Academics
A team's academic success (or lack of) is often an early indicator of a team's overall health. Lower retention and graduation rates result in higher turnover and lower student-athlete satisfaction. To measure this, we examine a team's Academic Progress Rate (APR) and/or Graduation Success Rate (GSR) vis-a-vis other teams within the department and/or other swimming and diving programs in the country.| 1 |
Team ranks first or second in the department and/or top 10% of country |
| 2 |
Team ranks in top 25% of the department and top 25% of country |
| 3 |
Team ranks in middle 50% of the department |
| 4 |
Team ranks in bottom 25% of the department |
| 5 |
Team ranks last in department or bottom 10% of the country |
Conference Stability
Most institutions evaluate their athletic department performance against peer institutions. Generally, these are other members of a multi-sport conference. When a swimming and diving program competes outside of the institution's primary conference, it makes these comparisons more difficult. The percentage of instititions sponsoring swimming and diving within a conference also matters. Conferences with higher rates of participation among member institutions have an incentive to invest in the sport and the championship.| 1 |
Team competes in institution's primary multi-sport conference with more than 60% of member institutions (minimum 8 teams) offering swimming and diving |
| 2 |
Team competes in institution's primary multi-sport conference with more than 50% of member institutions (minimum 6 teams) offering swimming and diving |
| 3 |
Team competes in institution's primary multi-sport conference with less than 50% of member institutions offering swimming and diving |
| 4 |
Team
competes in a multi-sport or swimming-only conference with
more than six teams |
| 5 |
Team competes in a multi-sport or swimming-only conference with six or fewer teams |
Competitiveness
Although our research shows that athletic administrators value a team's competitiveness less than we would hope for, a team's athletic success does impact its viability. Successful teams generally produce higher rates of student-athlete and alumni satisfaction. To measure this, we examine a team's finish at the conference and national level vis-a-vis other teams within the department. While institutions athletic success varies widely, a team that consistently under-performs compared to its peer sports is vulnerable to cuts.| 1 |
Team
finished first or second at conference meet or top ten at
NCAA Championship |
| 2 |
Team
finished in top half of conference meet and higher than
department average (nationally or at the conference level) |
| 3 |
Team
finished in bottom half of conference meet and within one
place of department average (conference level) |
| 4 |
Team
finished in bottom quarter of conference meet and lower than
department average (conference level) |
| 5 |
Team
finished last at conference meet and three or more places
below department average. |
Department Size
When eliminating teams (swimming and
otherwise) administrators frequently cite a desire to downsize to
a sport portfolio more in line with their conference peers.
Each institition must carry a minimum number of sports.
Swimming and diving programs are generally safer at institutions
at the sport minimum. There are, unfortunately, situations
where an institution at the sport minimum will simply replace one
sport with another. Instititions with more than twice the
minimum number of teams generally have the fiscal resources to
support these teams. | 1 |
Department is at the minimum number of sports per gender or has twice the minimum |
| 2 |
Department is above minimum number of sports, but at minimum for individual sports |
| 3 |
Department is above both minimum number of sports and individual sports |
| 4 |
Department has 2-3 more sports than the minimum |
| 5 |
Department has at least four sports above the minimum, but less than twice the minimum |
Gender Equity
Gender equity is rarely cited as a
reason for the elimination of a team. When cuts do become
necessary, however, a disparity between the percentage of male
undergraduates and male student-athletes will shift the burden of
those cuts to the men's team.| 1 |
Women's
Team or Men's team where proportion of male students is
higher than proportion of male athletes |
| 2 |
Proportion of male athletes is 0-2% higher than proportion of male athletes |
| 3 |
Proportion of male athletes is 2-5% higher than proportion of male athletes |
| 4 |
Proportion of male athletes is 5-10% higher than proportion of male athletes |
| 5 |
Proportion of male athletes is 10% or higher than proportion of male athletes |
Fundraising
Compared to football and basketball, the
ability of swimming and diving programs to generate revenue is
limited. It is, however, easier for swimming and diving
programs to fundraise a greater proportion of their operating
budgets. Programs that do so (and do so publically) have a
far greater likelihood of being spared elimination.| 1 |
Fundraised
at least 100% of operating budget or more than $100,000 |
| 2 |
Fundraised at least 50% of operating budget or more than $50,000 |
| 3 |
Fundraised at least 25% of operating budget or more than $25,000 |
| 4 |
Fundraised at least 10% of operating budget or more than $10,000 |
| 5 |
Fundraised at less than 10% of operating budget or less than $10,000 |
Sector
Eliminated programs are made
disproportionately made up of public institutions. Private
institutions generally have an incentive to maintain swimming and
diving in the pursuit of enrollment and/or academic goals.
Private institutions that have eliminated swimming and diving have
generally had exceptionally small roster sizes. Among public
institutions, a disproportionate number of cuts have fallen on
non-Power 5 schools. These institutions generally lack the
revenues to support a broad-based athletic portfolio.
Institutions without football and those competiting at the FCS
level have lower operating costs are are more likely to be able to
support swimming and diving fiscally.| 1 |
Private,
not-for-profit or for-profit institution |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Public,
not-for-profit Power 5 institution |
| 4 |
Public, not-for-profit FCS or non-football institution |
| 5 |
Public, not-for-profit non-Power 5 BCS institution |
Roster
Larger programs, even men's programs,
are generally safer than smaller programs. This is because
more participants means the potential for more tuition revenue,
more donations and more people affected by a potential cut.
Other factors do play into the impact of roster size,
however. For that reason, men's teams that are capped at a a
certain number (and maintain that number) are judged less-harshly
while teams made up of more than 25% international students are
ranked more harshly. | 1 |
Thirty
or more members per team |
| 2 |
25-29
members per team |
| 3 |
19-24
members per team |
| 4 |
13-18
members per team |
| 5 |
Twelve
or fewer members per team |
| +
1 point if roster contains more than 25% international
students |
|
| -
1 point if men's team has a cap on its roster size and is at
that size |
Student Fees
The use of student fees for athletic use
has come under greater scrutiny as college affordability and
student debt have grown in the public consciousness.
Student-athete fees are increasingly being rejected and, in some
cases, prohibited by law. Athletic departments that do not
rely on student fees are generally more healthy than those that do
not.| 1 |
Department
receives less than 1% of budget from student fees |
| 2 |
Department receives less 1-10% of budget from student fees |
| 3 |
Department receives less 10-50% of budget from student fees |
| 4 |
Department receives less 50-75% of budget from student fees |
| 5 |
Department receives more than 75% of budget from student fees |