SEATTLE, Washington, May 1. LESS than half an hour ago, the University of Washington announced that athletics department will be cutting its men's and women's swimming programs "effective immediately."
Although Arizona State's men's team fought off last year's cut, this is the second year in a row that a Pacific 10 Conference program has elected to make a cut.
Check back on the Morning Swim Show today for more coverage, and keep an eye on SwimmingWorldMagazine.com for more information as the story unfolds.
Here is the complete press release:
SEATTLE - As part of a series of budget reduction measures, the University of Washington has made the difficult decision to discontinue its men's and women's swimming programs effective immediately, Director of Athletics Scott Woodward announced today.
The decision reduces the number of intercollegiate sports sponsored at the UW to 21, which ranks among the top half among schools in the Pacific-10 Conference. It is expected to have a budget impact of up to $1.2 million, which would account for roughly 43 percent of the $2.8 million in expense reductions the department is currently facing.
"Discontinuing a sport is one of the most difficult decisions we face in college athletics," said Woodward. "We have a number of serious issues that have arisen out of the recent economic crisis. It is with great regret that we are discontinuing our swimming programs and we will do everything possible to assist the student-athletes and coaches who are affected."
The department will honor all existing scholarship agreements and will grant permission to any other institution that seeks to contact those who wish to transfer. NCAA guidelines allow student-athletes who decide to transfer to be immediately eligible for financial aid, practice and competition provided they meet eligibility requirements.
"We are clearly operating in a time of economic distress and we are forced to make decisions that will help us maintain long-term financial stability," explained Woodward. "The state is reducing its funding of higher education at the highest rate in the country. The increase in the cost of tuition, combined with the decreased return on the university's endowment investments, will add considerable expense to the cost of our scholarships. Since we are a self-sustaining operation with no funding assistance from the University or the state, must find ways to reduce expenses and increase revenues in these difficult times."
The discontinuation of Washington's swimming program will leave the Pac-10 with just five men's swimming programs and none among its member institutions in the Pacific Northwest. Eight conference members are currently planning to continue to sponsor women's swimming in 2009-10.
Washington does not have an on-campus facility that is adequate for Division I-level practice and competition. Husky Pool was built in 1937 and features six 25-yard lanes. The facility does not contain a diving well and is not of sufficient standard to host intercollegiate competitions.
Due to its lack of a facility, Washington does not have a diving program - which places the Huskies at a competitive disadvantage considering that conference and NCAA team competition takes into account a points system that counts both swimming and diving.
Search For More News About: Washington
Reaction Time Comments
Reaction Time responses do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions
of Swimming World Magazine or SwimmingWorldMagazine.com.
Reaction Time is provided as a service to our readers.
May 1, 2009 Another univ. makes cuts to a men's minor and women's sport because they don't have the guts to make cuts to men's major sports (football, basketball).
I've seen the EADA (Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act) report on UW. With women's swimming, they were almost in compliance with the first prong of Title IX. Without, they definitely won't comply. By cutting a sport, they don't comply with the second. There's a Title IX lawsuit just dying to be filed here, and I hope some woman swimmer does.
The former AD, Barbara Hedges, tried to use UW's antiquated pool as an excuse to cut swimming 9 years ago. Now it's being used again. Funny how that didn't stop UW from having its best showing at both men's and women's Pac-10's and NCAA's this year.
Submitted by: westerwindsswim
May 1, 2009 It is a sad day when a major university drops an entire swim program. Swimmers usually do well academically and actually graduate. The ASU men's program was reinstated thanks to contributions and vigorous fund-raising efforts, mainly by team parents. Hopefully, this program can be reinstated in a similar fashion. If we allow programs to be so easily eliminated PAC-10 may be only represented by "10 teams" in football, basketball and baseball. Submitted by: uscswimmom1
May 1, 2009 I love how the AD uses the economic status as an excuse for cutting two programs that were making huge strides from where they have been. The coaches and swimmers have done so much to help bring that program to where it is, and the AD uses a cop out like this? I know for a fact there were other options for keeping this program intact, but uses the easy way out. I think that is the problem with so many ADs now a days. No body wants to spend the time making sure Alumni are contributing or working on a "budget" outside the box. The easy thing to do is cut the program and say it's due to "ECONOMIC STRESS" Submitted by: All-American
May 1, 2009 "It is expected to have a budget impact of up to $1.2 million..."
