On Intercollegiate Sports

Measured and thoughtful, not generally our stock in trade - so we asked our man in the OBX to weigh in on the burgeoning crisis in intercollegiate athletics. A reckoning is upon us, it seems, and while I think the most likely next phase is a substantial reordering of conference affiliation, there are other alternatives worth considering. To wit:

More than 250 athletic teams have been cut at dozens of colleges since last spring, including a handful at a school with which most of the audience is marginally familiar. It’s a development brought on by increasing costs and worsened by a pandemic that’s further stressed the system.

One man wonders if the reductions, painful as they are for the principals and their communities, are all bad. Tom Farrey is a journalist and executive director of the Aspen Institute’s Sports and Society Program, the think tank’s division devoted to games and those who play, coach and administer them. He penned a recent essay in the New York Times that led with the athletic kerfuffle at William and Mary and floated the idea that fewer varsity sports could actually be good for schools, for athletic departments and for students and athletes themselves.

The present Division I college athletic model is unsustainable, Farrey argued, particularly for schools

outside the Power 5 conferences that don’t have access to the revenue streams provided by network TV deals, in-house league TV networks, ticketing, marketing, licensing, etc. For example, the Big Ten distributed $55.6 million per school in fiscal year 2020, according to USA Today. That’s in addition to the revenue that each school generates. The Southeastern Conference paid out $45.3 million per school, according to its most recent filing. The ACC paid between $27.6-$34 million to its member schools. By comparison, William and Mary’s entire athletic budget is approximately $30 million, with almost negligible revenue from its league, the Colonial Athletic Association.

Farrey said that fewer varsity sports can open the door for increased levels of club and intramural sports. In addition to the cost savings for scholarships and coaches and staff, athletic departments and athletes would not be bound by the NCAA’s voluminous rule book. Nor would club-level athletes feel as if their entire college existence were tied to competition, often the case when scholarship aid is part of the equation. They would be responsible for their own coaching, practice and competitive schedules – valuable qualities easily applied later in life.

Farrey wrote that reducing the number of varsity sports means less money pursuing and recruiting athletes and creates the potential for athletic departments to reallocate money for more robust club and intramural programs. I’m skeptical of this argument, since many athletic departments will take any savings and either give it to the remaining sports or perhaps apply it to the bottom line. Athletic departments tend to spend every dime available. And as difficult as it is to manage an intercollegiate athletic program, I don’t see departments setting up club sports administrative structures.

Farrey pointed out another potential benefit: cost savings to students. Student fees at many schools provide a sizeable chunk of the athletic department budget, particularly at non-Power 5 schools. Student fees are tacked onto their bills, in addition to tuition and room and board, regardless of whether they’re sports fans or attend games. NBC News did a piece last spring examining student fees and found that many schools were less than forthcoming about that particular line item. At William and Mary, students pay more than $1,900 annually, which totals $14.5 million for athletics, almost half of its athletic budget, according to the report. At James Madison, students pay $2,340 per year in fees, providing $38.9 million for the athletic department.

It’s easy to foresee a revolt. Students may justifiably demand access to athletic facilities and resources, since they’re helping to pay for them. With student debt increasingly burdensome, fees can tack on $5,000-$10,000 to student loans and further extend payback plans. Any reduction in debt is helpful.

William and Mary likes to think of itself as unique, and it may be. It’s part of the school’s DNA that athletes are integrated into the college community and not separated by virtue of their ability. The school does not have “eligibility” majors or academic tracks. Athletes and coaches often make do with less than their peers, yet routinely challenge for conference championships and postseason berths. The W&M community takes pride in that.

Which speaks to why the school now has an interim athletic director and a loosely organized aim to re-examine its decision to cut sports. Former AD Samantha Huge badly mis-read the room, and her ham-handed efforts were her undoing. To hear some of her detractors and those affected by the decision, she was not only callous but disingenuous (Honestly, the breadth of groups she antagonized and alienated within the college community is impressive).

Huge believes that William and Mary’s present model is unsustainable. She may be correct. A more polished and engaging athletic director might have reached the same conclusion and might have been able to sell the decision, painful as it is. The teams targeted for extinction, and many within the athletic and school community, ask for the opportunity to do it the way they’ve always done it and to remain true to the school’s mission. Whether that’s possible amid the realities of 2020 college athletic economics and a global pandemic whose effects will be felt for years to come is an extraordinarily tough call.