| Collateral Damage (July 2003) |
By Jim Sheldon
It has not been a good off-season for Division I men’s college soccer. Two programs were dropped (Charleston Southern and Texas Christian). One (The Citadel) was on the ropes as this issue went to press. Three (Florida International, Fresno State and Marshall) were given last-minute reprieves after an outpouring of alumni angst.
If The Citadel’s program doesn’t manage to survive, that would bring to an even dozen the number of Division I men’s programs dropped in the last decade. While that number pales in comparison to the decline in other men’s sports, such as wrestling, gymnastics and swimming, the winter and spring of 2003 have seen men’s soccer come under fire like never before. On the surface, it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Soccer is one of the few sports that has shown consistent participation growth in this country during the last 10 years. There is interest in and demand for men’s intercollegiate playing opportunities. Too many of our major universities are failing — or have never attempted – to meet that interest and demand.
Soccer is not a big money-loser. The so-called non-revenue or Olympic sports (those other than football and basketball) almost all lose money. It’s safe to venture that men’s soccer loses less than most. Expenses for equipment, scholarships, recruiting and coaching are modest compared to other sports. Crowds of 3,000 to 5,000 aren’t uncommon and produce revenue that most other programs on campus can’t match.
Men’s soccer also often serves as a model program when it comes to a university’s goals for diversity. Certainly, the Fresno State and Florida International programs are prime examples. Yet, those types of arguments usually fall on deaf ears. Let’s look a little deeper.
In each of the six cases above and in previous cases, administrators usually cite one of three reasons for their decision to drop a program – gender equity, lack of competitiveness or finances.
Gender equity is usually less of a problem than it is perceived to be. Unlike wrestling, men’s soccer has a female counterpart, meaning that proportionality in the number of student-athletes can be maintained and facilities – sometimes even coaching staffs – can be shared.
The fact that many schools still are struggling to meet the gender-equity requirements of Title IX – a law some two decades old – is more an indictment of their fiscal management than anything else (see below). With Title IX currently under review by the Bush administration and with many believing that review will lead to a weakening of the law, it’s hard to understand why that excuse still crops up.
The lack of competitiveness argument is really a non-starter. Hey, it’s hard to win when the program isn’t even close to being fully funded (see TCU and The Citadel). It’s the reason why they aren’t adequately funded that is in question, and here we come to the money argument.
Whether stated or not, most men’s programs are dropped in an effort to balance the athletics department’s books. Here again, Title IX is the popular whipping boy (girl?).
The argument goes something like, “We need to comply with Title IX, but we can’t do that within our current resources unless we drop some men’s programs.” True enough, as far as that argument goes. What is seldom examined is why an institution’s resources aren’t adequate.
In a phrase, the answer almost universally is because the university is “trying to keep up with the Joneses.” The schools that have dropped, or threatened to drop, men’s soccer in the last decade illustrate this perfectly.
First, you have the basketball-only schools (Arkansas-Little Rock, Texas-Pan American, South Alabama, Northeastern Illinois, Charleston Southern and Maryland-Eastern Shore). All are in minor (generously called “mid-major”) basketball conferences or are independents. The hope is to stay in Division I based on their cut of the Division I men’s basketball tournament revenue. The reality is that their share of that treasure chest isn’t enough to sustain an athletic program that does anything more than meet the minimum requirements of the NCAA.
Secondly, you have the football wannabees (Florida International, The Citadel, Illinois State and North Texas), all Division I-AA football schools, though North Texas has since moved up to Division I-A – a move that Florida International and reportedly Illinois State would like to emulate. The reality of Division I-AA football just about ensures that they’ll lose money on football. Their “mid-major” basketball status compounds the effect on the entire athletics department. The likelihood that will change with a move to Division I-A football is far-fetched, as we’ll see with the next group – the football hangers-on.
Central Michigan, TCU, Miami of Ohio, Marshall and Fresno State all play Division I-A football, some (TCU, Marshall and Fresno State) quite successfully. However, none are in one of the six major Bowl Championship Series conferences.
No matter how hard they try to break into the big time, their take of the football pie won’t match that of schools in the six major conferences. Even a school like Fresno State, which has had success on both the gridiron and hardwoods, finds itself $750,000 in debt. Its answer? Cut programs.
At what point should these schools ask themselves if their goal of big-time basketball and/or football is just a dream? How long before they acknowledge that they won’t realize that dream as long as the current power structure is entrenched and controlling the NCAA?
Those questions rarely get asked. Of the schools mentioned above, only Northeastern Illinois tackled the core issues. Its answer was to drop its entire athletics program (several years subsequent to its decision to eliminate men’s soccer).
A few others have faced reality – Cal State-Fullerton, Boston University and recently East Tennessee State all decided to drop football – but it happens all too infrequently. The rest are convinced they will reach that pot of gold if they can just keep up with the Joneses a little while longer.
Meanwhile, it is the wrestlers, gymnasts, swimmers and soccer players who pay the price for those pipe dreams.
|
|
| The Technical Area, NSCAA eNewsletter |
 |
|
|
 |
| Soccer Journal - Published seven times a year in print and once annually online, Soccer Journal is the Official Publication of NSCAA and is one of the few publications in the world produced exclusively for soccer coaches. learn more |
| Insurance - Members in the United States automatically receive $1 million in professional liability insurance, providing coverage for most soccer-related activities. learn more |
| Academy Programs - The benchmark of soccer coaching education is the NSCAA Coaching Academy program. learn more |
| Convention - The NSCAA Convention is "The World's Largest Annual Gathering of Soccer Coaches." Held each January learn more |
| Awards and Recognition - The NSCAA administers an outstanding awards and recognition program which includes Coach of the Year, All-America, long-term service and special recognition awards, designed to recognize excellence in soccer, academics and service to the game. learn more |
| Licensed Apparel - A full line of distinctive coaching gear sets you apart as a member of the NSCAA through our licensed apparel program with adidas. learn more |
| For more details, please proceed to the Benefits of NSCAA Membership Page |
|
|