I cannot see how that can be anything but an out-and-out lie.
Another sad day in the world of competitive swimming. Submitted by: coachasher
May 1, 2009 Westernwindswim; hopefully Nancy Hogshead is aware of this development and can help UW file suit; I believe she is the head counsel for Title 9, or something along those lines. As others here have mentioned, this is especially disappointing given how much both teams have improved in the last several years. Submitted by: liquidassets
May 1, 2009 I agree that swimming has come to a fork in the road, and we need to carefully consider the consequences of our choices. The road of speedsuits and cascading records takes us closer to Reality TV and Extreme sports. While this increases swimming's appeal within popular culture, it compromises the athleticism and integrity of the sport and will do nothing to save collegiate swimming programs. We need to look at the other road and find longer term solutions to sustain popularity and funding without denigrating the sport. Submitted by: fiat1lux
May 1, 2009 I agree that it is very sad that UW is cutting swimming but it is false to say that the Men's team had their best showing ever this year. Best in many years but UW was a national power in the early 70's.
Hopefully something can be done to keep the program alive. Submitted by: Coach Dude
May 2, 2009 In order to save college swimming, something needs to be done about the 95 football full rides per D-I school. It is a ridiculous number. Submitted by: mdoyle1000
May 2, 2009 Someone needs to post the contact information for Scott Woodward & co., so we can orchestrate a hate-mail bomb.
Anyone have an e-mail or snail mail address? Submitted by: swimmer bill
May 2, 2009 Not sure how Title IX could be used in this case. Washington actually has more men on their roster than women. Submitted by: knelson
May 2, 2009 Coach Dude-I stand corrected. It's been a long time since UW's done this well nationally, so I did forget.
mdoyle1000-football currently offers 85 scholarships. Less than the 95 you thought, but still far more than they need to offer to field a competitive team.
knelson-the participation numbers between the men's and women's team aren't the numbers that really matter. What do are the percentage of female athletes compared to the total number of athletes and the percentage of the female student population. There are other areas that also use this percentage in determining compliance.
swimmer bill-here you go, Scott Woodward's email address.
HuskyAD@u.washington.edu
Submitted by: westerwindsswim
May 2, 2009 coachasher-I can't believe the $1.2 million also. But here's some other numbers for you to see where UW's money IS going to.
That $1.2 million is also about the same amount the men's basketball coach could make annually.
Here's the breakdown (from a 2006 article):
"Romar's total potential income will be just over $1.5 million annually. That includes $375,000 base salary; $1.105 in additional income through sources such as endorsements, speaking engagements and media shows; $200,000 annually in deferred compensation, and up to $200,000 annually in performance bonuses."
Even if you eliminate the outside sources of income($1.105 million), he still could make over $500,000 annually. He's in the 3rd year of this contract, and it runs through 2016.
UW just hired a new football coach, Steve Sarkisian. Here's the numbers on his salary, as reported in the Seattle Times-
"The agreement calls for him to be paid $1.75 million in 2009, $1.85 million in 2010, $2 million in 2011, $2.1 million in 2012 and $2.3 million in 2013.
He has possible on-field incentives each year of up to $1.25 million, including $500,000 for winning the national championship. He also has incentives related to academic performance that can reach up to $250,000 a year."
His assistants are also very well paid, according to an article in USAToday-
"Michalczik comes to Washington after spending the past six seasons on Jeff Tedford's staff at Cal. He most recently held the assistant head coach, co-offensive coordinator and offensive line coach duties there.
The native of Port Angeles, Wash., gets a base salary of $350,000 per year plus supplemental income, according to figures supplied by the UW. His contract runs through June 30, 2012, one year before Sarkisian's contract expires.
Martin agreed to a contract with an annual base salary of $100,000, plus supplemental income. His deal runs through June 30, 2011.
Nansen played at Washington State as a linebacker from 1994-96. He will earn $110,000 per year in base play, plus supplemental income. His contract also runs through June 30, 2011."
