There are probably going to be layers to this onion… and tears at each stage.
Many are waiting for the House settlement to happen. It’s dragged on too long, and an answer should come soon. When it happens, schools will need to start making the actual decisions about what sports than can afford.
But the House settlement is flawed, and it’s possible that it won’t last long. (Employment would be a better model, but the holier-than-thou administrators want to maintain the make believe of student athletes.)
So, I’d probably guess that the situation will just slowly evolve and a handful of schools will continue to fade away each year as they re-prioritize sports.
Plus, even beyond sports, it’s becoming harder and harder to be a small to medium sized school. Some campuses are closing, and others are having to resort to tactics like selling their museum artwork to stay afloat (Valpo).
Through all of this, what I hope grows is college club and pro opportunities. The college club scene has become excellent, and a great way for girls to keep enjoying the game - regardless of whether or not the school makes it a varsity sport. And I’d love to see things like the FGCL and Northwoods Leagues expand. In other words, there are lots of ways to keep the sport flourishing!
Which mid-major schools are having the toughest tie fully funding their athletic teams, and which are looking to cut costs and sports?
Answer:
Many mid-major athletic departments are under unprecedented financial pressure as a result of the $2.8 billion NCAA antitrust settlement and the shift toward direct athlete compensation. Unlike Power Four schools, which benefit from massive TV contracts and large booster networks, mid-majors often rely heavily on institutional subsidies and student fees—sometimes making up 60-70% of their athletic budgets[1][2][8].
Schools and Conferences Most Affected
- **Cleveland State University**: CSU recently cut its wrestling program, a move described as the “opening salvo in a wave of cuts” for non-revenue sports like wrestling, swimming, gymnastics, and track, all directly linked to the financial burden of the settlement[1]. - **Stephen F. Austin**: Announced the discontinuation of four varsity sports, including nationally competitive bowling, due to financial pressures tied to the settlement[4]. - **Eastern Illinois University**: Dropped men’s and women’s tennis[4]. - **Grand Canyon University**: Cut its historically strong men’s volleyball program[3][4][5]. - **Cal Poly**: Discontinued swimming and diving, citing an expected annual loss of at least $450,000 due to the settlement[5]. - **UTEP**: Dropped women’s tennis, explicitly referencing upcoming changes in college athletics, including revenue sharing and roster caps[3][5]. - **Radford**: Cut men’s and women’s tennis[4]. - **Saint Francis University**: Announced a move from Division I to Division III, citing the financial realities of the new landscape[5].
These cuts are not isolated; they reflect a broader trend among mid-majors and smaller Division I schools that must now prioritize which sports to keep based on financial sustainability, often at the expense of Olympic and non-revenue sports[1][3][5][6][8].
Broader Trends: Cost-Cutting and Program Elimination
- **Non-Revenue Sports at Risk**: Programs in sports like wrestling, swimming, tennis, and track are particularly vulnerable, as they generate little to no revenue but require significant funding to maintain. The new settlement’s roster caps and scholarship requirements further strain these programs[1][3][5][6]. - **Institutional Shifts**: Some mid-majors are considering or implementing moves to Division III or even dropping athletics altogether to avoid the escalating arms race in spending[5][9]. - **Conference Mandates**: The American Athletic Conference is mandating revenue sharing, which could further stress its member schools, while other mid-major conferences have not yet followed suit[9].
A Few Outliers: Schools Adding Sports
While most mid-majors are cutting back, a few are bucking the trend: - **University of the Pacific**: Instead of dropping sports, Pacific is adding men’s cross country, men’s track and field, and reviving diving programs. Their strategy is to use athletics as a tool for student recruitment and retention, carefully modeling the financial impact and Title IX compliance[4]. - **Marquette**: Added women’s swimming, though this is more the exception than the rule[3][5].
Why the Squeeze Is So Severe
- **Revenue Gap**: Power Four schools have $100 million-plus revenue advantages over most mid-majors[1][8]. - **Backpay and New Costs**: The settlement requires mid-majors to pay roughly $300,000–$350,000 annually in back damages, plus up to $20.5 million per year in athlete compensation if they opt into revenue sharing—costs that are unsustainable for many[1][8]. - **Student Fees and Subsidies**: Many mid-majors depend on student fees and university funds, but there is increasing resistance to raising these fees to cover new expenses[2]. - **Title IX Compliance**: Ensuring equitable benefits for men’s and women’s sports under the new pay model may require cutting men’s non-revenue sports to remain in compliance[8].
Outlook
Mid-major schools are at a crossroads. Most are being forced to cut costs, eliminate sports, or even reconsider their divisional status to survive the new financial landscape. The schools most at risk are those with small endowments, heavy reliance on institutional subsidies, and limited donor support. The trend is clear: unless these schools find creative solutions or new revenue streams, more program cuts and divisional downgrades are likely in the near future[1][2][3][4][5][7][8][9].
