title IX was to add Women's Soccer and kill Men's Swimming.

Why can't A&M Swimming get sponsorship money from companies like AT&T, Marriott, Mutual of Omaha, Visa, and Phillips 66?

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think swimming, particularly mens swimming, has an uncertain future. As much as I love college football, the arms race forces D1 schools to allocate outrageous amounts of money to football. Something will lose, especially for mid or small schools. Look at OU, Texas Tech, etc. - which don't have any swim teams. But they used to in the SWC days. I'm not sure when they killed swimming, but I'm sure it was about money. They needed every dollar to play with the big boys in football. So they took it from lesser sports, including swimming.

---

I haven't read the articles, but will try.

IMO, the biggest impact to Men's Swimming is Title IX.

See: UCLA

Quickest way to get equity for Title IX was to add Women's Soccer and kill Men's Swimming.

---

If football didn't have 85 scholarships it would be easier to keep mens sports.

UCLA could have funded mens swimming and added another women's sport to maintain Title IX. But they didn't have the money to do that.

I have no complaint with Title IX. The concept is fair. It is football with its oversized allocation of scholarships that throws everything out of whack.

quote:

---

Programs like those at the University of Virginia and the University of North Carolina, both very successful, have fully endowed scholarships and funding, making it nearly impossible for the administrative department to propose a cut. According to Sanocki, a coach's first task should be to rally all alumni and create a backup source of funding to be used if the program should ever encounter problems.

---

Has A&M Swimming taken this step?

Title IX is destroying all men's non revenue sports!!! Exempt football and then give all sports equal scholarships, if women want to play football they can. Men's tennis gets 4.5 scholarships, women's get 8, and so on and so on. That's why the Big 12 had 5 men's tennis teams and 12 women's.

To say Title IX is fair is a joke.

quote:

---

Title IX is destroying all men's non revenue sports!!! Exempt football and then give all sports equal scholarships, if women want to play football they can. Men's tennis gets 4.5 scholarships, women's get 8, and so on and so on. That's why the Big 12 had 5 men's tennis teams and 12 women's.

To say Title IX is fair is a joke.

---

I don't necessarily have a problem with Title IX. I believe it's implementation and requirements need to change.

Where it was supposed to provide more opportunity for Women's sports... it has done so at the expense of Men's, but to a greater extent than an equitable value.

Yes, football skews things.

Title IX has created Soccer and Softball opportunities at the collegiate level. This has enabled justification for these sports to become viable at the Jr High and Sr High School levels. Overnight, it basically created programs all across the country.

As mentioned above... having a Women's Swim program without a Men's is a bigger financial and social burden on the AD than if they had both. Shared facilities for Swimming, Basketball, Tennis, T&F, etc allow both M & W to draw support together.

I believe Sports, Music, UIL Math & Science... I think if students are involved in extra activities representing their school, they will do better in school, and more likely go to college.

I think Football should be considered outside of Title IX. The revenue is provides for itself and other sports should be used as an enabler, not a burden.

In the one article... schools like Clemson and Maryland shutting down their Swim programs... I have to wonder how much of that was the result of realignment.

Not exactly sure of the age rules, but looking at A&M Men's Tennis roster, they have a 20 & 21 year old freshman, a 21 year old sophomore and a 24 year old senior.(All foreign players). I am pretty sure the rules are not the same for american born players, but most Americans graduate high school at 17 or 18. This, plus Title IX is pushing Men's non-revenue sports out.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Programs like those at the University of Virginia and the University of North Carolina, both very successful, have fully endowed scholarships and funding, making it nearly impossible for the administrative department to propose a cut. According to Sanocki, a coach's first task should be to rally all alumni and create a backup source of funding to be used if the program should ever encounter problems.

---

Has A&M Swimming taken this step?

---

There are no A&M swimming grads with money or alumni willing to commit $$$ to swimming.

Then they should go after corporate money.

AT&T, Marriott, Chase, Buc-ee's.


Who/what funds the endowments at UNC and UVA?

