<p>
[quote]
Name the college that sponsored 41 varsity sports this year, tying with Harvard for most in the country.</p>
<p>The answer is about the last school you'd think of: math and science powerhouse MIT, the university with perhaps the brainiest—and nerdiest—reputation in America.</p>
<p>The Engineers—yes, that's their nickname—shared the honor with their bigger, wealthier neighbor in Cambridge, Mass., and have long competed in everything from football to fencing, softball to squash.</p>
<p>That's going to change, though.</p>
<p>The Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced Thursday it is eliminating eight teams because of the sputtering economy. ...</p>
<p>MIT joins the list of colleges dropping sports to counteract budget deficits. Northern Iowa is nixing baseball. So is Vermont, which is also canceling softball. Women's volleyball and men's soccer are done at Maine; men's track and women's swimming will be out at Pepperdine.
<p>Wait…how can you take out track? baseball? Even though those sports might not make any money, they’re like, staples. Random sports should be the first to go, cause nobody watches and nobody cares.</p>
<p>It’s not really fair to cut all non-revenue sports…sports like football and basketball generate the most money, but there are so many talented athletes in every sport…swimming, lacrosse, gymnastics, baseball, etc. For the sports that were cut, they should allow athletes to pay for the sports. That way there could still be a gymnastics team athletes could compete in, they would just pay for it. And the South and West include a lot of states lol.</p>
<p>Nah, it’s that you don’t care. I don’t play any of those sports, but as an athlete, I would be furious if the sport which I’ve played my whole life is cut because it doesn’t make the school enough money. I don’t disagree with the decision, but you have to look at the other side. </p>
<p>Pay themselves is probably not an option. The article said that $500,000 was cut from the phys ed budget, and this change affected 63 athletes. There is no way those 63 kids can cover 500 grand.</p>
<p>$500,000 on 63 students is a bargain, compared to the millions they spend on football. /brief rant</p>
<p>University of Cincinnati is cutting out athletic scholarships for men’s track. These are small scholarships, nothing like the free rides for football players. The track athletes are understandably upset and feel the budget is being balanced on the backs of the small sports.</p>
<p>The NCAA requires a minimum number of sports to be sponsored at each level - 14 at Div. I, 10 at Div. II.</p>
<p>Conferences have certain sports that they require member institutions to sponsor.</p>
<p>Al schools must make consistent progress toward gender equity, both in the number of sports played, the number of student-athletes by gender, and the amount of budget allocated toward men’s and women’s sports. Equity does not mean 50/50 - it means proportional to the school’s gender mix. Since the American college student population is nearly 60% female, this means that many schools must sponsor more women’s sports than men’s. It takes a lot of women’s sports to balance out football, since football allocates 80-90 roster spots and lots of money and resources to men only. This is why you may have just seen the NCAA women’s bowling championships on ESPN - there is no men’s NCAA bowling competition.</p>
<p>Many states do not allow state funds to be allocated towards athletics - they can only use student fees and fundraising.</p>
<p>Its not fair for athletes to get paid, if anything, the amount of work they put into training for their respective sports, they should get paid. And they do. But I do wish sports were cut here at Rutgers … football spending increases while classes are getting cut and professors are getting laid off.</p>
<p>If one of the reasons you chose a school was the chance to continue to participate in a sport that you love, then the school cut the sport with no warning while you were there, I doubt you’d feel like “nobody cares” about your sport (regardless of how “minor” or “random” it seems to the casual observer)… YOU would care. </p>
<p>While education is the #1 mission of a college, there is a lot of learning that goes on OUTSIDE of a classroom. Sports offer chances for teamwork, and leadership positions that students may put on their resumes. My alma-mater refers to sports and clubs as a CO-curriculars, rather than as an EXTRA-curriculars, because they feel so strongly that learning is something that goes on in all areas of their campus, not just in classrooms/labs/library.</p>
<p>If cuts have to be made, it would seem fairer if there was at least a year’s warning, so kids could transfer if they really love their sport. However, I guess desperate times call for desperate measures.</p>
<p>These aren’t the only schools cutting sports. I recall hearing that Quinnipiac cut women’s volleyball among other sports. I’m sure there are others that are not in this article.</p>