UBC in the NCAA?

Scott at Timed Finals has the story of the University of British Columbia's application to become the first Canadian member of the NCAA. Josh at the Double-A Zone addressed the idea last spring; reports suggest that UBC expects an answer any day now.

I think that UBC could be competitive if it's selective in the choice of sports it plays. If approved, UBC will participate in at least seven men's and women's sports. They have indicated that they feel that they could be immediately competitive in golf, baseball, volleyball, soccer, swimming, and rowing. That seems like a pretty sensible list.

I'd be curious to learn more about the financial implications of the move, though. In particular, what will be the impact on tuition and fees for the general student population?

The numbers show clearly that athletic departments at state-funded universities in NCAA Division I lose money:

Athletic departments at taxpayer-funded universities nationwide receive more than $1 billion in student fees and general school funds and services, according to an Indianapolis Star analysis of the 2004-05 athletic budgets of 164 of the nation's 215 biggest public schools. Without such outside funding, fewer than 10 percent of athletic departments would have been able to support themselves with ticket sales, television contracts and other revenue-generating sports sources. Most would have lost more than $5 million.

Undoubtedly UBC's athletic department costs students money in the same way right now, and it isn't clear whether the move will make the situation better or worse. What is clear is that NCAA Division I will offer UBC's student athletes a higher level of competition, and that would be good news for Canadian athletes in a number of Olympic sports.

Two Out of Seven

To follow up on last week's post about women's scholarships in the NCAA: on January 7, the division I members decided to increase the number of scholarships in women's soccer from 12 to 14, but leave the other three sports under consideration at their current limits.

There's a little more official background on the proposal here. But this article discussing the outcome of last week's vote explains the disagreement more clearly than I have seen anywhere else.

According to the article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Division I-A schools supported the increases because they are each allowed to award up to 85 football scholarships. They need more scholarships in women's sports to ensure that they are compliant with Title IX. The Division I-AA schools are limited to 63 football scholarships, and the I-AAA schools don't have football programs at all; therefore gender equity issues at those schools are qualitatively different from the issues faced in I-A.

The small schools, then, opposed the increases because they did not want the I-A schools to "solve" their unique gender equity problem by attracting female athletes who would otherwise star in I-AA.