UCLA Sports Info Men’s gymnastics is one of the programs that
UCLA has cut
By Hannah Gordon
DAILY BRUIN REPORTER
[email protected]
Short, squat and equipped with his own horse, the male gymnast
has gone the way of the cowboy: a dying breed in the changing
frontier of modern college athletics.
Fans of non-revenue men’s sports point fingers at Title IX
and tend to blame either women for getting too much or football for
taking up too many of the men’s scholarships.
However, people involved with the footbal program insist that a
successful football team ultimately helps all the teams in an
athletic department.
“I don’t think there is any question football
benefits other sports, particularly with running our program in the
black as we do,” UCLA football head coach Bob Toledo
said.
His program’s expenses total $8.2 million, but it brings
in $17.1 million in revenue, including television.
“If it wasn’t for football, probably more
men’s and women’s sports would have to be
eliminated,” Toledo added.
At the same time, women are not getting too much given that at
the average Division I school male athletes constitute 57 percent
of scholarships, according to the NCAA Gender Equity Survey. That
proportion has decreased since 1991 when men held 69 percent of
scholarships. While that change has been accomplished partly by
adding new women’s sports, it has also depended on cutting
men’s sports or scholarships.
At UCLA, the elimination of men’s gymnastics and
men’s swimming in 1994 was the result of a budget deficit
rather than a Title IX issue, but there is a disparity in the
number of scholarships men’s and women’s teams have in
any given sport because football takes up 85 scholarships.
“I don’t think anybody has issue with Title IX in
the way it has helped women’s sports,” UCLA men’s
volleyball assistant coach John Speraw said. “The only
problem is that at times, it has hurt the growth of men’s
sports.
“I was a starter on our national championship team, and I
didn’t have a dime.”
UCLA Sports Info Daily Bruin File Photo
Pointing out football’s importance, Bob Toledo stands by
the Bruin bench last season.
Speraw and head coach Al Scates recruit with 4.5 scholarships
compared to 12 for women’s volleyball, but the men have
nonetheless built national championship teams.
Critics of the current hierarchy in men’s sports point to
the fact that the average Division I institution spends $512,600 in
football operating expenses and only $369,500 on all other
men’s sports combined, according to the NCAA Gender Equity
Survey. Indeed, of the $1,411,000 spent on male athletes’
scholarships at an average Division I institution, over $1,000,000
of that is spent on football scholarships.
But using all 85 scholarships is a prerequisite for a
competitive program.
“I don’t think we’re extravagant,”
Toledo said. “For example, we can visit 56 recruits, but
we’ve never visited more than 46.”
Some programs believe the answer lies in cutting football
programs, as some smaller, less competitive schools such as Cal
State Northridge have done.
“Schools have been dropping football because of it, but
that’s not the answer. That’s just hurting the product
of football,” Toledo said.
Ultimately, it makes the most economic sense for the non-revenue
sports to ride off into the sunset, because football not only pays
for itself, but it also subsidizes other sports.
“The economic reality of college athletics is that
football is a preeminent source of revenue that allows the
department the ability to conduct a nationally-competitive,
broad-based program,” UCLA athletic director Peter Dalis
said.
Football accounts on average for 22 percent of total expenses at
a Division I school, according to the NCAA Gender Equity Report,
but it generates 33 percent of the revenue. That excess, an average
of $1,287,000, subsidizes smaller men’s sports. And the
fiscal benefits of football extend beyond revenue, per se.
“The football program has been instrumental in attracting
donors to endow scholarships, not only for football, but for many
other sports as well,” Dalis said.
So while critics complain that men’s sports beside
football and men’s basketball only constitute 12 percent of
total expenses, they only generate five percent of the revenue.
“Football has historically been an important part of
university life,” Dalis said. “It becomes part of the
identity of the university as viewed by both our alumni and the
general public. In some ways, football becomes the collective ego
for our varied constituencies.”
This psychological factor comes into play economically not only
in endowments, but also in corporate sponsorships. Because of the
popularity and ensuing media coverage of football and men’s
basketball, sports apparel companies sponsor schools.
UCLA, for example, is sponsored by Adidas which donates $1.6
million in income and $1.3 million in product annually. While that
sponsorship extends to the entire athletic program, the pull for
apparel companies is the fact that strong football and basketball
programs get media coverage and draw fan loyalty thus promoting
their product.
Still, it is hard to ignore the more human costs on the lone
rangers left without their horses.
“We need more constructive and productive
solutions,” UCLA women’s gymnastics assistant coach
Milo Johnson said. “It shouldn’t just be about
money.
He learned first-hand about the bottom line when the men’s
gymnastics program at his alma mater of Radford was cut in 1996
just after he started coaching there.
“It’s going to depend on the priority of the school
in question,” Johnson said. “More of the solution
should lie in raising the money to support existing sports and
adding sports and allow them to flourish and bring recognition to
the university. Many schools are looking for the easy way out. They
cut sports and put that money back into the revenue building
sports. It’s a quick fix but you’ve just shattered the
lives of these athletes.”
While it may not be legally feasible or politically correct,
many people would like to see football taken out of the Title IX
equation.
“The reason being that it (including football) puts
everything out of whack,” Toledo said. “There’s
women’s basketball for men’s, women’s volleyball
for men’s, but there is no equivalent for football. I
don’t think that is what was intended. I’m all for
women’s athletics. But it’s sad they have to cut both.
It’s gotten out of perspective.”
Finding a solution won’t be easy, and the reality is that
athletic departments are ultimately financial institutions. The
question is cultural: Americans won’t fill the Rose Bowl for
a soccer game or gymnastics meet or swim race.
Lonely are the brave.