Even if football was removed from the Title IX formula, or somehow had less impact, it still takes a $million or so to fund a mens swimming program assuming no capital costs.

$250K for coaches
?? for trainers, medical
9.9 scholarships at A&M = $250K
Travel, equipment, pool rental = $500K ?

That's why OU, Tech, Baylor, etc. don't have swim teams (of any kind). Title IX would force them to add a womens sport, but that' just $1M more.

Stanford does all of these sports, and plays very good football. They just don't spend as much on football, leaving more for other sports.

quote:

---

Then they should go after corporate money.

AT&T, Marriott, Chase, Buc-ee's.


Who/what funds the endowments at UNC and UVA?

---

Why would those corporations fund collegiate swimming and diving. Those businesses are looking for benefits for sponsorship. What benefits would those companies receive by sponsoring swimming and diving?

Just a guess as I don't really know, but probably some wealthy alumni that just happens to really like swimming and diving. Perhaps a former swimmer or a family member of a swimmer there. The odds really aren't that bad that out of all of the schools that offer swimming programs, there would be a few schools that would have such donors. It is just most programs don't have that (and we seem to be in that category).

Corporate money will be hard to get for Texas A&M swimming because there is little benefit to them. No TV viewers most of all.

300 people will watch A&M vs. Texas swim. Only parents and a few friends for A&M vs. LSU.

USA swimming gets its money from Speedo, BMW, and other natural swimming related sponsors.

For those who are interested :

The general number (and believe me, I hate the term 'general' when it comes to this sort of stuff.) that is floated around to fully endow a swim program in perpetuity is between 20 - 25 million. (assuming around a 6% return I believe)
This includes :
Staff Salaries and benefits
Scholarships
Operating Budget

The GREAT thing about endowment - besides it being self-sustaining - is that to add the opposite gender becomes cheaper (because you will theoretically be funding the facility, staff and trainers anyway)
Not a whole lot cheaper, but certainly a decent amount.

Over enough of a time period, I find it hard believe that a place like A & M can't entice a bunch of donors to get a sport to that level monetarily if it means the sport won't need money again for a VERY long time outside of general capital improvements. It's a long term investment instead of just continually pumping check after check into it.

I think the question here is more this: Does the University or AD care about pushing funds in that direction or do they build another facility, scoreboard or whatever to up their own agenda and profile. It's hard to sell things people aren't going to see, touch and feel a part of.

As for Title IX -
IMHO I COMPLETELY agree with DallasAg 94. The problem seems to be more that Title IX is applied to the whole of athletics instead of on a sport by sport basis. Which in turn means kids who aren't naturally gifted football players have less opportunity to continue their sport in college because their natural talent trends more towards swimming, or tennis, or whatever.

Title IX basically requires a university to offer equal opportunity based on the population distribution of the university. And for sports they measure this by scholarships, not budget.

Football has 85, enough for 4-8 womens sports.

I believe football has perhaps 40 too many scholarships, and they shouldn't always be full scholarships. It is ridiculous that a team has 85 scholarship athletes, plus maybe 20 walkons. A football team is 4-5 deep at every position. Half the team never starts a game except on special teams.

BTW - if I were a BMD (Big Money Donor), I would give big money to some of the Olympic sports, and none to football. I would be a pest to the AD probably - because I would insist on results in those sports. No way I would accept 38th at NCAAs.

quote:

---

Quote:Programs like those at the University of Virginia and the University of North Carolina, both very successful, have fully endowed scholarships and funding, making it nearly impossible for the administrative department to propose a cut. According to Sanocki, a coach's first task should be to rally all alumni and create a backup source of funding to be used if the program should ever encounter problems.

Has A&M Swimming taken this step?

---

A&M, led by Coach Holmes, has been trying to make this happen for nearly 10 years. He has tried pretty hard. There has been some nominal progress made but, as was stated earlier, they lack the one true BMA to carry the financial banner.

LOB - I know Holmes has been doing this, and pursuing it hard.