Submitted by: westerwindsswim
May 2, 2009 No large state university is going to cut its football or basketball program to save its swim team. Unlike college swim meets, college football and basketball games are regularly on TV, and this both generates money for the school and helps market the school. Bowl games pay out millions of dollars to each school. A lot of alumni come to campus to watch home football games. Many more make contributions to the school based upon the success of the football team than upon the success of the swim team. Some colleges make more than a million dollars in ticket sales and concessions for each home football game, and this is after they pay the visiting team a couple hundred grand.
Colleges may like to have swim teams, but only if they have the money to pay for them. The new swim suits have suddenly made college swim teams are a whole lot more expensive, and the economy means that schools will have a lot less money for the foreseeable future. So, what are you going to do as a college athletic director? Cut a sport that makes you money or cut the ones that cost you money? Submitted by: ctl
May 2, 2009 ctl; I thought that the new suits were banned by NCAA. But even if not, that seems like something the athletes could be required to buy. Submitted by: liquidassets
May 2, 2009 CTL,
Sorry, you have it wrong. The issue is largely that men's football creates the needs for trade-offs which need to be honored. There are examples of strong academic schools with big-time football: Notre Dame, Michigan, USC, Virginia, Texas, and others. To be blunt, 95 academic exceptions are made to support this. Fiscal misweightings and other bargains are also held up: better training tables, more comfortable travel and accomodations for away events, more tutoring, etc.
Division 1 football is nothing but a Devil's ransom. Athletic Directors look past these trade offs and make further ones: paying coaches too much and then also allow them to be self interested contractors for hire. There are not examples of the colleges taking any draws from the football coach's use of the university brand to be a promotor for hire by local businesses, have television and radio shows, or use university facilities for summer camps.The level of compensation to football staff is also jarring as noted in prior comments on this thread.
The other side of this Devil's bargain is non-revenue sports, which generally involve limited to no academic lenience and actually graduate student athletes, are fully supported and underwritten by football and/or basketball.
That's not happening.The Devil's bargain has not been held up by the Athletic Directors. The AD's of Division 1 schools seem to never act with fiscal restraints in the revenue generating sports, ignore their fiduciary responsibilities to serve their universities, and often don't care about other stakeholders of the university or the communities aside from football boosters. If they did, it wouldn't come to this at UW or other major schools.
Despite a bad economy, there is not a revenue crisis in college football or basketball. Stadiums are full, concession sales are strong and TV contract revenues are at all-time highs. Bowl Game payouts are also at all-time highs this year, and there are more bowl games today than in any year in history.
The problem is fiscal restraint by the ADs in football and in basketball. I'm a supporter of my ACC alma mater where I swam and was both stunned and disappointed to hear that the football team had in a recent year gone to a bowl game with a $4mm payout and LOST MONEY on that. Chartered jets, events, parties, spouses and fmailies for all coaches and staff and athletic department staff outside the football program, etc.
Basically the rhetorical question as to why you'd cut in a sport that is "making you money" like football in lieu of whacking non-revenue sports to keep feeding this spiraling Devil's pact is flawed to even address. Look pal: FOOTBALL DOES NOT MAKE MONEY. Clear enough?
Submitted by: Jim
May 2, 2009 Hey all,
I'm all for good conversation and debate, but please eliminate the name calling - no matter how benign. Submitted by: Jason Marsteller
May 2, 2009 I think every one is focusing on the wrong things here. It isn't a matter of cutting one sport vs another. Everybody knows that the only sports in college that make money are football and sometimes basketball. To me that means all other sports are always in danger of being cut.
The problem with swim teams being cut, and ADs always being so quick to cut swimming is because those Ads as well as the coaches have a responsibility to use the network of alumni and ex-athletes to help donate to programs to ensure the lifespan of a team. I know the UW Coaches were aware of this and worked hard to get outside help.
Also, the AD at UW said something about the pool not being up to par with Division I programs, well from what I hear on more than one occassion in the last couple of years people outside the university have offered to have a new pool built and basically given to the university. The AD said NO on all occassions. Submitted by: All-American
May 2, 2009 Thank you, Jason Submitted by: paddles
Reaction Time responses do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions
of Swimming World Magazine or SwimmingWorldMagazine.com.
Reaction Time is provided as a service to our readers.
|
Subscribe Now!
|
