OOF: BYU to Kansas State, Big 12 Schools CUTTING SPORTS Like Baseball, Volleyball is Imminent

カートのアイテムが多すぎます

ご購入は五十タイトルがカートに入っている場合のみです。

カートに追加できませんでした。

しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。

ウィッシュリストに追加できませんでした。

しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。

ほしい物リストの削除に失敗しました。

しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。

ポッドキャストのフォローに失敗しました

ポッドキャストのフォロー解除に失敗しました

OOF: BYU to Kansas State, Big 12 Schools CUTTING SPORTS Like Baseball, Volleyball is Imminent

無料で聴く

ポッドキャストの詳細を見る

このコンテンツについて

The House v. NCAA settlement, with its mandate for direct university payments to athletes, is indeed creating an unprecedented financial crunch for many Power Four (P4) athletic departments, leading to widespread concerns that some will be forced to cut non-revenue sports. This is not just speculation; signals are already emerging from various institutions.Here's why P4 schools may have to start cutting non-revenue sports:1. The Massive New Expense: $20.5 Million Annually (and Growing)A Sudden Budget Line Item: Starting July 1, 2025, P4 schools can (and effectively must, to remain competitive) pay their athletes up to an estimated $20.5 million annually in direct compensation. This cap is also set to increase by at least 4% each year for a decade. This isn't "new money" being generated; it's a new, substantial expense that must be absorbed into existing athletic department budgets.Competing for Talent: The pressure to spend near this cap will be immense. If a school doesn't, it risks being at a significant disadvantage in recruiting and retaining top talent in revenue-generating sports like football and basketball, which are the primary drivers of conference media rights revenue.2. Uneven Distribution of Funds:Football and Basketball Get the Lion's Share: While the $20.5 million cap applies to the entire athletic department, the widespread expectation (and the distribution formula for the $2.8 billion in back pay) is that the vast majority of this money will go to football (estimated 70-75%) and men's basketball (around 15%). This leaves a tiny sliver of the pie for women's basketball (around 5%) and all other Olympic and non-revenue sports (the remaining 5%).The "Cost of Doing Business" for Football: For schools looking to remain competitive in the football arms race, allocating $15-20 million or more just to football players for direct compensation, on top of coaching salaries, facilities, and other expenses, forces difficult choices.3. Budgetary Strain and Deficits:Existing Financial Challenges: Even before the House settlement, many athletic departments, even in the Power Four, operate with thin margins or even deficits, often relying on university subsidies. The added $20.5 million expense exacerbates this significantly.Michigan's Example: The University of Michigan, a financially powerful athletic department, has already publicly announced plans for $10 million in budget cuts and a 10% staff reduction to help address a projected $27 million deficit for the 2025-26 academic year. This deficit is directly attributed to the $20.5 million for revenue sharing and an additional $6.2 million in new scholarships. If a powerhouse like Michigan is making cuts, it signals the severity of the situation for other P4 schools.4. Roster Limits and Scholarship Implications:New Roster Caps: The settlement also introduces new roster limits for many sports (e.g., football is capped at 105 players). While schools can "grandfather in" current athletes for a period, the long-term effect is a reduction in roster sizes.Unlimited Scholarships: While scholarships can now be offered to every athlete on a roster (within the new limits), this flexibility comes at a cost. If a non-revenue sport historically relied on a large number of walk-ons (who might now be eligible for scholarships but add to the cost), or if scholarship dollars are diverted to pay revenue-sport athletes, it puts pressure on overall departmental budgets.5. The Title IX Tightrope:Equitable Financial Assistance: Title IX mandates that financial assistance (which includes these new direct payments) must be provided equitably based on the participation rates of male and female athletes.The Dilemma: If a school allocates, say, 85-90% of its $20.5 million direct pay pool to male athletes in football and men's basketball, while male athletes constitute, for example, 60% of the overall athlete population, this creates a clear Title IX imbalance.Cutting Women's Sports as a "Solution": To try and balance the Title IX scales without diverting significant funds from football, some fear schools might be tempted to cut women's sports programs, or reduce their scope, to lower female participation numbers and thus reduce the required financial allocation. This would be a highly controversial and legally risky move, but the financial pressures are immense.Conclusion:The House settlement is a game-changer that professionalizes athlete compensation. However, the staggering new financial outlay for direct athlete payments, coupled with existing budget constraints and the disproportionate allocation of funds to revenue sports, puts immense pressure on non-revenue sports. While athletic directors like SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey express hope that sports won't be cut, the financial realities are forcing tough decisions. It is a very real and growing concern that many P4 schools will respond to this pressure by reducing funding, scaling back opportunities, or even eliminating ...