Are schools that offer 20 or more sports programs "not trying to win"?

[WarriorVoice]

During a recent conversation, a coach said to me that there is a school of thought that a D II school that sponsors 20 or more athletics teams isn't committed to winning at any of them. From a fundraising perspective, obviously it's easier to fully fund 10 programs compared to 20, but there's another school of thought that the way to attract student-athletes to your campus is by offering a more varied selection of athletics programs. Do you agree or disagree? Is winning the only thing that matters, or is it better to offer more opportunities for student-athletes?

[KleShreen]

I mean GVSU offers 20 varsity sports (soon to be 22) and has won 13 of the last 18 D-II Directors Cups....sooo0o0o0oOOOOooo0o0o.

I guess there's a qualifier for that. GVSU offers 20 sports if you consider that there's an indoor track & field team and an outdoor track & field team.

There is a little bit of truth to what he is saying at other levels, but I don't really know about it applying to D-II. The Ivy League schools for example have a TON of varsity sports, and they're not very successful as a whole. I mean Harvard has 20 sports *each* for both men and women. Not all of them NCAA, but all of them "varsity."

I just don't know how one could justify that having more sports results in a lesser product. Usually the schools with less sports are the ones struggling financially and they're not even good at the few sports they do offer, in my experience.

[d2-football-fan]

I think the obvious answer is... it depends.

I'll use the only example I now. Colorado School of Mines. First, Colorado is loaded with D2 schools, so there is a lot of competition for student-athletes in that area. When I attended, the athletic department boasted about how many sports they offered... but they basically were all really bad. So, at that point in time, their main goal was simply to offer more sports, as a means to attract more student athletes, and they had a product that demonstrated that theory. Aside form the occasional individual who was outstanding and could carry a team (wrestling, swimming, track / cross country or even occasionally basketball), they generally were not very good at any sport.

In the early 2000's, with the dumb luck good fortune of hiring a good football coach and experiencing success like they had not seen in anyone's lifetime, the coach essentially demanded full funding for football. The school made the decision to fully fund 4 sports: football, volleyball and both basketballs. That meant scholarships, coaching, recruiting, facility improvements, etc. Since that time those sports have consistently been very good.

But, a funny thing happened. It created a new culture in the athletic department and shockingly, successful programs generated more revenue which made it easier to start funding other sports, which then made them more competitive... and it snowballed to the point where Mines now has one of the best all around athletic programs in D2. Just this fall these teams made the NCAA tournament / championship: football, volleyball, men's cross country, women's cross country, men's soccer, women's soccer. At some point all were ranked. They are just quality teams up and down the roster. Winter sports are no different. Same with spring.

So, in the end, Mines offers a lot of sports, is competitive in a lot of sports, and therefore attracts a lot of high quality student-athletes because of their successful athletic department. But, it took intention, discipline, choices and slow progress to get from simply offering sports to say that they did to offering a top end athletic experience, regardless of the particular sport.

[SW_Mustang]

During a recent conversation, a coach said to me that there is a school of thought that a D II school that sponsors 20 or more athletics teams isn't committed to winning at any of them. From a fundraising perspective, obviously it's easier to fully fund 10 programs compared to 20, but there's another school of thought that the way to attract student-athletes to your campus is by offering a more varied selection of athletics programs. Do you agree or disagree? Is winning the only thing that matters, or is it better to offer more opportunities for student-athletes?

Well, for one thing - in order for there to be winners by definition, there have to be losers. The more truly dominant programs there are, the more truly terrible programs are going to exist. That's just how it is, regardless of how many teams there are. I know that's ultra obvious, but it gets missed when discussing what to do with these programs that struggle to win.

Also - what is "winning?" Does that mean going 1-0 every game, does that mean .500 seasons, does that mean playoffs, titles?

The other thing to consider here is that at the lower levels of college sports, programs bring in much needed tuition dollars and can pad enrollment numbers. There are definitely programs, heck, there are definitely entire schools built upon this idea. Pay-for-play.

Lastly, think about every college athlete you went to high school with - and about how many of your other teammates didn't get that chance. You still have to be better than 50%+ of the field to make it there.

Not to be a philosophy snob - but that's how I look at it.

[SW_Mustang]

I think the obvious answer is... it depends.

