Arkansas eliminates Men’s & Women’s Tennis
- Thread starter CoralSpringsCat
- Start date
These small sports need somebody who cares enough to support them. Kinda always been like that, even moreso now. Doesn’t have to support themselves, but at least SOME interest from SOMEBODY.
It’s been that way for awhile in the revenue sports. The non-revenue sports have always been in no small part about the ability to fund away to help defeat their costs at least a LITTLE. $2.5 M in costs vs literally no revenue whatsoever, no a single decent donor even pick up some travel costs, is brutal
My first thought was that squeezing the entire tennis program (men's and women's) out of existence effectively allows the school to maybe hire one or two more decent basketball players for the season.
Ok I am mildly curious, so I looked at their roster. 11 women, 3 coaches, 3 support staff; 9 women, 3 coaches, and 1 support staff.
So that 2.5 million covered 20 student athletes, 6 coaches, and 4 support staff.
The disparity just seems crazy when I ask myself what the point of collegiate sports really is.
You may not care, that's up to you.
I'm interested because this seems like another canary in the coal mine relating to the elimination of collegiate sports programs that don't make money, or don't make enough money, and what that may mean for US sports in general as more and more schools cut those programs to scrape together 'enough' money to be competitive in the multi-billion dollar football/basketball markets. Given a decade or so, we could see an entirely different landscape in college sports and the trickle down effect they might have on high school sports and etc. as well.
I'm interested because this seems like another canary in the coal mine relating to the elimination of collegiate sports programs that don't make money, or don't make enough money, and what that may mean for US sports in general as more and more schools cut those programs to scrape together 'enough' money to be competitive in the multi-billion dollar football/basketball markets. Given a decade or so, we could see an entirely different landscape in college sports and the trickle down effect they might have on high school sports and etc. as well.
That started happening 50 years ago with Title IX. Many Olympic Men’s sports were dramatically cut in the 80’s. Many of these athletes ended up on Club teams. Look for a lot of schools to fund only basketball and football for Men. A corresponding total of woman’s scholarships will be required and the rest will be eliminated.
I suppose this will also have a detrimental affect on our U.S. Olympic teams.
Oh no!! That Olympic pipeline from the Arkansas tennis programs will be GONE!
So sports didn't start being all about the money until women's sports achieved some modicum of legally required parity? Nothing came before, it's all the fault of women? Fascinating considering the example cited in this thread was cutting both the men's and women's programs.
Someone without your deep understanding might have suggested a bigger driver was broadcast television and the NCAA's eventual loss of total control over television contracts in the early 80s that led to individual schools and conferences signing deals that grew the market into the multi-billion dollar machine it is today. They might have considered the NCAA's founding being built on overall control of the rules and the profits, the perpetuation of the idea of amateur sports and the 50s era invention of the "student athlete" as methods of avoiding sharing the wealth and/or providing workman's comp for injured players.
But they've probably never considered the massive impact of title IX's driving schools to have women's tennis programs. Clearly the kind of thing that drove a state school like Arkansas to the brink of bankruptcy with its share of that $2.5 million budget. Why their head coach of football barely makes $6.7 million a year by himself, how can they have tennis with that kind of bill to pay?
Anyhow...
I probably wasn’t clear with my point. I am not trying to blame TItle IX for where we are today. I am trying to say the many non-revenue sports ( mostly Men Sports) started to be cut after Title IX became law in 1972. Athletic Departments had be in compliance with the law and STILL figure out how build up the money makers of football and Men’s basketball. Arkansas moving to eliminate both Men and Woman’s tennis is merely an extension of a trend that begun over 50 years ago.
I am aligned with your points on TV, NCAA control, Coaches salaries etc. Arkansas eliminating a few non-revenue sports is the tip of the iceberg. There are basically two things Athletic Departments worry about, 1) Revenue and 2) compliance with the law to retain their federal funding.
The big money came after the 1984 SCOTUS decision in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma allowing the individual schools to negotiate their broadcast rights instead of the NCAA. I think it has had a detrimental effect on the parity across Division I.
We’ve seen the financial pressure some departments are under. A program running a big deficit with zero revenue or donor interest whatsoever is tough. Again, it’s one thing if a few committed donors are helping float the cost of the program, but when not one single person cares enough to write a check… when does simple financial reality win the battle?
Is a donation to a college athletic program considered revenue or a different category? I find it very hard to believe that Arkansas men's AND women's tennis only brought in about $3,000 in annual revenue including donations. That feels impossible. You'd think that donations purely from current and former players and their families should easily surpass that number. And then add on donations from individuals and businesses in the state that support the program. If it's true that revenue number included donations, then it's hard to argue that anybody cared about these teams other than the current players and coaches.
Donations are generally not recorded separately by sport even if the donor puts those restrictions on the gift. The $3000 in annual revenue is ticket sales to matches.
Last edited:
Another one bites the dust. How are swimming programs surviving over tennis? Seems like an odd choice to me. Not what goes into the decision making process. 
I was talking about this with a co-worker and we agreed that swimming/diving seems like the best target of opportunity considering what it takes just to operate and maintain the pools. But hey, maybe they're just clearing the way for replacing tennis with pickleball...