1. John J. Cheslock University of Arizona
Maintaining Broad-Based Athletic Programs in an Era of Rapid Expenditure Growth
John J. Cheslock
University of Arizona

2. Outline Basic trends in sports participation and sports sponsorship.
Basic trends in athletic expenditures.
Which colleges and universities will offer broad-based athletic programs and sponsor “Olympic” sports?

3. Are You Ready To Be Confused?
GAO (1999) reported that male athletic participation fell by 12% between 1985/86 and 1996/97.
GAO (2001) reported that male athletic participation increased by 5% between 1981/82 and 1998/99.
The Secretary of Education’s Commission on Opportunity in Athletics (2003) reported that the number of male participants decreased by 8% between 1981/82 and 2000/01.
GAO (2007) reported that the number of male participants increased by 9% between 1991/92 and 2004/05.

4. Sports Participation Trends Across NCAA Divisions: 1995/96-2004/05
For women, there was steady growth across all NCAA divisions and subdivisions.
For men, there was substantial growth in Divisions II and III, no change in Divisions I-AA and I-AAA, slight declines in I-A (BCS), and substantial declines in I-A (non-BCS).

5. Sports Sponsorship Trends Across NCAA Divisions: 1988/89 to 2006/07
Division Men Women
Div. I
Div. II
Div. III

6. Sponsorship Trends Differ by Sport
Gymnastics Lacrosse
Division Men Women Men Women
Div. I
Div. II
Div. III

7. Athletic Expenditure Growth
Cheslock (2008) found a 6.8% compound annual growth rate in Div. I athletic expenditures between 1995/96 and 2004/05.
Fulks (2008) reported that all three subdivisions in Division I had rates between 6.4% and 6.9% between 2003/04 and 2005/06.
Orszag & Israel (2009) found a growth rate of 6.8% between 2004 and 2007.

8. Benefits of Expenditure Restraint
If expenditures at the median athletic program grew by 5% rather than 7% between FY 2006 and FY 2007, then FY 2007 expenditures would be reduced by
$715,120 in Div. I-A
$189,700 in Div. I-AA
$174,380 in Div. I-AAA

9. Which Athletic Programs Sponsor “Olympic” sports?
Broad-based athletic programs
Funded by substantial subsidies provided by the institution or donors.
Funded by profits generated from revenue-generating sports.
Maintained through effective cost control.
Programs with atypical sports offerings.

10. Average Sports Sponsorship by NCAA Division: 2004/05
Division Mean
Div. I
Div. II (Max = 25)
Div. III

11. Division III Broad-Based Programs (Based on Number of Sports Sponsored)
New England Small College Athletic Conference (NESCAC): mean = 29.3; min = 27.
Centennial Conference: mean = 23.3.
MIT (44), St. Lawrence (34).
No other institution sponsors more than 26 sports.

12. NCAA Division I Sports Sponsorship by Subdivision
Subdivision Mean
Div. I-A (BCS)
Div. I-A (non-BCS) (Max = 26)
Div. I-AA
Div. I-AAA (Max = 24)

13. Division I-AA Sports Sponsorship
Ivy League: mean = 34.8; min = 29.
Patriot League: mean = 25.6; range =
Sacred Heart U (32), James Madison (28), Georgetown (26).
No other program sponsors more than 24 sports.

14. Sports Sponsorship by BCS Conference
Conference Mean
Big
Big East
ACC
Pac
SEC (max = 23)
Big (max = 23)

15. Broad-Based BCS Programs
Ohio State (37) North Carolina (28)
Stanford (36) Maryland (27)
Boston College (31) Michigan (27)
Penn State (29) Notre Dame (26)
Rutgers (29) Duke (26)
UC-Berkeley (29)

16. Broad-Based Programs and “Olympic” Sports
Only 10% of the 321 Division I programs sponsored at least 25 sports.
But 53% of the 15 Division I programs that sponsored men’s gymnastics were in that category.
The same is true for 72% of the 25 Division I programs that sponsored women’s fencing.

17. Broad-Based Programs and “Olympic” Sports (part 2)
When broad-based programs cut sports, rarely sponsored “Olympic” sports are usually the first to be eliminated:
Rutgers (fencing, men’s crew)
James Madison (fencing, gymnastics, wrestling, archery)
MIT (gymnastics, wrestling, pistol, ice hockey)

18. Setting the Stage
Can current broad-based athletic programs continue to sponsor large numbers of sports in the future if rapid expenditure growth continues?
How do we restrain expenditures?