I'll use the only example I now. Colorado School of Mines. First, Colorado is loaded with D2 schools, so there is a lot of competition for student-athletes in that area. When I attended, the athletic department boasted about how many sports they offered... but they basically were all really bad. So, at that point in time, their main goal was simply to offer more sports, as a means to attract more student athletes, and they had a product that demonstrated that theory. Aside form the occasional individual who was outstanding and could carry a team (wrestling, swimming, track / cross country or even occasionally basketball), they generally were not very good at any sport.

In the early 2000's, with the dumb luck good fortune of hiring a good football coach and experiencing success like they had not seen in anyone's lifetime, the coach essentially demanded full funding for football. The school made the decision to fully fund 4 sports: football, volleyball and both basketballs. That meant scholarships, coaching, recruiting, facility improvements, etc. Since that time those sports have consistently been very good.

But, a funny thing happened. It created a new culture in the athletic department and shockingly, successful programs generated more revenue which made it easier to start funding other sports, which then made them more competitive... and it snowballed to the point where Mines now has one of the best all around athletic programs in D2. Just this fall these teams made the NCAA tournament / championship: football, volleyball, men's cross country, women's cross country, men's soccer, women's soccer. At some point all were ranked. They are just quality teams up and down the roster. Winter sports are no different. Same with spring.

So, in the end, Mines offers a lot of sports, is competitive in a lot of sports, and therefore attracts a lot of high quality student-athletes because of their successful athletic department. But, it took intention, discipline, choices and slow progress to get from simply offering sports to say that they did to offering a top end athletic experience, regardless of the particular sport.

I usually look at having a lot of sports as a sign of financial wellbeing - though it's definitely not a 1-1 correlation.

The more sports a school has, the more coaches, facilities, hotels, equipment, etc. they have to pay for. Obviously, there are more tuition paying students to subsidize it as well.

I think there are too many variables to just analyze it on # of programs alone. Some of the better schools aren't just funding the minimum sports.

[Brandon]

To make a determination, I think looking at enrollment is the biggest factor. If a school has a small enrollment, one could conclude that sponsoring that many sports is to drive enrollment.

[SW_Mustang]

To make a determination, I think looking at enrollment is the biggest factor. If a school has a small enrollment, one could conclude that sponsoring that many sports is to drive enrollment.

There is a school in Minnesota that for a time was marketing the percentage of students they had that were on varsity athletic teams.

[WarriorVoice]

Well, for one thing - in order for there to be winners by definition, there have to be losers. The more truly dominant programs there are, the more truly terrible programs are going to exist. That's just how it is, regardless of how many teams there are. I know that's ultra obvious, but it gets missed when discussing what to do with these programs that struggle to win.

Also - what is "winning?" Does that mean going 1-0 every game, does that mean .500 seasons, does that mean playoffs, titles?

The other thing to consider here is that at the lower levels of college sports, programs bring in much needed tuition dollars and can pad enrollment numbers. There are definitely programs, heck, there are definitely entire schools built upon this idea. Pay-for-play.

Lastly, think about every college athlete you went to high school with - and about how many of your other teammates didn't get that chance. You still have to be better than 50%+ of the field to make it there.

Not to be a philosophy snob - but that's how I look at it.

Quite a word salad, but you didn't answer the question.

[SW_Mustang]

Quite a word salad, but you didn't answer the question.

Too much going on when I wrote it, my bad. It wasn't that hard to digest though.

tl;dr, no, not every program needs to be a winner or should necessarily strive to be.

My point is, not everyone can win. Some schools have athletics to serve other purposes. If every losing school got rid of athletics, that would suck.

[boyblue]

I believe that quantity and quality are independent variables. In addition winning in terms of score is only one factor when measuring quality.

I'll tell a little story here. I went to small missionary high school, we competed in every sport against, in some cases, world class athletes. We very rarely won games. My senior year our men's softball team (Baseball wasn't offered) had a prefect record (we were winless) but the last game of the season we had the eventual champions on the ropes. Last inning bases loaded, a ground ball was hit hard to our third baseman, all he had to do was bring it in and step on third. He did the hard part, he brought it in, but he then (with all of that adrenalin flowing) fired the ball to first base. The ball went three feet over the first baseman's head. Two runs scored and we lost that game, but...

You know who won? The thousands of kids (including at least a couple major leaguers) that have played in the little league he founded in the years following. My point is wins & losses are not the only measure of success and may not be the most important.