Which is exactly why I questioned the AD and University's interest in doing it. Jay can pursue it and do everything right but if the AD phones a donor and asks for a check that isn't specifically tagged for S&D then I'd be more than willing to bet the money doesn't find its way to the S&D programs....

quote:

---

LOB - I know Holmes has been doing this, and pursuing it hard.

Which is exactly why I questioned the AD and University's interest in doing it. Jay can pursue it and do everything right but if the AD phones a donor and asks for a check that isn't specifically tagged for S&D then I'd be more than willing to bet the money doesn't find its way to the S&D programs....

---

Exactly what I'd expect to happen too.

My opinion is that it's a complete and total non-priority for them. Always has been.

You'll notice that we haven't hosted an NCAA meet in six years and aren't on the books for one at the moment either.

LOB - sadly I don't think that's just an A&M thing...

Anybody know how much control the Athletic Development office insists on doing the fundraising themselves Vs. Allowing coaches like Steve and Jay to go out and do it?

If it is a current 12th Man donor, all of it.

Well, that blows......

quote:

---

As for Title IX -
IMHO I COMPLETELY agree with DallasAg 94. The problem seems to be more that Title IX is applied to the whole of athletics instead of on a sport by sport basis. Which in turn means kids who aren't naturally gifted football players have less opportunity to continue their sport in college because their natural talent trends more towards swimming, or tennis, or whatever.

---

Title IX is meant to help attain equality (and its application much more than athletics). Its difficult to reconcile equality with ignoring the huge male elephant in the room that is football.

And the fact is Title IX doesn't mandate how the NCAA and its member athletic programs assign scholarships across sports. Men's sports such as swimming and diving get squeezed at FBS schools because the NCAA and its member athletic programs have made the choice to give football 85 scholarships at the FBS level.

FCS schools seem to get just fine with 63. If FBS schools got rid of 22 football scholarships and went 63, you would see more swimming and diving programs at FBS schools.

Again... reducing FB scholarships doesn't really fix anything.

IMO, all that does is moves Men's scholarships from one sport to another.

FCS makes it, but FCS teams often rely on playing an FBS team in order to fund the rest of their AD.

FBS teams could get by with less, but the reality is, it is a Semi-Pro sport with significant revenue implications. The fact it generates so much revenue and funds so many other sports, I think the sport should be handled differently regarding Title IX.

quote:

---

Again... reducing FB scholarships doesn't really fix anything.

IMO, all that does is moves Men's scholarships from one sport to another.

It help fixes the "my son wants to play this sport and he can't because they don't offer it because they can't afford it unless they spend less money to pay for the 4th string QB on the football team" problem.

One of the problems with your "fix" is Title IX is only part of the "problem" (I don't think there is a problem, but that's just me.)

Another part of the problem is schools don't have the cash to pay for more athletic programs. Let's say we don't count football. In order to pay for a new men's sport, you'd have to cut a women's sport.

So, all you have done is cut a women's non-revenue sport for the sake of creating a men's non-revenue sport and now the problem is "my daughter wants to play this sport but she can't because they don't offer it because, well, they still have to pay for the 4th string QB on the football team even though he doesn't count under Title IX."

FCS makes it, but FCS teams often rely on playing an FBS team in order to fund the rest of their AD.

FCS schools play FBS teams to fund their football programs because football is frickin' expensive. Yes, FCS schools make money off of football, but there are nearly as many non-FBS schools that do NOT play football as there are that play football...because for many of them, it is a struggle to fund a football team- particularly since it counts under Title IX.

And yes, if football did not count, schools would not have to furnish as many women's sports as they do now, and the cost of having a football team would be much less. But you still have not solved the problem of how to get more non-revenue sports on campus.

All you have done have is shut down women's non-revenue sports for men's non-revenue sports.

Good luck getting Congress to amend Title IX because you want to shut down women's sports for men's sports.

How do you get more non-revenue sports on campus (men's and women's)? You get rid of football players that don't add anything to the football program and you spend their scholarships on other sports. That's how you do it.

