What role, if any, should USMS play in saving college swimming? How about USA Swimming? Are either currently doing anything about the shrinking base? What can they do?
Aside from the participants themselves (including coaches), both institutions seem to be the greatest benefactors of keeping college swimming around:
USA Swimming benefits because its membership believes it has the ability to earn a scholarship or admission to a college or university that they might not otherwise. They may continue in the sport when there is the belief that they may be rewarded down the road. Some may continue training for significant International competition while not losing time on their education by competing and training while in college.
US Masters Swimming benefits because they have a significantly larger recruitment base because of existing college swimming programs.
Parents
Former Member
At some point I wonder when college football and men's basketball come crashing down. The University of Texas athletic department is the worst (or is it best?) offender in the escalation of money spent, and money generated. UTexas athletic department had over $145M in revenue last year. That could be a wonderful thing to have so much money. But UT leads the nation in spending on college football. When I was a student in the old SWC (Texas A&M), OU, Texas Tech, Rice, etc. all had men's and women's swim teams. Now in the Big 12 only three schools have men's swimming (six women's programs).
The problem is that schools like Texas Tech and OU devote a greater percentage of their budget to football - to keep up with UT. Both are large public schools, but have relatively few other sports. Tech only funds six men's sports (I count cross country and track as one) and only seven women's sports. Tech doesn't have the alumni base, nor TV draw, to generate signficantly more revenue.
UT acts without any regard to anyone else. They now have their own TV channel with ESPN - so their revenue will go up again. They'll pay Mack Brown even more than his $5M salary today. The continue to push spending up in all areas, and the schools that want to play football are under even greater pressure.
I am a capitalist at heart - so I understand the idea that UT is acting in its own best interests and doesn't really care if other schools suffer. But the NCAA is sitting around watching all the money roll in and is doing nothing to make college sports more accessible instead of less.
I much prefer college football to pro - but when it costs $75 or more just for a college game ticket, I lose interest quickly in going to the stadium. As a student in the late 70s an A&M game ticket cost me $15 - very affordable then. I was only paying for myself. But to take my family to a college game now it costs half a thousand with tickets and food. It is worth it only occasionally.
If I were a billionaire, I would not give any money to football. I might endow the swimming program for 20 years, but football wouldn't get a dime.
At some point I wonder when college football and men's basketball come crashing down. The University of Texas athletic department is the worst (or is it best?) offender in the escalation of money spent, and money generated. UTexas athletic department had over $145M in revenue last year. That could be a wonderful thing to have so much money. But UT leads the nation in spending on college football. When I was a student in the old SWC (Texas A&M), OU, Texas Tech, Rice, etc. all had men's and women's swim teams. Now in the Big 12 only three schools have men's swimming (six women's programs).
The problem is that schools like Texas Tech and OU devote a greater percentage of their budget to football - to keep up with UT. Both are large public schools, but have relatively few other sports. Tech only funds six men's sports (I count cross country and track as one) and only seven women's sports. Tech doesn't have the alumni base, nor TV draw, to generate signficantly more revenue.
UT acts without any regard to anyone else. They now have their own TV channel with ESPN - so their revenue will go up again. They'll pay Mack Brown even more than his $5M salary today. The continue to push spending up in all areas, and the schools that want to play football are under even greater pressure.
I am a capitalist at heart - so I understand the idea that UT is acting in its own best interests and doesn't really care if other schools suffer. But the NCAA is sitting around watching all the money roll in and is doing nothing to make college sports more accessible instead of less.
I much prefer college football to pro - but when it costs $75 or more just for a college game ticket, I lose interest quickly in going to the stadium. As a student in the late 70s an A&M game ticket cost me $15 - very affordable then. I was only paying for myself. But to take my family to a college game now it costs half a thousand with tickets and food. It is worth it only occasionally.
If I were a billionaire, I would not give any money to football. I might endow the swimming program for 20 years, but football wouldn't get a dime.
