Buy the Dartmouth Swim Team on eBay

I recognize that every school has its own seemingly unique issues. Nevertheless, I do see one common denominator in particular that seems to determine whether or not swimming (or gymnastics or wrestling -- those sports are hurting even more than swimming) survives -- it's the presence of football. As examples let me describe two universities that I happen to be familiar with. The first is New York University, a "mere" division III school (despite having around 50,000 students, 10,000 of them undergraduates), where I attended college. NYU recently opened a new state of the art aquatics facility, even though it already has a facility that's less than 20 years old and sill in use. It has a very extensive athletic program, including a successful swim team and a water polo club, as well as men's and women's basketball and other sports. What it does not have, and has not had since the 1930's, is a football team. There was never any issue of whether swimming would cause other teams to make "sacrifices." Indeed, the pools were supported as recreational facilities for the whole school, including the teams. The other school is Hofstra University, where I endured law school. It too has a state of the art 50 meter swimming facility, that's about 10 years old. But it doesn't have a swimming team. It's unwilling to create one despite having all the facilities needed because that might mean reducing the football team's roster a few slots. Now I'm not against college football -- I didn't take much satisfaction when a college in upstate New York recently dropped football and added (yes, added!) swimming. Football players are just as entitled as swimmers to pursue their sport (althought they shouldn't be more entitled). What I do suggest is that at schools with football, the priorities of the athletic departments and the administration seem to be skewed. The result is that other sports must sacrifice, or be sacrificed, for the good of football. Several of the posters in this thread have explained that as being because football is a way to generate alumni support and involvement (read, donations). That perception I think is the problem. Sports are no longer seen on those campuses as an activity for the students, but as a business. The difference between NYU and Hofstra to return to my example, is that when NYU's recently retired long time President, L.J. Oliva first took office he made a deliberate and publicly stated policy decision, that athletics and athletic facilities (a school with 10,000 undergraduates needs extensive recreational facilities) were to be for the benefit of the students involved, not a fundraising tool. And, by the way, NYU has been doing just fine since then in both fundraising and alumni involvement.

I recognize that every school has its own seemingly unique issues. Nevertheless, I do see one common denominator in particular that seems to determine whether or not swimming (or gymnastics or wrestling -- those sports are hurting even more than swimming) survives -- it's the presence of football. As examples let me describe two universities that I happen to be familiar with. The first is New York University, a "mere" division III school (despite having around 50,000 students, 10,000 of them undergraduates), where I attended college. NYU recently opened a new state of the art aquatics facility, even though it already has a facility that's less than 20 years old and sill in use. It has a very extensive athletic program, including a successful swim team and a water polo club, as well as men's and women's basketball and other sports. What it does not have, and has not had since the 1930's, is a football team. There was never any issue of whether swimming would cause other teams to make "sacrifices." Indeed, the pools were supported as recreational facilities for the whole school, including the teams. The other school is Hofstra University, where I endured law school. It too has a state of the art 50 meter swimming facility, that's about 10 years old. But it doesn't have a swimming team. It's unwilling to create one despite having all the facilities needed because that might mean reducing the football team's roster a few slots. Now I'm not against college football -- I didn't take much satisfaction when a college in upstate New York recently dropped football and added (yes, added!) swimming. Football players are just as entitled as swimmers to pursue their sport (althought they shouldn't be more entitled). What I do suggest is that at schools with football, the priorities of the athletic departments and the administration seem to be skewed. The result is that other sports must sacrifice, or be sacrificed, for the good of football. Several of the posters in this thread have explained that as being because football is a way to generate alumni support and involvement (read, donations). That perception I think is the problem. Sports are no longer seen on those campuses as an activity for the students, but as a business. The difference between NYU and Hofstra to return to my example, is that when NYU's recently retired long time President, L.J. Oliva first took office he made a deliberate and publicly stated policy decision, that athletics and athletic facilities (a school with 10,000 undergraduates needs extensive recreational facilities) were to be for the benefit of the students involved, not a fundraising tool. And, by the way, NYU has been doing just fine since then in both fundraising and alumni involvement.