(And yes, I know...fat chance you get FBS teams to agree to cutting football scholarships)

FBS teams could get by with less, but the reality is, it is a Semi-Pro sport with significant revenue implications. The fact it generates so much revenue and funds so many other sports, I think the sport should be handled differently regarding Title IX.

You want to treat FBS football teams like semi-pro teams? Then make them play with a 53 man roster like the NFL does.

You want to treat FBS football teams like semi-pro teams? Then get rid of all the bench-warmers that are merely a money pit.

There is little that is professional about FBS rosters.

---

New Army should be better aware how to format on a BBS, especially one with as many posts as you.

Your post seems a little more aggressive than it should be. I'm not the enemy.

There are two problems. First, is gender equity in scholarship allocations. Second, is the ability to fund all sports. For a sport like swimming, there is a large capital expense, which brings a sizable operational budget, just to keep it open.

Most schools have been able to add women's scholarship in greater numbers than it has reduced men's. It hasn't been a 1:1. I've already said I'm not in favor of cutting one person's scholarship to fund someone else's. That was my point.

When Alabama played Western Carolina, there was a bunch of hub-bub... The WC coach said:

quote:

---

Alabama paid Western Carolina $480,000 to play this game and according to AL.com, Speir said earlier this week on a Southern Conference coaches teleconference that this type of game essentially funds their athletic department

---

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/11/western-carolina-coach-kirk-herbstreit-espn-gameday

I said FBS is semi-pro. Not pro. The reason you have 4 QBs is because, #1 you have injury. #2... you have to remain academically eligible... whatever that is. Universities can't just go out and pickup a FA player.

If an NFL team needs 55 players, then a college team likely needs more. The fact you can RedShirt, which allows players to get adjusted to college...

Do D1 football programs waste more money than it would take to fund multiple other sports? Can you find revenue within football to fund more other sports. Likely... but I'm not one to bite the hand that feeds me.

I don't know why Tech, OU and others cut swimming. It is expensive, moreso than others like maybe Soccer. A&M just opened an $80M equestrian facility and has a number of scholarship athletes. There is money.

Trust me... I'm a big fan... evangelist for USA swimming. I'm interested in solutions which don't have to move chairs around on the deck (pardon the pun). I won't give much information because it is a small enough sport I could lose my anonymity on here.

If football had less than 85 and they were fractional instead of whole scholarships, what do you think really would happen? Would college football be worse off? I don't really think so. Rosters would shrink some, and it would tend to keep kids in state because a fractional scholarship with out of state tuition would be impactful for many. The athletic department pays the university for scholarships - so fewer scholarships saves some money, that could be spent elsewhere. Do you think Kyler Murray wouldn't get a scholarship? Do you think ESPN would pay less to the NCAA if more of the special teams players were on a half scholarship?

I think OU, Tech, etc. cut all swimming years ago to save money. They have to keep up with Texas in football. Unlike Texas, which is swimming in money, these schools aren't. Their alumni base is smaller. Title IX might impact them more because funding $2M more is a big deal compared to $1M.

I am in the minority here - I think D1 football is a runaway train and it will eventually chew itself raw and consume college sports. If you guys don't think $100+ per game tickets are just stupid..... I love my Aggies but if I were a BMD I would not give money for football. I wouldn't feed that tiger.

Swimming isn't capital intensive if a pool already exists. The problem is with schools killing a program they already have. They have pools. They don't need to build a new one. They also don't need an Olympic class facility. Cal Berkeley has a crappy facility built in 1982, and has produced multiple NCAA champions for both genders.

I completely agree with the 53-man/scholarship issue. Other sports rarely redshirt freshmen and everyone in every sport has to remain eligible. It would make the coaches much more selective about who they recruit and might even make their jobs easier from a recruiting standpoint. Injuries could be the only negative factor but you still have enough scholarships to field an entire two deep with 53. Coach players to play more than one position. You're certainly paid enough to do it.

The equestrian money came primarily from one giant sugar daddy. The difference here is equestrian had one and swimming does not.

quote:

---

New Army should be better aware how to format on a BBS, especially one with as many posts as you.

