(04-09-2012 09:14 PM)omniorange Wrote: (04-09-2012 08:44 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: Side question: would it be good to have some 8-school sports? e.g. what if only 8 schools really want to play lacrosse, or only 8 want to sponsor golf? would it a good model to pick 2 out of 3 sports, e.g.?
Sure. Isn't that the way it is now in the ACC? Don't you have some ACC sponsored sports where some institutions do not participate?
Cheers,
Neil
Quick check of the conference websites and Wikipedia suggests to me that the ACC sponsors quite a few sports where only 6-8 schools (or less) participate, whereas in the SEC there appears to be a higher participation rate among members in the 20 sports that the conference does sponsor.
Perhaps the author's concern is with the decisions of UNC, UVA, Dook, NC St, UMD and BC to sponsor 25 sports or more. Those schools clearly have bigger opportunities to free up cash for football if they were to drop a few sports. I would note, though, that in some cases (e.g., lacrosse and ice hockey (BC only)) these extra sports are self sustaining/revenue producers. For schools at the lower end of the number of sponsored sports, the opportunities for savings are pretty limited.
Clemson, for example, sponsors 20 varsity sports. That is 4 more than the NCAA minimum for an FBS school. On the men's side, they sponsor 10 sports, which is 3 more than the NCAA minimum. A bare minimum 7 sport FBS athletic program for men would consist of football, basketball, a spring team sport (baseball or lacrosse), indoor and outdoor track, cross country and golf (the latter group having the smallest scholarship requirements). Clemson could cut soccer, swimming and diving, and tennis to reduce its budget, which would be around 25 scholarships plus an equal number of women's scholarships, or around 50 scholarships. At $30k a piece, that would reduce its budget by $1.5 million plus travel, facilities maintenance and coaches salaries, maybe they could save $2.5 million. That's a far cry from $16 million. It's not chicken feed, but suggests that a better focus for making up the revenue gap is on the "top line," i.e. revenues.