These are formatted exactly how I want them to be formatted. You know what you said, you know what I said and what I'm responding to.

Your post seems a little more aggressive than it should be. I'm not the enemy.

I didn't say anything hostile or personal. I just disagreed with your viewpoint.

There are two problems. First, is gender equity in scholarship allocations. Second, is the ability to fund all sports. For a sport like swimming, there is a large capital expense, which brings a sizable operational budget, just to keep it open.

Most schools have been able to add women's scholarship in greater numbers than it has reduced men's. It hasn't been a 1:1. I've already said I'm not in favor of cutting one person's scholarship to fund someone else's. That was my point.

As of 2013, there were still 60,000 more NCAA (all divisions) opportunities for men athletes than there were women athletes.

At the Division I level, there were over 12,000 more opportunities for men athletes than women athletes. (At ~92,000 to ~80,000, that's a 15% gap)

Yes, opportunities for women are being added quicker than opportunities for men, but, 1)that is because of the aforementioned gap in opportunities and 2)opportunities for men still increased every year between 2004 and 2013.

(You can see all the numbers here.)

According to this article, FBS schools spend nearly double on each male athlete than they do on each female athlete. That is a product of spending on FBS football players, which FBS schools spend over $100,000 per athlete on compared to less than $30,000 spent per woman or non-football male athletes.

On the specific topic of men's swimming and diving, there were 35 more NCAA men's swimming and diving teams in 2013 than there were in 2006. Yes, the number of Division 1 swimming and diving teams has decreased over that same time period- but that's not Title IX's fault. That is the fault of Division 1 teams choosing to spend huge resources on football rather than other men's sports.

I don't mean for this to sound hostile- just a little sarcastic- but I can hardly blame Title IX when non-football playing men don't have the same opportunity as females. Title IX never forced FBS schools to throw so many of their resources at football.

When Alabama played Western Carolina, there was a bunch of hub-bub... The WC coach said:

quote:

---

Alabama paid Western Carolina $480,000 to play this game and according to AL.com, Speir said earlier this week on a Southern Conference coaches teleconference that this type of game essentially funds their athletic department

---

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/11/western-carolina-coach-kirk-herbstreit-espn-gameday

I said FBS is semi-pro. Not pro. The reason you have 4 QBs is because, #1 you have injury. #2... you have to remain academically eligible... whatever that is. Universities can't just go out and pickup a FA player.

If an NFL team needs 55 players, then a college team likely needs more. The fact you can RedShirt, which allows players to get adjusted to college...

Non-football athletes have to adjust, too. And they also have to stay healthy. Maybe football players get injured more than athletes in other sports (I'm not so sure that's true, anyways) but no other sport gets anywhere near a 4-deep at every position, either.

If the NFL can get by with a roster of 53 players, and only something like 47 on gameday, with all the hard hits and injuries that occur because of it across a long 16 game season- and can still put out the most lucrative entertainment product in the world- then I'm convinced college football teams don't need 85 scholarship players (plus the 10s of walk-ons) to maintain their "cash cow status."

Maybe football players have a particular bad time maintaining their eligibility. That's a football problem. Other sports, and certainly not an entire sex (women) should have to pay the price for that.

I don't buy that a college football program needs a 4th QB or 4th string whatever. 4th stringers don't play. They sit on the bench and they transfer. They're a waste of space, time, and money.

The bottom line is if everyone is playing with the same limits, the game of football is fair and the game of football will be fine and will still make all the money you think it makes.

Do D1 football programs waste more money than it would take to fund multiple other sports? Can you find revenue within football to fund more other sports. Likely... but I'm not one to bite the hand that feeds me.

Its not biting anything. You take away scholarships- maybe coaches get mad- but they can't do anything about it and football will still make the same amount of cash that it does.

(One thing I want to make sure you didn't miss from my last post is football isn't the cash cow at most colleges that it is at the very small minority of schools that are the so called "power conferences.")

---